Commons Sitting of 12 April 1923

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL)BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL)BILL.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of Section 145.)
  The following paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of Sub-section (3) of Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children):
  " Where a proceeding is instituted against a soldier of the regular forces under any Act, or at common law, for the purpose of enforcing against him any such liability as above in this Section mentioned, then—

  (a) if at the date of service of the process the soldier is quartered out of the jurisdiction of tae court, or (where the proceeding is before a court of summary jurisdiction), out of the potty sessional division in which the proceeding is instituted, the process shall be served on his commanding officer, and such service shall not be valid unless there be left therewith, in the hands of the commanding officer, a sum of money (to be adjudged as costs incurred in obtaining the order or decree, if any order or decree is made against the soldier) of a sufficient amount to enable him to attend the hearing of the case and return to his quarters, and such sum may be expended by the commanding officer for that purpose;

  (b) in any other ease the process may be served either on the commanding officer or on the soldier, provided that where the process is served on the soldier, a copy thereof shall he sent by the court by which it is issued to the commanding officer by registered post as soon as possible after the process is served, and in any case at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the case:

  " Provided that no proceedings in this Section mentioned shall be valid against a soldier of the regular forces if his commanding officer certifies that the soldier is under orders for service beyond the seas, and that in his opinion it will not be possible for the soldier to attend the hearing and return to his quarters in sufficient time to enable him
  1462
  to embark for such service. Every such certificate shall be sent to the court and shall be final and conclusive."
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Lansbury:
  Leave out the words,
  "paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of Sub-section (3) of "
  and insert instead thereof the words,
  " amendments shall he made to."
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is unnecessary. in regard to the second Amendment, also in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I suggest that it ought to read somewhat differently.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): On a point of Order. I understand that you, Mr. Chairman, have suggested to the hon. Member of Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that he should move this Amendment in a slightly different form. I want to suggest to him that he should withdraw his Amendment in order that words may be inserted to carry out his object in a more efficient way.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words
  "paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of sub-section (3) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children)"
  and to insert instead thereof the words
  "amendment shall be made in sub-section (2) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability Of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) after the words in respect of a wife or children,' wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words whether legitimate or illegitimate ' and tire words I and in respect of a bastard child, three shillings,' and in respect of a bastard child. two shillings ' and in respect of a bastard child, one shilling and sixpence,' shall be omitted."
  Those alterations simply mean that a child shall not be penalised under the Army Act for any supposed sin of its father or mother. I suppose it will be acknowledged that none of us chose our parents, and if hon. Members remembered that fact when discussing nationality it would be a very good thing. When we are considering the children born within Our own nation we should remember that fact. No child ever asked to be born or

  1463
  chose its parents, therefore there should never be any disability imposed upon a child legally or morally. During the War we made no discrimination so far as subsistence allowances were concerned, and in these days I think we ought to remove any sort of disability imposed upon a child. I understand that the Minister is going to accept this Amendment, but I do not want to withdraw it until I understand exactly what it is the Minister proposes in its place.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The form in which you have put the Question, Mr. Hope, fully protects the Amendment which I am to ask the Member for Bow and Bromley to accept. The Question he raised has been before the House on former occasions. It was raised two years ago by the present Minister of Health, and my predecessor made a sympathetic answer. He pointed out that there was little urgency in the matter, because the provisions of the Army Act, although they distinguish between the bastard and the legitimate child, were more generous to the bastard than the provisions of the civil law. But the War Office practice has always been, as far as possible, to put both on an equality. It was done during the War, and I am glad to say for both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War authorise me to accept this Amendment in principle.
  I should at the same time point out that it will not in fact have a very large effect, because its operation, in the case of the bastard child, will be limited by the maintenance orders made by the civil courts, and in civil courts, whether for a bastard or for a legitimate child, there is a hard and fast maximum under the present law of ten shillings. My reason for accepting this Amendment is, that apart from the desirability of avoiding any appearance of punishing the child, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley pointed out, for the sins of his parents, the Amendment may have some practical effect in increasing the speed with which arrears under these maintenance orders may he paid over. Of course, if Amendments of the Bastardy laws are at any time passed, much wider effect will immediately become possible. I think I
  1464
  ought to mention one difficulty which occurs about this Amendment. It will be in the recollection of the House that it is not usual on the Committee stage of the Army Act for the Government with any readiness to accept amendments because if no amendments are accepted no report stage is necessary, but I have arranged with the hon. Member and also with the Opposition Whips, that on acceptance of these Amendments will not be used as a pretext for depriving us to-night of that report stage which would not have been necessary if we had refused to listen to argument on this and other matters. If that understanding be agreed to, and if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will withdraw his Amendment, I will immediately move an Amendment which covers the same point in a form which I am told is more satisfactory.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not moved his Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment which he has moved is precisely the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is ready to accept.
  Mr. TURNER: I should like to know whether the Amendment which is now to be accepted removes the word "bastard" from the Bill. If it does not remove that word, it does not meet the point that I want to see met. The word "bastard" may be a good English word, but it is a very opprobrious epithet indeed to use in connection with children, and I think the word "illegitimate" is the right one to use. Will the word "bastard" be removed by the acceptance of this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment says that after the words "in respect of a wife or children," wherever they occur—that is to say, in the original Act—the words "whether legitimate or illegitimate ' shall be inserted, and that the words" and in respect of a bastard child," which are repeated three times, shall be omitted.
  Mr. TURNER: Thank you.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am afraid there is some mistake about the bargain indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We appreciate to the full the intention of the Government to make the Amendment as indicated. We believe that they

  1465
  themselves see the reasonableness of the suggestion. But my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely in error in his intimation that the acceptance of this Amendment binds the Opposition not to take the steps that they may think necessary on the Report stage. No such arrangement has been made nor, indeed, could any arrangement of that kind be made; and, incidentally, may I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the absurdity of laying down any such condition? Here is an Amendment which the House generally would accept, but, if the proposition now laid down were accepted by any Opposition, the way for the Government to facilitate its business would be to introduce nothing, because then there could not be any Report stage. I only want to make it perfectly clear that there must be some mistake, and that no such bargain as my hon. and gallant Friend intimated has been made.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think that really there is no substantial difference between us. The point is that we want to get the Report stage as well as the Committee stage to-night. If we are obdurate, there will be no Report stage, because when the Committee stage has been taken on the Floor of the House and no Amendments have been made, no Report stage is necessary. If our getting the Report stage, if necessary, to-night, is objected to, we cannot accept the Amendment here, but I would see if we could get it put in in another place, because I do not wish to make the Amendment suffer, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to meet us in this matter, and not to make any undue difficulty about the Report. stage, because, although it does not affect this Amendment, it does affect another Amendment on the Paper, which could not be put in in another place because it is a matter of money.
  Mr. THOMAS: I only wanted to correct the mistake. It would have led to complications if it went forth that a bargain had been made and then it was repudiated. I quite understand and appreciate the situation, and only want to make the matter perfectly clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding afterwards.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will
  1466
  not complain if, at the end of the Committee stage, we also take the Report stage to-night?
  Mr. THOMAS: Oh, no.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point that I want to raise on the main Clause. I know that, if there should be any points omitted during the Committee stage, those matters can be discussed on Report stage, to-night, and in any case I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee for very long. I want to ask the Government a question which happens to affect certain persons in my constituency. In the last Parliament certain legislative steps were taken in conjunction with some of the Dominion Governments—I think with all--about the cases of wives of Colonial soldiers who had been left deserted with their children in this country. The law was clumsy, and steps were taken by Imperial means to facilitate the bringing of these soldiers to book and charging them for the maintenance of their wives and children. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that has been put into operation, how it is working, whether it has been successful, and what information he can give us upon it. It affects a number of very unfortunate people and I should be grateful for any information.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): The procedure to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred has nothing to do with this Act. It is the result of a separate Act of Parliament entirely. All I can tell him is that I understand the Dominions have raised no objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Application, of Act relation to mandated territories.)
  After section one hundred and eighty-seven of the Army Act the following section shall be inserted—
  " 187A. This Act shall apply in relation to any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty in like manner as it applies in relation to a British protectorate."

  1467
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I consider this clause unnecessary. We were told on the Second Reading, when the usual passage of arms took place, that it was absolutely necessary to pass the Bill in order that we should have a disciplined Army. It is a-very extraordinary thing that we manage to keep up large bodies of troops in mandated territory—Palestine, Mesopotamia, Kenya Colony, before the Peace Treaty was ratified—without this Clause being added, without the mandated territories being brought within the same legislation as British Protectorates. The Ministry of Air is now affected owing to the great. numbers of aeroplanes badly needed in this country, which are sweltering uselessly in useless parts of the desert. They have managed to maintain discipline and to keep the troops more or less happy and contented all this time without this Clause. What did they do last year or the year before? This is not by any means an idle question. There is a very great question of principle involved. We should be extremely cautious about any legislation with reference to mandated territories.
  There has been a great deal of suspicion, I think justifiable, about the British Governments' action—the last Government and this—with reference to these mandated territories, and it was most expressly declared by our representative at Paris, and on the League of Nations that those mandated territories are quite distinct from the British Empire. Thank goodness they are. They give us a means of cutting our loss and saving further expenditure and money uselessly upon them. But the principle is important, that we should proceed very cautiously before we accept this new Clause. The fact of the matter is that our Armies, not only in mandated territories, but in Constantinople, at Chanak, in parts of the world which are even mandated territories, outside the Empire altogether, somehow or other have managed to get along comfortably without this Act applying. Why is it necessary in this case to insert this Clause? On the Second Reading you allowed me to develop the argument somewhat on this question. I could get no satisfactory reply from the Government and now is the opportunity.
  1468
  If the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the talent on the Government bench are not able to give me an answer on this stage of the Bill, there is the Report stage, and as the night becomes longer their brains will perhaps become brighter. I shall be happy to have a satisfactory reply.
  Sir S. HOARE: I will answer my hon. and gallant Friend. I am afraid, from what he has said, that we shall be deprived of another speech from him on the Report Stage, because I feel sure that I can satisfy him. The object of the insertion of the Clause is simple. At present the army in Palestine, or up to a comparatively recent time ago, was on active service. So long as the army was on active service no question of this kind arose. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member said about Chanak and Constantinope, discipline has been maintained because the armies are on active service.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that apply to the Rhine army also?
  Sir S. HOARE: I cannot say off-hand, but I think it is so. In regard to Palestine, the state of the country has become so much more peaceful that some months ago we were able to bring to an end the condition of active Service, and on that account it is necessary to put the military administration in Palestine on the same footing as it would be in a Protectorate. In a Protectorate the High Commissioner has certain powers in connection with courts martial. For instance, it is his duty to confirm the death sentence. Death sentences, I am glad to say, are very seldom given in peace time, but it is necessary to put the High Commissioner in Palestine on the same basis as a High Commissioner in any Protectorate. That is the chief reason for the insertion of this Clause. There are two other additional advantages to be gained by this change. If the change is made it will be possible to imprison military offenders in civil prisons. That is impossible without this Amendment. It will also be possible to proceed in the civil courts against civil persons who unlawfully buy or steal military property. It is wholly owing to these three reasons that this Clause is inserted. The Committee will see that the result of it is to

  1469
  transfer authority that is now purely in military hands to the civil power. In Mesopotamia the state of affairs is still one of active Service, but as the country becomes more established the condition of active Service will come to an end. In that case this Clause will apply. There is
  nothing controversial about the insertion of the Clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 132.

  Division No. 81.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Murray, John (Leeds, west)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Ashley. Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Furness, G. J.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Banks, Mitchell

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Garland, C. S.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Paget, T. G.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Gould, James C.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Becker, Harry

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  pease, William Edwin

  Senn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Berry, Sir George

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Halstead, Major D.

  Perring, William George

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Philipson. Hilton

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pielou, D. P.

  Boyd -Carpenter, Major A.

  Harrison, F. C.

  pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Privett, F. J.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Ralne, W.

  Briggs, Harold

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hlley, Sir Ernest

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Brown, Sir James

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Remer, J. R.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Button, H. S.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rose, Frank H.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton

  Hume, G. H.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Colfox, Major Win Phillips

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  James, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Sandon, Lord

  Cope. Major William

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Skelton, A. N.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Croft Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lorden, John William

  Stanley, Lord

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Maddocks, Henry

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Manville, Edward

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Edmondson. Major A. J.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ellis, R. G.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Waring, Major Walter

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Watts, Dr. T, (Man., Withington)

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  wells, S. R.

  Eyres Monsell, Com- Bolton M

  Murchison, C. K

  wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

  Willey, Arthur

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Winterton, Earl

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wise. Frederick

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward:

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Yerburgh, R. D. T. 1

  Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Ritson, J.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Amman, Charles George

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Herrlotts, J.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sexton, James

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Bonwick, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bromfield, William

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Brotherton, J.

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Snell, Harry

  Buchanan, G.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Buckle, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Burgess, S.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cairns, John

  Leach, W.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Cape, Thomas

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lowth, T.

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Thornton, M.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  McLaren, Andrew

  Turner, Ben

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Duncan, C.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Warne, G. H.

  Dunnico, H.

  Maxton, James

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondday

  Ede, James Chuter

  Middleton, G.

  Webb, Sidney

  Entwlstle, Major C. F.

  Millar, J. D.

  Weir, L. M.

  Foot, Isaac

  Morel, E. D.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wheatley, J.

  Greenall, T.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Nichol, Robert

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Groves, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Wright, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Potts, John S.

  Hardie, George D.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Harris, Percy A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  Hastings, Patrick

  Riley, Ben

  Hayday, Arthur

  CLAUSE 15.—(Application to Air Force.)
  References in this Part of this Act to the Army Act shall be deemed to include references to the Air Force Act, and those provisions shall, in their application to the air force, have effect subject to any of the general modifications set out in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Air Force (Constitution) Act. 1917, which apply, and also
  with the substitution of a reference to "squadron leader" for the reference to "field officer."
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 82.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p. m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Berry, Sir George

  Brown, J W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Archer-Shoe, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Bruton, Sir James

  Ashley, Lt.Col. Wilfrid W.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Bonwick, A.

  Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Banks, Mitchell

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Button. H. S.

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Barrett, Major Richard W.

  Brassey. Sir Leonard

  Campion, Lieut. Colonel w. R.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cassels. J. D.

  Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Briggs, Harold

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Becker, Harry

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hood. Sir Joseph

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Remer, J. R.

  Colfox, Major Win, Phillips

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Cope, Major William

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Caidiff, South)

  Hume G. H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hurst, Lieut-Colonel Gerald B.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Rogerson. Capt. J. E.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Rose. Frank H.

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Dividson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lorden, John William

  Sandon, Lord

  Ellis. R. G.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Maddocks, Henry

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Manville. Edward

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Stanley, Lord

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Foot, Isaac

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Furness, G. J.

  Morel, E. D.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Ganjonl, Sir John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)

  Garland, C. S.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Tltchfield, Marquess of

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Goff, Sir R Park

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Gray. Frank (Oxford)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Turion, Edmund Russborough

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. w. E.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Gwyrne, Rupert S.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Wells, S. R.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  While, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Paget, T. G.

  Willey, Arthur

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Winterton, Earl

  Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pease, William Edwin

  Wise, Frederick

  Harrison, F. C.

  Pennefather. De Fonblanque

  Wolmer. Viscount

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Henn. Sir Sydney H.

  Perring, William George

  Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Yerburgh, R. O. T.

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

  Hiley. Sir Ernest

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Privett, F. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ralne, W.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Barnes, A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Datey, Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hardle, George D.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Hastings, Patrick

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.

  Duncan, C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Briant, Frank

  Dunnico, H.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Broad, F. A.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Bromfield, William

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Brotherton, J.

  Gosling. Harry

  Herriotts, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenall, T.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Buckie, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Burgess, S.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Cairns, John

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Johnston. Thomas (Stirling)

  Cape, Thomas

  Groves, T.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  1474

  1475

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Sullivan, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Paling, W.

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

  Jones, T. I. Marty (Pontypridd)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Thornton, M.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Jrwitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Phillipps, Vlvian

  Turner, Ben

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Potts, John S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Kirkwood. D.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Warne, G. H.

  Lansbury, George

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lawson, John James

  Riley, Ben

  Webb, Sidney

  Leach, W.

  Ritson, J.

  Weir, L. M.

  Lee, F.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Westwood, J.

  Lowth, T.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Wheatley, J.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Sexton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercilffe)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Maxton, James

  Sltch, Charles H.

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Middleton, G.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Wright, W.

  Millar, J. D.

  Snell, Harry

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Stephen, Campbell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Newbold. J. T. W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

  Nichol, Robert

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 42.)
  In Section forty-two of the Army Act (which relates to the mode of complaint by an officer), at the end of Section there shall be inserted the words "Such examination shall he delegated by the Army Council to an independent tribunal of three members, of whom at least one shall have had a legal training, and who shall report to the Army Council."—[Mr. G. Hurst.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The only object of this Amendment is to pave the way to the improvement of the machinery for the redress of grievances in the Army. I know it is not desirable to encourage appeals to tribunals, nor do I say that the present system is prolific of injustice, but I do say, it being admitted that there should be machinery for the redress of grievances in the Army, it ought to follow that the machinery available should be of the very best character. T think it will be generally agreed that the present system, as laid down by Section 42 of the Army Act, is not the best, and can in no sense be described as judicial machinery at all. If an officer in the Army has a grievance at the present time,-that grievance is transmitted through various General Officers Commanding, who are superior to the officer who makes the complaint, to the Army Council, and the Army Council examines that complaint. The examination is held in secret conclave. It is determined, as I understand, purely by documentary evidence. There is no examination of the complainant or wit-
  1476
  nesses, and there is no opportunity for cross-examination. It must be clear to anybody that a tribunal of that sort cannot give-the same satisfactory adjudication on a grievance as a tribunal which examines the matter in a proper legal spirit, giving each side a fair and proper hearing. The decision of the Army Council may mean that an officer's career is completely blasted, and that he has no hope of advancement in the future. If such consequences may be involved, I think it will be the wish of everybody that the grievance., whatever it may he, should be heard before the best possible tribunal, and adjudicated upon on the fairest principles.
  If the Clause now brought. forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) and myself be carried, it will mean that the examination will not be 'carried on in secret by an irresponsible body. It will mean that the examination will be delegated to an independent committee nominated by the Army Council. of which one member. at all events, has had experience with regard to the laws of evidence and legal principles. The advantage of that will be that the complainant will be able to put forward his grievance in person, that he will be able to meet those who are giving evidence against him face to face, and it will also mean that the tribunal which decides the question, which may have the most vital bearing upon an officer's future, is absolutely independent. Not unusually any military body which adjudicates on a grievance has a bias in favour of other

  1477
  military authorities. One authority will unconsciously or consciously support another authority. But having an independent tribunal, you will get a tribunal which will decide the matter entirely dispassionately and entirely free from all prejudices. Those objects are undoubtedly secured by this Clause. Nobody can say it is subversive of discipline, and it in no way encourages appeals. It does involve two clear results. It will give an absolutely fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, so that the risk of injustice, which I do not say is great now, but is in existence, must become less by reason of having an independent tribunal hearing an appeal on judicial lines.
  The second good result is that whether a complaint is well-founded or ill-founded, it is always a satisfaction to a man who has a grievance to know that his complaint has been fairly heard. That satisfaction does not exist in many cases at the present time, and it is because this Amendment—I am not insisting On its particular form—because the spirit of this Amendment does fulfil these two objects that everybody must surely feel it desirable that I move it.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I beg to second the motion. It has been moved so vividly by my hon. Friend that there is very little left for me to say. I can only say I hope the War Office will take this matter into consideration and will give us hope that some remedy will be applied in the manner we have proposed. I have raised this question before for several years, and I know it is a matter which is very much thought of and considered by the officers of the Service. I have with me this evening two letters, sent to me by generals who have been in high command. I think if I give the Committee a few words of what they have written to me it will show what the feeling is, not only among the junior officers now serving, but among the senior officers who have served. One general—of course, I give no names—says:
  " Read Section 42 of Army Act. It is useless to appeal to the King against the Secretary of State for War, because it is he who advises His Majesty, and by our Constitution the King must act under the advice of his Ministers."
  He goes on to say:
  " Section 42 A.A. places that good, upright, honourable and just man, our Gracious
  1478
  King, in a very false and embarrassing position."
  I think anyone who reads that Section will agree with him. Another General writes to me:
  " I have no objection to raise against courts-martial in dealing with officers. It is the treatment of officers by means of reports that is so often unjust, and which calls for reform. So much depends upon the idiosyn-cracy of the Commanding Officer and the General. I remember, when I was in China, we had a very dogmatic and irascible General, who dealt very severely with three young officers. In reference to these the Admiral on the station "—
  I will not quote the name—
  " said to me, I do not at all like the way you treat your officers in the Army.' We "—
  that is the Navy—
  " always have a court-martial; it is much more fair."
  I think all Officers will agree with him on that. This General Officer goes on to say:
  " Officers frequently ask to he tried by court-martial, but it is never allowed."
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War to take these facts into consideration. No doubt there is a very great feeling in this country. I have here various cases which have been sent to me by those very Generals, of unjust treatment of officers who have served, of which they had personal knowledge during their Commands.
  I have asked for the consideration of this particular case several times already and I hope the War Office will now take it into consideration. There is a different rule for the Army and for the Navy, and I agree with the General who wrote to me that the Navy rule is the best. An officer has always to have a court-martial if anything is done. That is not the case in the Army. I hope the War Office will take this matter into consideration. If they will give us a promise that it will be fairly considered we shall be grateful.
  12 M.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) is misinformed as to the practice of the Navy, because there is just the same opportunity of dispensing with the services of officers found inefficient in the Navy, without any court-martial, as there is in the Army. I am afraid that this Amendment—although although I recognise that it has been seconded with great military authority

  1479
  by a hon. and gallant Member with a long and distinguished military career, as well as with the military experience of the mover, would not, by any means, be overwhelmingly welcomed by the officers of the Army as a whole. The real question is whether the Army Council are to judge grievances, or whether an outside body, such as the hon. Gentleman has proposed, would be any better. What are those grievances? Very often they are confidential reports. These reports have, in all cases, to be shown to the officer concerned, and initialled by him. It is a most unpleasant duty for any senior officer to report adversely on anyone under his command, and when a man feels that he is aggrieved, he can appeal to the Army Council. Three members of the Army Council have to go into this matter, and they have all separately to record their opinions. Both the hon. and gallant and the hon. and learned Gentle men who have put forward the Amendment attach too much importance to the weight of the Appeal Tribunal. An Appeal Tribunal seems to me to be much more useful on matters of law and fact than on matters of opinion; and efficiency, after all, must be a matter of opinion. I am sure that every officer who has suffered from this kind of report feels in his soul that the senior who reported against him is, in the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, "dogmatic and irascible." But you have to have some meaning attached to "efficiency." You see the same distinction in civil life where employers, to the public benefit, have the right to deal with inefficiency. In War you have even a greater need for efficiency than in civil life, for not only the national interest, but the interests of the fighting men all depend upon an efficient command. We all know men of the most praiseworthy character who are quite unfit to command troops in an emergency. Some men cannot take responsibility. Some are too slow in the "uptake." Some fail from physical causes, being unable to bear fatigue. A court cannot judge of these matters. They can only really be decided by the superiors of the officer who know the work and strain and have been able to test it and to form an opinion. I must ask the Committee to reject the Clause because as we have got
  1480
  a small Army we must have an efficient one. I believe that this proposed change would be a serious obstacle to, and a discouragement of, the system of honest confidential reports and of promotion by merit.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Mover and Seconder of the Clause will have received the cold comfort of the replies of the War Office with a certain amount of dismay. The remarkable thing is that the Mover of the Clause is a man with war experience, and the Seconder a member with a long military career. We have the right to assume that against the opinions expressed from the box opposite, some consideration should be given to the experience, long and varied, of the two gallant Gentlemen to whom I refer. It is said that the decision of the Under-Secretary is in the interesters of the officers themselves. But we have had quoted not only the opinion of junior officers, but of two distinguished Generals. I hope that at least my hon. Friends will have the courage of their convictions. The Mover of this Clause said he moved it because he not only believed it was right, but he thought that it was in the interests of efficiency and discipline, and the seconder supported it on precisely the same grounds. On this side of the House we believe this is a good proposal and we believe that the War Office will make a profound mistake if they ignor the experience and advice of those two hon. and gallant Gentlemen. I think an opportunity ought to be given to my hon. Friends of testing their opinion in the Lobby, because I am quite sure that they would not have stayed here until this late hour unless they were actuated by a high sense of their duty and responsibility, and unless they thought they were doing something in the interests of the Army and the country. The remarkable thing is that my hon. Friend states that in civil life and in the relationship between employer and employed thus is an innovation. Let me examine that argument for a moment. The railway porter or platelayer who is charged with an offence has the right to appear before an independent tribunal. and state his case if he thinks an injustice has been done to him. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to contend that a British General or a British officer is not entitled to the same consideration as a platelayer. The Mover of

  1481
  this Amendment said that in this matter he had had some experience.
  Mr. HURST: I did not say that.
  Mr. THOMAS: Here is a proposal put forward which the Mover and Seconder say is in the interests of the Army, and discipline, and if the Mover has had no experience in this matter at least the Seconder has had experience, and he has quoted the experience of others. I hope that we shall not only have a division but in addition. I trust that many of 'those officers who have expressed privately their view in favour of this Clause will at least show the strength of that opinion in this particular direction.
  Major PAGET: I have had some experience in these matters during my early days in the Army, and have been had up before my commanding officer more than once. Nevertheless I do think that there is an enormous feeling among the rank and file of the British army that they have faith in their commanding officers. After all the whole foundation of discipline is not the fear of punishment but the faith and respect which the ranks maintain not only for their superiors but also for their inferiors. Although I admit there are occasional hard cases, I think we must all admit that, hard cases make exceedingly bad laws and that the whole basis of a confidential report is, the matter of opinion. I agree that in cases of misconduct, more justice would be done by holding Courts Martial much more quickly and in granting officers courts martial instead of having them quietly send in their papers. But this would not be affected by the amendment. From an entirely junior officer's point of view, I do not think that any more justice would be done and a very great blow would be struck at the faith of the junior officer which he ought to have, and in 99 eases out of a 100 he has got in his commanding officer. After all, there is always the confidential appeal which the junior officer has to his company commander and the second in command, and they can give an explanation to the Colonel if he has made) a mistake in judging the capacity of a junior officer. There is that wonderful influence which exists in a regiment of public opinion, and that has got a control over a commanding officer as it has over the most junior subaltern.
  1482
  If the commanding officer did not feel that he had the support of his junior officers, it would le a very bad regiment. There is also a very effective appeal which the junior officer has of asking to have an interview with his Brigadier General. The power which is given him of examining the case is an ample protection for the junior officer.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I hope the Committee will sec fit to accept this most reasonable new clause. Some of us on this side of the House have been in the Army as well as members on the other side of the House and some of us even to-day hold His Majesty's Commission although we do not think fit to publish it in blue books and directions. I have had some little experience of officers in the army and I have seen some things which make it necessary to bring such a matter as this before the House. It is true that I may not have had the experience of some officers in the Regular Army service, but those who only held commissions during the war had a good deal brought to their notice of the kind of thing which renders such a protection as this really necessary. I remember what happend to a gentleman of my acquaintance, a highly distinguished medical man, who gave his services freely to the country and the Army during the War. He was a great specialist, and was in charge of a hospital in which I was for the time being. One of these high officers came down on a visit of inspection, and he was, in the words of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion, certainly dogmatic and certainly irascible; and he had us all tailing one behind the other on this visit of inspection—I forget whether it was 25 or 35 officers and non-commissioned officers—behind the brass hat going round the hospital. Finally, although he knew very little about the exceedingly important work of that specialist, he spoke to one who had voluntarily given the best of his knowledge and technical advice to the relief of the men in that hospital and to the work of its organisation, in a manner which many a man, certainly on this side, would not speak to his dog. I remember, too, experiences in other stations in which I was during my service in the Army, and all I can say is that if some officers who held commissions, whether temporary or regular, had to

  1483
  depend entirely for their careers upon what appeared in confidential reports, it would be a very bad thing for them indeed. I do not mean to say that we did not meet in the Army many excellent. and friendly superior officers, whom I was very glad to meet, and who taught me a great deal; but at the same time we met many who could hardly be. depended upon to give a really square deal to the junior officers under them. It would be only a matter of justice and equity for this Committee to accept such a reasonable Clause as this, and give these men the right to appeal, not to a too democratic tribunal, but to a tribunal, say, of three, appointed by the Army Council itself, and including a representative with legal knowledge. I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.
  Captain BERKELEY: I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Major Paget). He put a point which we must have before us in considering this matter, but, when he puts forward, as his reason for disagreeing with this Clause, the time-honoured saying that hard cases make bad law, I think he is really going a little too far. It is not really a question of rectifying hard cases, but of taking precautions that hard cases shall not arise. After all, the whole career of a young officer depends entirely upon the opinion formed of him by his commanding officer, and, when a man's career is at stake, I think he is entitled to every precaution for his protection against possible injustice. The Under-Secretary for War said that this Section of the Act really only aimed at weeding out inefficients.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS indicated dissent.
  Captain BERKELEY: That was what I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say. Will he repeat what he did say?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I said there was a very large number of cases in which the appeals under the proposed Clause would be appeals against confidential reports; I did not say in all cases.
  Captain BERKELEY: I accept that, of course, but, even so, the Section really goes deeper than that. It says that if an officer feels that he has been wronged by
  1484
  his commanding officer, and if, on due application made to him, he does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Army Council. That covers a great deal more than the question of efficiency. It covers every possible cause of friction that may arise between the commanding officer and the subaltern or the captain. I quite agree that if it were a case of expediency in war time it would be an entirely different matter. It is obvious that in time of war the commanding officer, or someone higher, has to arrive at a quick judgment on the efficiency of an officer or the degree of control exercised by him over his men, and it is undesirable that there should be any misunderstanding or delay; but, after all, the purpose of the Army Act is—or at least I hope it is—to apply to peace time as well as war time. We are not at the present moment considering any case of war, and in any case it would be perfectly possible, by introducing words of limitation, to make provision that in time of war this proposed independent tribunal should not function. The proposal seems to me a very reasonable one, and I hope the Under Secretary will reconsider his decision in the matter. I would suggest that, even if he cannot see his way to accept the Clause as it stands, he might consider whether words should not be introduced into the Army Act giving an officer, in these circumstances, the right to appear in person before the Army Council. That might to some extent meet the case which has been raised, and I very much hope that some such proposal may commend itself to the Government.
  Mr. HURST: As the principle embodied in the Clause has now been amply ventilated, and the purpose that was in our minds has been carried out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member has not really the leave of the Committee.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry that I cannot speak with the same experience of commissioned rank with which many hon. Members have spoken. I am more familiar with what may be described by the words which have on occasion been used by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), that is to say, with the work of

  1485
  mucking out rather Than messing in." I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was afraid of the fact that a ranker was going to speak on this matter, but as a matter of fact I was going to support the contentions which he put forward. I think the attention of the Committee ought to be drawn to what the hon. Gentleman was asking. In Clause 42 it is laid down quite clearly that an officer, if he is wronged by his commanding officer, may, if he pleases, appeal to the Army Council. What the hon. and gallant Member wants is a sort of independent tribunal. He wants something outside the ordinary Army organisation. I think that is a very good thing. Do hon. and gallant Members understand what they are doing in making a proposal of the kind? I hope the attention of the "Morning Post" will be drawn to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the ' Daily Herald.'"1 Yes, it is astonishing how ends meet at some points. Hon. Members are proposing something that is a feature of the Soviet Red army. The only people who have a civilian trial are the soldiers in Russia. I hope the attention of the "Morning Post" will be drawn to that fact. It is a very good thing that. this question has been raised to-night, because we are going to ask, in much graver circumstances, that the ranker should have the same liberty to appeal to an independent tribunal outside the ordinary army organisation. The ranker has to be satisfied with an appeal to the commanding officer, who is not good enough for the officer himself. It would be a very good thing when the ranker is in trouble if he had the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. I have not had the experience of being turned down very much myself by a court-martial, but I have had the opportunity of leaving my cap and stepping over it between the escort. I tried it to see what it was like. As a rule commanding officers are very decent people. There are rankers who have their grievances but I do not think they have many definite complaints against the men under whom they have served, but there are times when they do not get satisfaction. The officer should have an opportunity of appealing to an independent tribunal. We should put a little bit of civilian life into the Army. As a matter of fact, that is what the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen have been asking for. They have been asking for a civilian tribunal. I
  1486
  think it is a very good thing indeed, because I would like to see that operating and the rank soldier have the same opportunity.
  Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: It must. be perfectly obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the War Office that on this side of the House we are very anxious to help him to carry through his vote. He ought., therefore, to accept the very moderate proposal which has been put. The suggestion is not merely made on the ground of expediency, but even apart from the very important question of Army discipline, the question of political expediency, ought to enter into it also. It would be a queer thing if the "Morning Post" to-morrow morning had to record that it was the Labour Members that had to march in force into the Lobbies to support a reform for the officer class of the British Army.
  An HON. MEMBER: They went to press at ten o'clock.
  Mr. DUFFY: It would be as well if you went at the same time, and we would be freed from an unintelligent interruption. It is alleged that we are essentially a class party. Where would the class party be when this division takes place? We are going to support a Measure of justice for the officer class, because we believe that the proposition has been made in all good faith by a distinguished soldier who is a representative in this House, and seconded by another distinguished soldier, and if they have done that it is because they realise. the time has come for an independent tribunal. May I suggest without knowledge of active service in the field, and in that respect I am on equal terms with most of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. You conducted the War from armchairs, and you were busy making profits during the War. I am not posing as an authority on military law, but as a matter of clear interpretation may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that in the Amendment that has been moved there is nothing inconsistent with Section 42 of the Army Act, which reads
  " If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer and on due application made to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Army Council in order to obtain justice, who are hereby re-

  1487
  quired to examine into such complaint and (if so required by the officer) through a Secretary of State make their report to His Majesty in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon."
  I suggest there is nothing inconsistent in that to prevent His Majesty from saying that instead of the secret inquiry going on in the future as hitherto, inquiries which have created scandals from one part of the country to the other, that these scandals should cease, and His Majesty should say that the independent tribunal should be set up. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept this Amendment otherwise it will be very nasty from their standpoint to see the Labour Party march into the Lobby in support of the Officer class.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I frankly admit at the outset that I have no Army experience.
  HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
  Mr. MAXTON: What has it to do with you?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: May I repeat again I have no Army experience, and may I say the only people who have the right to know why not are the Government of the country at the time. If they thought I should have been in the Army, it was their business, and not the business of the men who asked the question. I am as willing to do my part for the country as you are. [Interruption.] You cannot shout me down. You cannot bully me anyway. You will have to rise a little earlier in the morning, and come from another country. There is nobody for whom I have a greater regard than the hon. Member who is in charge of this Bill. May I remind this Committee that on many subjects which come before this House, all of us at some time or other are as it were, juries on questions of which we have had no experience at all. Large numbers of Members in this House know nothing at all, or practically nothing at all, about agriculture, for instance. They must he the juries on questions that must be discussed on one side or the other. How many of us are frankly ignorant of the Colonial Office But we must listen to the experts and then form our judgment on matters affecting it. I have listened to the experts, to the Mover and the Seconder, and to the reply by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have also listened
  1488
  to the excellent plea put by the Member who is now sitting below the Gangway. His argument is an argument against. the whole Clause of the Bill. His argument is that the comradeship of the Army is so excellent that no injustice can happen to any officer at all. If that is the case why have any appeal for the officer at all? But you have an appeal, and that shows there is injustice occasionally. But there is another reason why you should be even more careful in this respect. The hon. Member who opposed this Amendment stated that after all in Army life we must have efficiency, and even in ordinary civilian life the inefficients get weeded out, but there is this difference between the two branches. If the foreman or manager in the shop or warehouse is dismissed there are other warehouses and shops in which he can find employment, but if the officer in the Army is dismissed. he has no other alternative employment in which to seek around and look for, and, as a consequence, you must be very careful in the dismissal of the man, as the injustice is far greater than in civilian life. I listened with due respect. to an excellent speech delivered by one of the Liberal Members—I do not know to which wing he belongs.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: One of two wings without a body.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: There is one wing that you usually see in the Government lobby, and the other you usually see in the Labour lobby. I do not know to which wing the hon. Gentleman belongs, but he delivered an excellent speech and he put one point which is worthy of consideration. He says in effect that this is too revolutionary a change for the Government to accept, that the persons who moved it are too revolutionary to be even in the Tory party. But, he said, if you cannot accept this Amendment, accept a modest proposal that. would allow the person to appear before the Army Council. Even that modest proposal the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill casts off with scorn. If the House of Commons is going to be of any real service, it must try to look at Amendments with some idea of fairness. We are told that the Amendment. will affect the discipline of the Army. That is the kind of argument used against every reform in the Army. I remember that my father, who was in the Army, and afterwards

  1489
  had a long connection with the Volunteer Force, used to tell me that in his days in the Army every reform that he could think of was always opposed because it would affect the discipline of the Army. This is the old argument trotted out again. It will not affect discipline. Another thing you must remember is that you can have no discipline unless you have justice. Justice and discipline must. go hand in hand, and that is the effect of the Amendment. I would plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, who is a comparatively young member of the Government, to look on this Amendment with an unbiassed view. It generally falls to the lot of every man who hold office in a Government to introduce certain changes. These changes are usually handed down to future generations associated with his name. I would plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the Amendment if for no other reason than that it would be associated with the honourable name which he bears. He has already accepted one Amendment in most generous fashion, and this one would go down to his credit in future years.
  Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: I intervene in this Debate with some trepidation, as my experience of the Army is confined to the Volunteer Force, in which I served in every capacity from recruit to commanding officer. I join issue with the last speaker. I do not think that justice is at all a necessary element in this; nor do I think that the most severe discipline is in any way the most just. It is quite possible to have very severe discipline with no justice at all. That is not what we want. The history of the Army in the course of the last ten years has proved that it is the desire of the authorities that all grievances should be fairly ventilated, and that every man against whom an accusation is made should have a fair chance of presenting his case. To this end when an adverse report is made on an officer a copy of that report has to be sent to the officer concerned. I am entirely in support of this Amendment. I do not say that it contemplates a civilian tribunal at all. What is proposed is that the examination shall be carried out by an independent tribunal of three members of whom at least one shall have had a legal training. From the wording of the Amendment and from what was said by the Mover and
  1490
  Seconder, it is proposed that the tribunal should consist of officers of the Army, and it would he perfectly simple to constitute a tribunal of this sort to hear cases as they arise. I join with hon. Members above the Gangway in pressing this Amendment upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If he cannot see his way to accept it as it stands, it may be possible for him to accept the suggestion that the officer should have a chance himself of approaching the Army Council. it is true there may he difficulties on some occasions. while officers are abroad on garrison duties. It would not be so easy for them to approach the Army Council, but I think it might be easily arranged that an officer might be allowed to come home for the purpose in cases in which complaints are made against him.
  Major WARING: When he is on active service?
  Mr. SIMPSON: If he was on active service he would not be under these regulations. This is simply a matter for peace service.
  Captain HUDSON: Some of the hon. Members above the gangway opposite have a very hazy idea of how the Army works. That is not very surprising if they take very good care not to go into the Army. They say that it will surprise officers in the Army very much when they go into the Lobby on their behalf. I doubt very much if the majority of the officers in the Army want this amendment. I sin personally an officer in the Reserve of the Army.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Boy Scouts.
  Captain HUDSON: By no means. If I were in the Army I would not want it. The whole point is on what particular question is this independent tribunal to be set up. The whole debate has turned on these confidential reports. Confidential reports on an officer can only be made by somebody who knows that officer extraordinarily well. Supposing he is adversely commented upon. If this is brought before a tribunal of these three people they cannot have the slightest idea of what the real capacity of that officer as an officer is.
  There is no earthly good in my opinion in-comparing an officer in, the Army, in his duties, with the performance of a

  1491
  bricklayer or any other person. The reason is that he has not in the least degree the same duties to perform. The officer is either a good officer or a bad officer. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but if some of you had been in the Army you would know. If you have an independent tribunal it may be proved that an officer has to all intents and purposes, to an outside person, performed his duty well, though he has not got personality or power of leadership to make him a good officer and may, therefore, have been adversely commented upon. I consider it is obvious that Members opposite do not know anything about this from their very senseless interruptions. If they did know anything about it they would know that powers of leadership and personality count for everything.
  One hon. Member raised the point that he wished this particular Amendment to apply to private soldiers. To anybody who has not been in the Army it is difficult for them to know that the discipline of the Army is kept, up by the officers, and also by a system by which, for small offences, men are brought before the officers and given very small punishments. That keeps up the discipline of the Army. Probably to Members opposite it may be ridiculous to know that a man may be punished because he has a button off his coat or a button off his trousers, or even because he needs a hair cut. It is these small things which do make for the discipline of the Army. It is all very well to say that a soldier should have his right to appeal to a civil tribunal for things like that. I think if you got that we might get on the Russian lines and try the Red Army system.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am sorry to hear the Members opposite cheer the Red Army, as they have said they do not admire the Russian system. I am not sure T did not. hear the Red Flag sung yesterday. [Interruption.] I understand from Members who have been in the House in previous years that this Amendment has been known as a "hardy annual," which is, I believe, always withdrawn. I am certain officers of the Army do not want this Amendment, and if you vote against the Government the officers will not thank you. They will think, as they always do. [Interruption.] If they want anything they will not come to the Socialist Labour party and ask them to give it them.
  1.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am tempted to endorse the remarks made from these benches, that it is to me a great regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Captain Hudson) did not continue his speech and give us at greater length some knowledge with regard to what has transpired for many years in this House with regard to this Amendment, which he says has been withdrawn upon every occasion. But. I am dealing very seriously with this case, though we are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for introducing a great deal of amusement and treating this matter lightly. I wish to assure him that if his knowledge of the Army is not greater than he has shown of the history of this matter in the House, it is not very valuable. It is more than interesting and peculiar that upon each occasion officers who have had ripe experience of the difficulties, injustice and hardship to young officers, especially by the whims and caprices of commanding officers, have supported the Amendment. I know of young officers—I am speaking with some experience, and I am saying this quite seriously. I have had some experience of the Army, both in peace and war, for twenty-five years, and I have known young men broken after they have spent a good deal of the early part of their Eves in training themselves for the Army, and then being cast on the scrap heap, so that for many years afterwards they are of no value to themselves or to the nation. I can, therefore, understand the Mover and the Seconder once more making an attempt to secure that at least a court of appeal should be provided. What can there be said against a court of appeal being provided against commanding officers. I speak as one who has had some slight experience—I hope equal to the hon. and gallant Member—during the Great War. I have found in many cases, even during the Great War, circumstances which ought at least to warrant that this Amendment should have consideration and sympathy. I found a number of cases where, if redress of wrongs as provided in this Amendment had existed, many young men whose reputation went by the board would have been saved, and I wish to join in the appeal which is made. I want to point oat that there is nothing wrong in the establishment of this tribunal, whereby the officer who thinks he has not been properly dealt

  1493
  with can make an appeal. This section, as many other sections of the Army Act has not been changed at least during the last 35 years. If you look at the Act of 1881 and 1885—
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It has been amended during the reign of King Edward and during the present reign.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Not to any appreciable extent as far as establishing any further Court of Appeal. Outside the commanding officer's confidential report itself, he has no right of appeal at all. If you look at the Acts of 1881 and 1885, it was precisely, except that there are some words added, in its main provisions what it stands to-day. It was brought home to me very forcibly during the war. I was moving about a great deal in several of the zones in which our operations were carried out and I found that young officers were being proceeded against very unduly. We are living in days when, if you want the best out of men, you ought to give them reasonable security or to allow them to have all the opportunities of either proving their case or of going by the board after this tribunal has considered and examined the evidence, so that they might know fully and upon what grounds they have been charged either for inefficiency or anything else. Then they nor anyone else can have a word to say against the decision arrived at. What I do protest against and protest strongly is—and at least this side of the House will go into the division lobby to mark its disapproval—that no effort is being made that whenever an inquiry into the conduct of an officer is concerned it should be made in the light of day, above board, and without any suspicion at all. There are commanding officers who are liable to do wrong, and the young officer, when charged with an offence should have the satisfaction of knowing that at least he has had fair play to the fullest possible extent that he can have in this country.
  Sir S. HOARE: I do not want to take the time of the Committee, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. He seems to think that there is no appeal. There is an appeal and a very definite appeal. Any officer can appeal to the Army Council or to the Air Council. If he appeals to the
  1494
  Army Council or the Air Council he has the right, so I am informed, of actually interviewing a member of the Army Council or of the Air Council in certain serious cases—in cases, for instance, in which he may be required to resign. He has the right, so I am informed, of actually seeing
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Under Statute?
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: should be very much obliged to know under what regulation.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hen. Gentleman tell us whether the information he has now given us is provided by Statute, and, if so, how it did not apply to the very notorious case we discussed clay after day in this House of young Barrett and Mrs. Cornwallis West? There was a case where a young officer was absolutely and completely ruined. The hon. Member for Mansfield, the late Sir Arthur Markham, day after day in this House raised that case, and there-came such a storm of protest in the country that an investigation was made and the late Member for Anglesey, Brigadier-General Sir Owen Thomas, was empowered to make the investigation. The young lad was vindicated. The whole position would have been saved if a tribunal had been in existence. That is one case. There is another case that applies to a lady where the same circumstances arose. Miss Douglas Pennant was dismissed on the ground of inefficiency. There was no appeal and the Prime Minister, owing to the influence that. was brought to bear, had to set up a special committee of investigation. This would have been avoided if the proposal we are now making had existed. Here is a proposal made not from this side of the House, because I want to make it perfectly clear that there are Motions coming up of vital importance that we ourselves are moving—but here is a proposal made by two responsible officers, a proposal not made in this House for the first time, but made year after year, reflecting not only their individual opinions but the opinion of officers in the Army. I only want to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that he himself would not pit his experience against the Member who seconded this motion or against the two generals quoted by my hon. Friend. But what is more significant is this, that a statement

  1495
  has now been made that there is a right of personal appeal. Is it provided by Statute? I want the hon. Member to apply himself to the many arguments that have been adduced. We have been debating this for an hour and a half, and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to give full consideration to this matter and to remember that we are dealing with something that affects the future and the lives of those people, and we are entitled at least to see that justice is done to them.
  Sir S. HOARE: I only gave way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SIMPSON: May I ask whether this right of appeal applies to complaints under this Section of the Act?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have had the opportunity of conferring on the statement I made to the Committee. I find that Section 255a of the King's Regulations states that if an officer is called upon after the date of this order to retire or resign his commission he may after submitting an application through the usual military channels immediately be accorded an interview with a member of the Army Council in order that he may have an opportunity to state his case if he so desires. Further than that, in every case where he feels aggrieved he can appeal, though not in person, to the Army Council. This is a very important question and one wishes to remove any possibility of injustice, but I do feel most strongly that an appeal to the Army Council is really much fairer to the officer than an appeal to a special tribunal such as is described in this Amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Army Council first deals with it. This proposal is to ensure an impartial consideration: that. is to say the tribunal must consider the case, free itself from any responsibility in it.
  Sir S. HOARE: I want to avoid any possibility of injustice, but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the Army Council or the Air Council is a partial body. I hold it is a much better body to deal with a case of this kind, for the reason that it knows all the officers concerned in a particular case. It knows something about the commanding officer who originally reported unfavourably on a young officer.
  1496
  That in itself is a very valuable thing, and a tribunal of that kind is much more likely to take an impartial and merciful view than an outside tribunal.
  Mr. THOMAS: Is that not exactly the reverse of the Barrett case? Barrett was a young lieutenant who was dismissed by an officer. The case was ultimately investigated and those responsible knew the officer that had created the injustice, but notwithstanding all that machinery it was proved that a wicked injustice had been done, and that boy's life had been blasted, and he died. If an independent tribunal had been in existence we believe that would have been prevented.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I cannot carry my mind back to the Barrett. case, but the right. hon. Gentlemen and I disagree, and there is no use disguising the fact. I hold strongly the view that the Army and Air Councils are independent bodies which is much more likely to be impartial and merciful to the young officer, than some outside tribunal. That is the whole case of the Government. Having said that, I venture to suggest to the Committee that we have had a very full debate. [HON. MEMBERS "No! "] I suggest that. while we are quite ready to discuss this or any other question, it would be a good thing to get on to the many other Amendments, and I therefore ask the Committee to let us come to a decision on this question.
  Mr. EDE: I desire to say a few words on this Amendment and I should like first to deal with the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government. I feel as one who was wearing His Majesty's uniform before the right. hon. Gentleman who spoke opposite was born, and who was in the National Reserve at the outbreak of war, and who came up at once and served until after the Armistice, that his view of discipline is one I do not hold, and one that tended very considerably to lengthen the late War. I feel as one who has had experience of the Army, that the proper thing to do is to insure for these officers a tribunal in which at least one Member has not soaked in the old Army tradition. There must be many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who were officers in the Territorial Army at the outbreak of war, and they know how they were unable, in spite of long experience, to break through the

  1497
  cast-iron traditions of the officers of the Regular Army. We had our attention drawn to the fact from time to time that no officer of Territorial experience had managed to rise to any very high office in spite of the marvellous work the Territorials did during the War. If we are to test the real efficiency of the Army, we must have it open to the reception of new ideas among the officers, and there is a general feeling that I have heard voiced by officers in the Army and after they have left the Army, that new ideas are not too readily accepted and men who have new ideas are not too readily welcomed by those holding the old army traditions. I applied twice for a commission during the War. I applied to the Lord Lieutenant of the county for a commission. was his colleague on the County Council.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member connects this with the question of an independent tribunal.
  Mr. EDE: I was trying to support the argument with which I started that it was necessary to have an independent tribunal so as to break with the old tradition. The question that was asked me was how much of my private income I would be prepared to devote to the commission. I do feel if you have an army based on a tradition like that, if we are going to get real justice for an officer with new ideas that we are riot going to get it if he has to go in front of such a tribunal as that, and. I totally dissent from the argument used by the hon. Member for Islington with regard to the question of discipline. He pointed out the necessity of preserving the old British tradition, and that dirty buttons are a sign of bad discipline.
  Is the French Army badly disciplined? Did the French Army bother about shining their buttons during the war? I was attached to the French Army during the war, serving under British officers, and no one worried whether a man was shaved or not. I suggest that if we are to get a really efficient army we are only going to get it by encouraging men of independent thought. to enter the corn-missed ranks, to let them feel that if they have ideas of their own they will be able to work them out, and will not be up against the cast-iron spirit that has too long kept the British army the preserve of one class, and one set of ideas.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman)rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. THOMAS: I desire your ruling on the decision to accept the Closure moved by a Minister who has not heard the important points raised by the Debate, and is not aware that no answer has been given to the many important subjects raised.
  Mr. LANSBU RY: I wish to ask, Mr. Hope, what the position of affairs is just now. Nobody here is able to say.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question is "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 118.

  Division No. 83.]

  AYES.

  [1. 22 a.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Briggs, Harold

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Amery, Ht. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Baild, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Dawsun, Sir Philip

  Banks, Mitchell

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Button, H. S.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Becker, Harry

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  Berry, Sir George

  Cassels, J. D.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, J. A. (Birm., W).

  Ellis, R. G.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Brassey. Sir Leonard

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Eyres-Monseil, Com. Bolton M.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cope, Major William

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Falle, Major sir Bertram Godfray

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Forestier-Walker, L

  Lumley, L. R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Furness, G. J.

  Manville, Edward

  Husselt, William (Bolton)

  Garland, C. S.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

  Golf, Sir R. X.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J,

  Sanders, Rt- Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Sandon, Lord

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A.C.(Honiton)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Newman, Cofonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Stanley, Lord

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Steel, Major S Strang

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Herbert, Oennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Paget, T. G.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Hohier. Gerald Fitzroy

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Penny, Frederick George

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancester, Mossley)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Pielou, D. P.

  Wells, S. R.

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Privett, F. J.

  Willey, Arthur

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Raine, W.

  Winterton, Earl

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Wise, Frederick

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Renter, J. R.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rentoul. G. S.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  NOES.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Barnes, A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Batey, Joseph

  Hardie, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hastings, Patrick

  Parkinson, John Allen (Winan)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pattinson, S. (Korncastle)

  Bonwick, A.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Potts, John S.

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Bromfield, William

  Herriotts, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Brotherton, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ritson, J.

  Buckle, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Burgess, S.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Cairns, John

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Sexton, James

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lawson, John James

  Snell, Harry

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Leach, W.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lee, F.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Ede, James Chuter

  Linfield, F. C.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Lowth, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Lunn, William

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Gosling, Harry

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Turner, Ben

  Greenall, T.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Warne, G. H.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Weir, L. M.

  Groves, T.

  Middleton, G.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Morel, E. D.

  Westwood, J.

  1500

  1501

  Wheatley, J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Whiteley, W.

  Wright, W

  Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Ammon.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mr. LANSBURY: On a Point of privilage, Mr. Hope —
  Question put accordingly "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 188.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES.

  [1.32 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Riley, Ben

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson, J.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)

  Herriotts, J.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Bonwick, A.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sexton, James

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Shlnwell, Emanuel

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sitch. Charles H.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Cairns, John

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Oavid (Montgomery)

  Leach, W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, F.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lowth, T.

  Turner, Ben

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lunn, William

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dunnico, H.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Warne, G. H.

  Ede, James Chuter

  McLaren, Andrew

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan)

  Weir, L. M.

  Entwistle, Major C. F,

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Foot, Isaac

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)

  Westwood, J.

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Maxton, James

  Wheatley, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Middleton, G.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Morel, E. D.

  Whiteley, w.

  Greenall, T.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Groves, T.

  Paling, W.

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Hall, F. (York. W. R.. Normanton)

  Philliopps, Vivian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  Hardle, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Hastings, Patrick

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen, Clifton (Newbury)

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Baird, Rt. Hon, Sir John Lawrence

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Doyle. N. Graltan

  Balfour, George (Kampstead)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Banks, Mitchell

  Butlon, H. S.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barnott, Major Richard W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Ednam, Viscount

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Becker, Harry

  Cassels, J. D.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Berry, Sir George

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Erskine-Bohn. Captain C.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  BoydCarpenter, Major A.

  Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Brass, Captain W.

  Colvln, Brig-General Richard Beale

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cope. Major William

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Courthope. Lieut-Col. George L.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Briggs, Harold

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Furness, G. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Garland, C. S.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Manville, Edward

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Mercer. Colonel H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Mocre, Major-General Sir Newton j.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Sandon, Lord

  Halstead, Major D.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Murchison. C. K.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Newman. Sir R. H. S. U. L. (Exeter)

  Stanley, Lord

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Nicholson. Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Sucter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Paget. T. G.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pease, William Edwin

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pennefather, De Fonblanaue

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Perkins, Colonel E. K

  Waring, Major Walter

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wells, S. R.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Privett, F. J.

  White. Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Raine, W.

  Willey, Arthur

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Keiley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wise, Frederick

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Remer, J. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas-(Abingdon)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Mr. LANSBURY: Before I move my new Clause I wish to raise a point of Order, and to ask you. Mr. Chairman, whether it is in order for an bon. Member to raise a point of Order while a Motion is being put, and what is the proper procedure to adopt. I felt I adopted the right procedure by sitting down and putting on a hat, and at the top of my voice trying to gain your attention, but you refused to see me. I should be very much obliged if you would tell me what is the procedure.
  The CHAIRMAN: The procedure adopted on the last occasion was the wrong procedure, because the hon. Member rose to his feet uncovered. On a previous occasion the procedure adopted by the hon. Member was the right procedure, but the point he raised was of a frivolous nature, and no ruling was called for.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Excuse me, Sir, but you made a mistake, if you will allow me to say so with respect.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS: Do you consider an action frivolous which call attention to the importance of a Debate in which nearly twenty Members took part. The Minister who moved the Closure was not present to hear this Debate and therefore was not a judge as to the-arguments used or the necessary action. Do you consider you are justified in laying down that no answer from you is necessary to a protest made, on these grounds?
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now putting a different question. When I spoke of frivolity, I was referring to the objection taken by other hon. Members. I think as a point of Order it applies to him, too.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I to raise a point of Order. I put on a hat on the second occasion and sat down. [Interruption.] Excuse me, unless you are going to help to maintain the privileges of individual Members, there cannot be any order ill the place. Mr. Hope, you did not hear my point of Order. You refused to hear me, and that is the point I am raising. I am not raising whether my point was good or bad. You did not

  1505
  hear it because I never put it. You did not allow me. You waved your hand and turned aside.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not observe the hat on the hon. Member's head the second time. I had observed him rising.
  Mr. BARKER: You never looked.
  The CHAIRMAN: If subsequently the hon. Member obtained possession of the hat, I did not see him.
  Captain BENN: I understand from the Standing Orders that a Member must be covered if he raises a point of Order while a Division is in progress. That is in paragraph 136 of the Manual. Do you rule that the hon. Member, who raised a question after the Division took place, and after the next Amendment was called, was raising a point of Order during a Division?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Division was a Closure Motion, which must be taken at once.
  Captain BENN: The paragraph in the Standing Order says:
  " Whilst a division is proceeding a Member may speak on a point of Order arising out of or during the division, but if ho does so he must speak sitting and covered."
  I submit that no Division was proceeding.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it was in fact proceeding. When the Closure is taken, the Division on the Closure and the subsequent Division are one process.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I only want to say what 1 have said many time before in this House—that I think the rulings one gets on these points are bewildering. I read the rules of this House, and I have been here a good long time, at one period and another, and I see fresh rulings every day, rulings which simply contradict one another. The Amendment I now move is one which I have handed in by manuscript.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment I have called upon the hon. Member to move is that appearing on the paper in the name of himself and another Member. and is an Amendment to Section 44.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have one, for Section 43.
  The CHAIRMAN: That will not come before the one I indicated, Before I
  1506
  consider manuscript Amendments as to whether I should accept them or not I consider the Amendments upon the paper.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: When an Amendment is handed in in the ordinary course of a debate on a question before this House, is it not the practice to take the Amendments in their proper sequence—both new Clauses and Amendments to Clauses. For instance, where the Clause is 41, is it not the practice to take next an Amendment to the subsequent Clause 42?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, in Amendments to a Bill before the House, but these are new Clauses, and new Clauses may amend existing law. For the purpose of procedure, they are new Clauses and must be taken in the order in which they are on the Paper.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not mind the order in which they are taken.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 44).
  In Section forty-four of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial), after the word "flogging," in Sub-section (5) thereof, there shall be inserted the words "and other than personal restraint by being kept in irons or other fetters," and the words" and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour," in the same Sub-section shall be omitted, arid the words "and such field punishment may be of the character of hard labour" shall be inserted in lieu thereof.—[Mr. Lansbury.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
  I do not agree with hard labour—[Laughter]—and I understand nobody on that side does either, or with any kind of labour. I move the Amendment in this form because I think it necessary that we should get a fair and square discussion on this subject. Before going on further I would like to read what punishments may be inflicted on a soldier in the Army or an officer. Perhaps I may omit those for an officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] In the case of officers the penalties are death; penal servitude for a term not less than three years; imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceding two years; cashiering; dismissal from His Majesty's service; forfeiture in the prescribed manner of seniority of

  1507
  rank, either in the Army or in the corps to which the offender belongs, or in both, or in the case of an officer whose promotion depends upon length of service, forfeiture of all or any part of his service for the purposes of promotion; reprimand or severe, reprimand. In the case of soldiers: Death; penal servitude for a term not less than three years; imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years; detention for a term not exceeding two years—anti this is in Section (e)—discharge with ignominy — I have often wondered what hell meant; in the case of a commissioned officer in His Majesty's service it means forfeiture in the prescribed manner, of seniority of rank, or reduction to a lower grade, or to the ranks; in the case of a non-commissioned officer, reprimand or severe reprimand and forfeiture, fines and stoppages. It is further provided that:
  " Where in respect of any offence under this Act there is specified a particular punishment or such less punishment, as is in this Act mentioned, there may be awarded in respect of that offence, instead of such particular punishment (but subject to the other regulations of this Act as to punishments, and regard being had to the nature and degree of the offence) any one punishment lower in the above scales than the particular punishment:
  (1a) For the purposes of commutation and revision of punishment, detention shall not be deemed to be a less punishment than imprisonment if the term of detention is longer than the term of imprisonment:
  (2) An officer shall be sentenced to be cashiered before he is sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment:
  (2a) The Army Council may restore the whole or any part of any lost seniority or forfeited service in the case of an officer who may perform good or faithful service, or who may otherwise be deemed by the Army Council to merit such restoration:
  (3) An officer or a non-commissioned officer when sentenced to forfeiture of seniority of rank may also be sentenced to reprimand or severe reprimand:
  (4) A soldier when sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment may, in addition thereto, be sentenced to be discharged with ignominy from His Majesty's service:
  (5) Where a soldier on active service is guilty of any offence; it shall be lawful for a court-martial to award for that offence such field punishment, other than flogging, as may be directed by rules to be made from time to time
  1508
  by a Secretary of State, and such field punishment shall he of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb.
  The CHAIRMAN: Now that the hon. Member has come to the actual Section I think he must confine his argument to that.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If you will allow me to read the next one it will round them all off—
  (6) In addition to or without any other punishment in respect of an offence committed by a soldier on active service, it shall he lawful for a court-martial to order that the offender forfeit all ordinary pay for a period commencing on the day of the sentence and not exceeding three mouths.
  I think the House would take a very wise course if it really wiped out, the whole of these punishments that I have read, and drew up a few quite simple rules and punishments, and allow the ordinary man in this House to understand what punishment it is that may be inflicted upon an ordinary soldier, because, for the life of me I cannot quite understand what this particular Clause 5 of Section 44 really means. No Member in this House would gather from this that field punishment meant really the crucifixion of which we have heard so much. I have never been in the Army myself, and for the satisfaction of those gentlemen opposite who are so anxious to know whether some of us on this side of the House have been in the Army, I might say that I never would go into the Army. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Although I am above military age, I should not go if I were of military age. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame! "] Shame or no shame, I do not want anyone to kill for me, and I do not want to kill anyone.
  The point I want to make is that I have taken the trouble to consult friends who have been in the Army, who have served a good deal of time in the army, both during the late war and previously and I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who stand up and say that the one thing that keeps the army together is not the discipline but the respect of the ordinary soldier for the command, from the subaltern upwards. If that is so, why do you want such a hideous punishment as that of tying a man to a wheel or pegging him down on the ground in the open sun and exposing him in that sort

  1509
  of way to all the rigours of heat and in addition to all the rigours of not being able to move his body or his arms and generally to be treated just like a lump of wood? The reason you always give for that sort of punishment is because war is unnatural. It is something that men would not undertake if they had freedom of choice. You may think that an army is a free army, free enlistment. There is economic conscription driving men into the army because of hunger and privation.
  Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Has this any bearing on the Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The argument is a little discursive, but I think it has some bearing.
  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. LANSBURY: You have this brutal and hideous form of punishment in order to preserve discipline in the Army, which is created by economic conditions. That is my argument, and I should have thought that it was perfectly relevant and perfectly clear to any ordinary intellect. The difficulty in dealing with this subject is that one has to read through first of all a tiny Bill which is brought in this year and which continues for another year a big Act. I think the Committee ought to consider whether we ought not to have the whole Bill circulated in time for Members to make themselves acquainted with it. We have had the greatest difficulty until to-night in getting sufficient copies of the Act in order to make ourselves acquainted with it, yet we are expected to discuss the question intelligently. I cannot tell, and I challenge hon. Members who do not belong to the Army and have not had experience of these Regulations to tell exactly for what offences this particular punishment is inflicted. Here are some of the offences for which men may be sentenced to this kind of punishment. During the war, there were something like 287,049 men charged with various offences. No one knows what punishment was inflicted on most of them. We know that only 21,225 were acquitted, and that means that 266,784 were convicted. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is representing the Army to-night tell us how many of these men suffered this hideous punishment? The crimes these men might have
  1510
  been punished in this way for, were offences against inhabitants, 1,810; 1,483 were charged with mutiny, 420 for cowardice, 37,000 desertion, 83,000 absence, 12,000 striking or violence, 29,000 insubordination, 11,000 disobedience, quitting their posts 8,562, drunkenness 39,000, loss of property 26,000. I believe loss of property meant that a man lost his kit or his gun or some other property of the State. There were 8,809 cases of theft, and it is a big tribute to the Army that only that tiny fragment was charged with that offence, and the eases of indecency were only 259. Then you get miscellaneous military offences nearly 48,000. How many of these men suffered crucifixion and pegging to the ground? There were 3,890 cases of self-inflicted wounds. There were 7,338 cases sentenced to penal servitude, including 140 for life. It would be very interesting to know for what these men were sentenced to penal servitude for life. I should like to appeal to the Army authorities that these men might be set free now, all these years after the conclusion of peace.
  I understand that during the war field punishment No. I was inflicted in 59,843 cases, and field punishment No. 2 in 19,207 cases. It seems to me no reasonable man would want to continue that punishment. If you tell me it must be done to maintain discipline, that destroys altogether what we have heard about good feeling between officers and men, because it is perfectly certain that a large number of these men who underwent this punishment did so for offences against officers. I know that from what I was told by!,.oldiers who served in the Army during the late War. One who became a sergeant-major told me that a very large number of the offences with which the men were charged were quite trivial and that field punishment was really held over the men in a way that produced a terror-stricken condition amongst them. We are asking that this inhuman, brutal punishment shall be altogether done away with, that it should he taken right out of the Statute and that you shall rely on the ordinary punishments of hard labour and detention. I would prefer the Amendment that one of my hon. Friends is to try to move, that it be detention pure and simple, without hard labour. Many men might feel when serving, say, in Iraq, and when called upon to go up

  1511
  into the air and bomb natives or destroy unprotected villages that that was a very cowardly thing to do and they might refuse to do it, and the authorities might not want to shoot them or kill them. This amendment gives the power of inflicting another sort of punishment on the men. In an Amendment which I hope to move later on I am going to try and get the ordinary soldier the right to be tried in another way, but for the moment I want to argue on this particular question of field punishment. I want to remove the airman and the ordinary soldier from the risk which comes from his refusal either to shoot down unarmed people in Indian villages or bomb Arabs from the sky, because I am one of those who had to enjoy, like everyone who lived in London, being bombed from the sky, and I know the feeling of intense disgust which arose when the bombing commenced. We were in a position to retaliate, but the unhappy Arab is not in a position to retaliate. When the Germans did so we called them Runs, and every name we could think of, and you blackguarded the King's cousin the raiser as a ruthless, brutal tiger. What do von think the people of Mesopotamia and "India think about you to-day? Anyone who declines to do that dirty work must not be subjected to crucifixion. We move this Amendment because we want to give the soldier the chance of refusing to do such miserable work as that. We want to give him the chance of refusing to bomb and kill unarmed people, and we want to save him from this beastly field punishment.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has covered such a large field that I feel in doubt whether it would be in order for me to follow, and in any case I hope that if this Amendment is to be allowed to range over so many cognate subjects which are not directly involved we shall at least not have to discuss them over again when the other Amendments upon the paper are reached. The hon. Member read out a large part of Section 44, which has nothing to do with the Amendment which is before the House. The punishments to which he referred are in all cases maximum punishments. They sound very severe but in practice they are applied in a far more mild form than the legal phraseology that was read out suggests.
  1512
  King's Regulations lay down normal punishments in paragraph 583. They are far less severe than these maximum penalties to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. LANSBURY: We have not got the King's Regulations.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. and gallant Member read out the part to which he refers?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Certainly.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It seems to me most important that we should have copies of these things. I have spent a considerable time trying to get a copy, and cannot get one.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Let me just explain. We had no notice that these matters were going to be brought up. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were on the paper."] The Amendment of the hon. Member does not deal with the first part of Section 44 at all. It deals with a few words under which field punishment is instituted. We had no indication whatever that the whole of these punishments were going to be raised on this Clause. The hon. Member quoted a great many figures. I have not had notice of these particular figures and, as he knows, it is impossible to carry all these statistics in one's head. There is not a single man in prison at the present time on a sentence which was inflicted for a military offence during the war. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member into his misrepresentation—.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have not misrepresented any of these figures. They are taken from the Army reports.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I said misrepresentation of field punishment. I want to point out that many years ago so-called crucifixion was finally abolished. Crucifixion was applied as a former field punishment, where a man's arms were not allowed, when tied, to rest in a natural position. That was finally and completely forbidden, and it was laid down that if a man was tied, he had to have play for both his feet and for his arms, and his hands had to rest in a natural position. But I do not want to enter into details of field punishment No. 1, Why I think it is quite irrelevant is that we are already abolishing it.

  1513
  I will only enter into it to this extent, that I want to relieve the misapprehension that crucifixion has been the law up to the present time. The position is this, that we believe that field punishment No. 1 is no longer necessary in view of the splendid discipline of the Army and it is a punishment which, however useful it may have been formerly, may now be abolished. These Rules for field punishment are laid down in the words to which the hon. Member's Amendment is directed, and the Rules are at file present time being agreed with the other Departments concerned, the Air Ministry and the Air Force, and as soon as these negotiations are at an end they will, under the Rules of the Act to which they are subject, be laid forty days before they are finally settled. We have no choice in the matter. We are bound by statute.
  Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says these Rules will be laid. We know that, but the House has no power. They are laid but never discussed. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that the House will be given an opportunity when Rules are laid to say whether they approve or not.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No special facilities will be necessary and the Rules can be discussed when the ordinary opportunities arise. The matter is in no way urgent, as Field Punishment No. 1 is not in force at the present time. It is an active service penalty. We are bound before the Roles reach their final form to lay them before Parliament.
  Mr. McENTEE: Are the men at present serving in Germany considered to be on active service?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is true they arc, but there is no field punishment in force.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is flogging part of the arrangement still, and, if it is not, what takes its place?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: For many years past there has been no flogging. We are as anxious to abolish Field Punishment No. 1 as anybody. I may say that it was put up to the military advisers on the Army Council, and they were unanimously in favour of abolishing Field Punishment No. 1 in view of the state of
  1514
  discipline in the Army. This is an active Service penalty, and if we were to have nothing to take its place, no Field Punishment No. 2 under which a man can be kept with his unit, we should certainly strike a very serious blow at discipline when troops are in dangerous positions. It is only human nature, when troops are in unsafe positions and when men's nerves are stretched to breaking point, that a man should be tempted to take an opportunity of getting away from the firing line. If, by committing a small offence, men could ensure going back to the comparative safety of a military prison, it is perfectly certain that we would put a very great incentive upon them. For that reason we must have some form of punishment which can be carried out while a man remains with his unit. The Amendment which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley proposes is that we should strike out the words "under restraint." That would mean that we should not be able to keep a man with his unit at all, because if a guard is put over a man, if he is told to sit under a wall, he is under restraint. If a man is to be kept with his unit at all, taking part in the common danger, it is absolutely essential that there should be power to put him under restraint. We certainly have no reluctance to meet the demand for humanising Army punishment, but we do feel that it would be disastrous to discipline if this Amendment were carried, which would mean that for the most trivial offence on active service a man would be able to secure complete release from the firing line, and insure that he should be kept in a position of safety to the end of the war, when the inevitable amnesty would release him.
  Captain BENN: I do not think there is much difference between us and I think that the hon. Gentleman who has shown such admirable good temper will be able to appreciate the point I hope to make. In the old days there was flogging in the Army. I used to hear old Generals and Admirals say that they would not have been the men they were if it had not been for flogging; it was the one thing that had introduced virility into their character. In the course of time, but not due to the conscience of Army men, flogging was abolished, and I am afraid that we must attribute the abolition of field punishment No. 1 to the same process and not to self-inspired instincts of humanity at the War Office. When

  1515
  flogging was abolished, the Army Act was altered and it was forbidden in the Statute. It was quite possible to abolish flogging by omitting it in the regulations. That was not the course taken. The course taken was to put into the Statute words abolishing flogging. What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to do about field punishment No. 1? He says he is agreed that this form of punishment has to go. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) says put it on the Statute and then there will be a statutory prohibition of the infliction of this punishment. I think it is a very reasonable request and it is one which is supported by precedent. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman says we are to put it in the Regulations and these are to be laid before this House. That is quite true, but the Regulations are not under the control of this House. The part of the Act which implies to them merely says:
  " All rules made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after they are made, if Parliament he then sitting; if Parliament be not sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the next session of Parliament."
  That does not confer any power on the House to say whether it approves or disapproves of the form of the Regulations. They are laid, but unless the Government should give some time for their discussion the laying before the House has absolutely no effect at all. That being so, is it unreasonable to ask that in the case of field punishment No. 1 as in the case of flogging words should be introduced into the Statute which shall make it impossible for the War Office to make regulations inflicting this punishment. That seems to be an unanswerable case, and as everybody is agreed that field punishment No. 1 should go, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment or some Amendment of the kind and put,t into the Statute.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I desire to support the Amendment. I happen to be an official of a society, 19,000 of whose members joined the Army for the last war, and I found in the records of their health after their return that many of these men have had their health broken, not by actual service in the Army, but by many of the inflictions that
  1516
  were imposed in connection with the Regulations that we are now discussing. The Committee ought to bear in mind two or three points in relation to these punishments. The hon. Gentleman tried to turn us away with nice words, but I felt that he made the most feeble speech that I have ever heard in defence of a case. The mentality of those people who are connected with the Army must be completely changed. A man brought up for insubordination and penalised in this way, I venture to say that once he is punished in this form he will never again make a good soldier. I feel positive of this, too, that this punishment is not intended to reform the man who is punished. It is intended only to prevent other men from running away from nasty jobs.
  That, I think, is the intention of the Regulations. We are told that there is such esprit de corps in the Army that the men will fight if you do nothing more than call upon them to do so. If that is so, I am astonished that more than a quarter of a million of men during the last war were charged with insubordination, at one time or another. Attention ought to be called to another aspect of this problem. I have read these Regulations, and I am surprised that no one has pointed out that the punishments for men are of a very much more severe character, and of a different kind and type, to the punishments intended for the officers in the Army. The responsibility of an officer is a great one. I have noticed, however, that when an ordinary soldier has failed in his duty he is sent to prison, and it is stated, on good authority, that when same generals fail in their duty they are sent to Parliament. They have in some cases been given huge pensions to get rid of them out of the Army. The ways of mankind are various. The Under-Secretary of State for War has stated that these are maximum punishments. We have had figures given in this House that the total number of men sentenced tr. death, whose sentences were carried out, was 260 odd during the last war. Surely that is a maximum punishment, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can hide himself behind that point. But I would raise it to a little higher level than that. The world is moving to a different order of things.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are hon. Members in order when they are reclining in the House?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I am not quite sure to which hon. Member the hen. Member refers.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Do I understand that it is in Order for an hon. Member to recline in the House?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no rule regarding the matter.
  Mr. THOMAS: Do you rule, Sir, that my hon. Friend is entitled to take the necessary steps in the matter?
  Mr. DAVIES: I am very sorry, Captain FitzRoy, that there does not seem to be any rule of this House to help you to decide whether reclining in the House of Commons is in Order or not.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: As an hon. Member while listening to a colleague has gone to sleep, is it not right that something should be done?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the proceedings are now almost taking a turn of comedy, and in view of the fact that certain Members are unable to carry on through exhaustion, would I be in Order in moving that the House should adjourn?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is interrupting another hon. Member in his speech.
  Mr. DAVIES: I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he would tell the House the difference between the sentences meted out to officers under Clause 44 of the Army Act and the sentences meted out for the same insubordination to the ordinary soldier? It would be very interesting if we could get to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows what regulations govern the Red Army in Russia, for instance. It would be very interesting to know whether the British War Office at any time has ever studied how the Russian Army of about three quarters of a million men is carried on, I believe, without any punishment at all. I feel there cannot be any punishment for a man who joins the Red Army. There may be, but I am entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has studied the
  1518
  army regulations of the Army of Russia. I know we have travelled a great deal away from the Amendment. But I do want to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in supporting and justifying his case to-night has, in my view, definitely given the whole case away. He has stated in fact that you cannot carry on a war unless you inflict punishments up to the point of death itself upon our own people. I believe I am right in stating that the punishment upon our own soldiers who are caught acting in an insubordinate way is more severe than is meted out to men who are captured from the enemy camps. If that can be proved, and I think it can he proved, it makes the whole case of war ridiculous. I agree with regard to war, that war after all is
  " The statesman's game, the priest's delight,
  The lawyer's jest, and the hired assassin's trade."
  I trust that this House will declare that this brutal punishment shall once and for all be done away.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not going to follow the hon. Member in a survey of the disciplinary system of the Russian or any other army, because the question before the Committee is field punishment. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) was dissatisfied with our proposal to leave this matter to he dealt with in the ordinary way by regulation. Well, we have nothing to keep back. We are quite prepared to put our words into the Act and if it will satisfy the Committee—though I cannot take the words of the Amendment—I am prepared to move to insert after the word "flogging" the words—" or attachment to a fixed object "—if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will withdraw his Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will have either to move a new Clause or else move his Amendment as an Amendment to the Clause now under discussion.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I will move, if the hon Member for Bow and and Bromley will withdraw his Clause my Amendment in this form that after the word "flogging" in Sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Army Act there shall be inserted the words "or attachment to a fixed object."
  Major WARING: I do not think that the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets us any further. In point of fact this Amendment refers to both field punishments. The only difference between field punishment No. 1 and field punishment No. 2 is this question of attachment to a fixed object. Field punishment No. 2 permits of a man being loaded with chains and fetters, and ropes or straps may be substituted if fetters are not available. It is identically the same punishment and it was devised at the same time as field punishment No. 1. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) referred to the Debates that took place in this House when flogging was abolished. There was some difficulty in devising a form of punishment that should take its place, and after some six months' delay Regulations were laid upon the Table devising this No. 2 punishment. When they were examined by the House, all those Members who had been in favour of corporal punishment were unanimous in denouncing this new form of punishment as being far more barbarous than flogging. The Amendment abolishee both, and I maintain that the hon. Member ought to carry his Amendment to a division in order that we should once and for all get rid of these forms of putting people into irons and handcuffs. The suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member makes no difference whatever.
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not think any useful purpose win be served by the Amendment indicated because it is clearly obvious that the speech first made demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the concession in no way meets the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to this significant change. We are discussing field punishment at the moment. My hon. Friend and the whole House was agreed that it is wrong and ought to be abolished. But only 12 months ago we were debating this same subject and I remember the hon. and gallant Member's predecessor from the Treasury Box, in defence of field punishment No. 1, read a letter from the Commander in Chief and the whole case turned on that letter. We are now told that perhaps all parts of the House agree to what
  1520
  we said 12 months ago and which was defended on entirely different grounds. The fact is that we must go to a Division on this matter. It has been demonstrated that the concession offered from the Government side is not a concession and for that reason I suggest that no purpose would be served in moving the Amendment, because there can be no agreement upon it.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for shortening the proceedings by the speech he has made. May I say, however, that he is not quite accurate in saying we have abolished field punishment as a result of his hon. Friend putting down an Amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS: I was merely dealing with the point you made. You dealt with the question as being something that the Whole House had agreed with and that the Army Council had accepted, and I was merely indicating that the last time we were debating this question not only was the House agreed, but it is the same Army Council that has now agreed it was wrong.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I only made the offer of the Amendment to meet the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Capt. Benn), but if it is not satisfactory to the other sections of the Opposition it would be absurd of me to press it. The reason we cannot accept the proposal to take away all power to put a man in fetters is that, if we did so, we would not have the power which the police have to place a violent man under restraint or in handcuffs. Such restraint, however, never is and never can be used as a punishment. I made this offer in an effort to meet hon. Members opposite, but, as I have failed, the question will go to the Division, and we will deal with the matter by Regulation.
  Mr. THOMAS: I have just refreshed my memory, and it is important the Committee should know exactly what was said on this question 12 months ago. Let us compare the difference in the Debate and the Army Council's view 12 months ago. A Committee fully considered the matter and decided that Field Punishment No. 1 ought to be kept. The opinions of such military leaders as Sir Douglas Haig and Sir William Robertson were taken

  1521
  and they were in favour of the retention of the sentence. The Committee said:
  " The Committee consider that the question of the retention or abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 is one depending mainly on whether any other punishment can be devised to take its place which is 6uitable and effective on active service. The views of officers commanding in various theatres of war were obtained by the Army Council. These strongly support the necessity of retaining Field Punishment No. 1, and this view i6 endorsed by the service members of the Committee. No suitable alternative punishment which has the support of Military and Air Force opinion has been suggested to the Committee. In these circumstances, they do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1."
  That is from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th April, 1921. I want to submit that if any evidence were needed to persuade Members in all parts of the Committee as to the reasonableness of this Amendment it is the words I have just quoted. These words were the considered judgment of the same Army chiefs who report to-night that they have not only found an alternative but that they do not consider field punishment necessary. The real explanation for that change of opinion is clue to the knowledge of the change that has taken place in public opinion, and therefore for these reasons I hope my hon. Friend will reconsider the situation and let the suggestion he has made apply to Field Punishment No. 2.
  Mr. TURNER: I want to support the Amendment. Field Punishments No. 1 and No. 2 are cruel and have not a reformatory effect. All punishments should have as their object making people better and not making them worse. Violence of this kind does not have the effect of producing proper discipline. It seems to me that in Section 44 there is a tremendous number of punishments devised for the ordinary soldier in the Army. When you start with the word "death," to me that is a very frightening punishment. Then you follow with penal servitude for a term of not less than three years, imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, detention for a term not exceeding two years. All these things appeal to me as things that should be considerably reduced. Under Section 45, an officer may order into military custody an officer of inferior rank or any soldier engaged in a quarrel, fray or die-
  1522
  order, and the punishments in Section 44 apply to Section 45. I think there have been disorders this week which, if they had taken place in the Army, would have led to some kind of punishment. I would not like to see field punishment No. 1 or No. 2 applied to my friend's on the other side who have created disturbances both in this and some of them in previous Parliaments. I urge that the best discipline in the Army is s cured by kindness and not by coercion, by example and not by this cruel punishment. Crucifixion has been condemned by most soldiers in His Majesty's Forces. They have looked upon it as a degrading, dehumanising, debasing thing. It has not been a corrective in any form. Anyone who studies our methods of punishment in the Army or outside of it is hound to lament the fact that our cruelties under our prison and military systems have not been beneficial to the discipline and well-being of the Army. In the last war many people were taken into the Army and many people joined out of patriotic and good motives. They tried to do their best, but in this world we are all liable to imperfections and failures. The Almighty does not endow us with all the perfections that mankind think we should realise. I do not want that in any shape or form we should blaspheme our Creator by such a system as Field Punishment No. 1 and No. 2. I am one of those old-fashioned folk who have, a great dislike for force or militarism of any sort, and I have a keen recollection of the verses of Russell Lowell, written during the civil war in 1865, when all those things, field punishment and flogging and so on, were in force in the American Army as in ours. The verses are:
  " Ez fer war, I call it murder,—
  Ther you hey it plain and flat;
  I don't want to go no furder
  Than my Testyment fer thet
  If yer take a sword and draw it
  And go stick a feller through,
  Government ain't to answer for it,
  Cod'll send the bill to you."
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders)rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to know whether it is in accordance with the traditions of this House to accept the Closure when an hon. Member below the Gangway has risen throughout the Debate and has not had an oppor-
  tunity of contributing towards it. It is a disgraceful proceeding. I think the Government ought to show a sense of decency.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [3.1 a.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Alexander, Co'. M. (Southwark)

  Foxcroft. Captain Charles Talbot

  Pennefalher, De Fonblanque

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Furness, G. J.

  Ponny, Frederick George

  Arcner-Shee. Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Garland, C. S.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Willrid W.

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Golf, Sir R. Park

  Phllipson, Hilton

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y. N.)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Earnston, Major Harry

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Privett, F. J.

  Becker, Harry

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Raine, W.

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Halstead, Major D.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Remer, J. R.

  BoydCarpenler, Major A.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hennessy, Major J. R G.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Brings, Harold

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ruqgles-Brise. Major E,

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clitton (Newbury)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, William (Polton)

  Bmton. Sir James

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Samuel. A M. (Surrey, Farnhaml)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Koufton, John plowrioht

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Howard. Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Button, H. S.

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sandon, Lord

  Campion, Lieut.-colonel W. R.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Skeiton, A. N.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W.)

  Jonps. G. W. H. (Stoke NewInqton)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Ketley, Major Fred (Ftotherham)

  Spender-Clay. Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Clayton, G. C.

  King. Captain Henry Douotas

  Stanley, Lord

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

  Lane Fox, Lieut. Colonel G. R.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Boale

  Lloyd, Cvril E. (Dudley)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Courthooe, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lorimer. H. D.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Craiq, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Lort-Wllllams, J.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Titchlield, Marquess of

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  McNeill. Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  T'yon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Davidson. J. C C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Manvilte. Edward

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Mafesson, H. D. R.

  Turton, Edmund Russborouqh

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Wa'ts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Milne. J. S. Wardiaw

  Wells, S. R.

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Moore. Major-General sir Newton J

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  White. Col G. D. (Southport)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mnreinn. Captain Alnernon H.

  Willey. Arthur

  Ednam, Viscount

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Hontton)

  Winterton. Earl

  Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wise. Frederick

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Nevman. Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Ersklne-Bolst. Captain C.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Woodcock, Colonel H, C.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Nieid, Sir Herbert

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Lolton M.

  Norton-Griffiths. Lieut-Col. Sir John

  Falcon. Captain Michael

  O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Paget, T. G.

  Gibbs.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  NOES.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hlllsbro')

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Brotherton, J.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Bonwick, A.

  Buchanan, G.

  Barnes, A.

  Bowdler. W. A.

  Buckie. J.

  Batey, Joseph

  Broad. F. A.

  Burgess, S.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Bromfield, William

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sal'er, Dr. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sexton, James

  Darbishire. C. W,

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Shinweil, Emanuel

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R,

  Lausbury, George

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lawson. John James

  Sited, Charles H.

  Dunnico, H.

  Leach, W.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Ede, James Chutor

  Lee, F.

  Snell. Harry

  Entwlstle, Major C. F.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Foot, Isaac

  Lowth, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gosling, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Grey, Frank (Oxford)

  M'Entee, V. L,

  Sullivan, J.

  Greenall, T.

  McLaren, Andrew

  Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Grenlell, D. Ft. (Glamorgan)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'd'ne, E.)

  Turner, Ben

  Groves, T,

  Maxton, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Middieton, G.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Warne, G. H.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Weir, L. M.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Hardie, George D.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Paling, W.

  Wheatiey. J.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Patllnson, S. (Horncastle)

  Whiteley, w.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Herrlotts, J.

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pringle. W. M. R.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jenkins W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Sromwlch)

  Jonas, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Amnion and Mr. T. Griffiths.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 182.

  Division No. 86.]

  AYES.

  [3.10 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlllsbro')

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Ritson, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Barnes, A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Saklatvala. S.

  Bntey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sexton, James

  Berkeley, captain Reginald

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Bonwick, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Shinweil, Emanuel

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)

  Simpson. J. Hope

  Bromfield. William

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Brotherton. J.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Snell, Harry

  Buckle, J.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Burgess, S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buxton, Charles (Accrlngton)

  Lansbury, George

  Stevart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Cairns, John

  Lawson, John James

  Sullivan, J.

  Cape, Thomas

  Leach, W.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Darbishire. C. W.

  Linfield. F. C.

  Turner, Ben

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lowth, T.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Waring, Major Walter

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Warne. G. H.

  Dufly, T. Gavan

  McLaren, Andrew

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dunnlce. H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Weir. L. M.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Maxton, James

  Westwood, J.

  Entwistie. Major C. F.

  Middieton, G.

  Wheatiey, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Whi'e, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Gosling, Harry

  Murray. R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Whiteley, W.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Grecnail, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Groves, T.

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Potts, John S.

  Hall. F. (York, w, R., Normanton)

  Pringle. W. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. T.

  Hardie, George D.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Griffiths.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Pease, William Edwin

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Furness, G. J.

  Pennelather, De Fonblanque

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Garland, C. S.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ashley. Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Goft. Sir R. Park

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent Dover)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Fhilipson, Hilton

  Battour, George (Hampstead)

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y. N.)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Privett, F. J.

  Becker, Harry

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Raine, W.

  Berry, Sir George

  Halstead, Major D.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Blrchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Blades. Sir George Rowland

  Harrison, F. C.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Blundell. F. N.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Remer, J. R.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hay. Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Robertson. J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Brions, Harold

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ruggles-Brise. Major E.

  Brown. Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Houlton, John Plowright

  Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Howard, Lapt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Howard-Eury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Button, H. S.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sandon, Lord

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Shepperson. E. W.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Caycer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Stanley, Lord

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cope. Major William

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Courfhope. Lieut-Col. George L.

  Lort-Willlams, J.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxlord. Henley)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Thomson. F C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Crott, Lieut.-Colonel Henrs Paoe

  Lumley, L. R.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  McNeill. Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Curzon. Captain viscount

  Manville, Edward

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Margesson, H, D. R.

  Turton, Edmund Russborouqh

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Wilhington)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Milne, J. S. Wardiaw

  Wells. S. R.

  Doyle. N. Grattan

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Wheler. Col. Granville C. H.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  White. Col G. n. (Southport)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morelng, Captain Algernon H.

  Willey, Arthur

  Ednam, Viscount

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Winterton, Earl

  Elliot, Caut. Waller E. (Lanark)

  Murchison. C. K.

  Wise, Frederick

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Erskine-Bolst. Captain C.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen.J (Westminster)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Norton-Griffiths. Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Paget, T G.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Gibbs.

  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. In a case where one Division follows another, is it in order for Members of the House who have already recorded their votes in one Lobby to enter the other Lobby in anticipation of another Division, and to take their places in such a way as to prevent Members passing through between the clerks so that they can have their votes recorded?
  The CHAIRMAN: If some hon. Members willingly or unwillingly cause actual obstruction to other Members at
  1528
  the turnstile, undoubtedly it would not be in order, and I should very much deprecate it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether any instruction can be issued from the Chair that when Members enter the Lobby in anticipation of a second Division, they should keep to the lower end of the Lobby until such time as the first Division is finished?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that to give an instruction from the Chair would rather imply that there would be some

  1529
  means of seeing that the instruction was carried out, and the Chairman cannot be in the Lobby as well as in the House. I would suggest that hon. Members do not go into the Lobby in which they are intending to vote in the Division until the Question for the next Division has been put.
  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I do so with the single-minded desire to meet what I feel are the wishes and convenience of Members in all parts of the Committee. I am very doubtful whether, in the whole history of Parliament, there has been a Government faced with such a situation as they are at the present moment. Here they have passed thought a strenuous week's work. Those of us who sit on this side of the House can quite imagine how worried, how tired and how totally unfitted—[Interruption.]
  Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I object to any member of the Committee saying that the Government is unfit.
  Mr. THOMAS: I hesitatingly withdraw the statement that the hon. Member is unfit, but I felt that he had perhaps some sympathy with his leaders. Let us visualise the situation at this moment. The Government have gone through the experiences of the last few days. Here is the Opposition ready to relieve them of their difficulties; able and willing to give them a chance on Friday morning, at 3.30 after such a week. At this time I ask Members seriously to remember
  what has to be discussed. We have just discussed Field Punishment No. 1.
  HON. MEMBERS: And No. 2.
  Mr. THOMAS: No, we did not discuss No. 2. Looking at the Order Paper, one sees that there are ten further Amendments to be discussed. The Committee is incapable—[interruption.] Of course, I withdraw so far as it applied to this side of the Committee. For these reasons, and many more, I move—
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the Motion put by you, Mr. Hope, is a debatable Motion and whether an hon. Member is in order in rising to address you on your putting the question?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Motion is debatable if the Chair allow it to he debated.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask whether, on a Motion to report Progress, when the Chair allows a speech in favour of the Motion that does not by itself indicate that the Motion is debatable and admit a reply is allowable to such a speech?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is entirely in the discretion of the Chair, according to the circumstances of the Debate.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [3.27 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Dunnico, H.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Ede, James Chater

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Barnes, A.

  Foot, Isaac

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Batey, Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, R. T, (Carnarvon)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Greenall, T.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Bonwick, A.

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Broad. F. A.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lansbury, George

  Brsmiietd. William

  Groves, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Brutherton, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Leach, w.

  Buchanan, G.

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Lee, F.

  Buckie, J.

  Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)

  Linffeld, F. C.

  Burgess, S.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Lowth, T.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Hardie, George D.

  Lunn, William

  Cairns, John

  Hayday, Arthur

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hayes. John Henry (Edge Hill)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Charleton, H. C,

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Marlin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Maxton, James

  Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vain)

  Herriotts, J.

  Middleton, G.

  Davies, Rhvs John fWesthoughton)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew. Western)

  Dutfy, T. Gavan

  John, William (Rhondda West)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Welsh, J. C.

  Paling, w.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Westwood, J,

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Wheatley, J.

  Phillipps. Vivian

  Snell, Harry

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Potts, John S.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Whiteley, W.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Riley, Ben

  Sullivan, J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Ritson, J.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wright, W.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Turner, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Sexton, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Shaw. Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Warne, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Shlnwell, Emanuel

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr.

  Short, Allred (wednesbury)

  Weir, L. M.

  Robertson.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Pease, William Edwin

  Alexander, Col, M. (South.vark)

  Furness, G. J.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S,

  Garland, C. S.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Archer-Shee. Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Golf, Sir R. Park

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Balfour. George (Hampstead)

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Guinness, Lleut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Privett, F. J.

  Becker, Harry

  Hacking, Captain Douglao H.

  Raine, w.

  Berry, Sir George

  Halstead, Major D.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Blundell, F, N.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Remer, J. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reynolds, W. G. w.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

  Hlley, Sir Ernest

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Brigqs. Harold

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Britain, Sir Harry

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Roundeil. Colonel R. F.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Samuel. A M. (Surrey. Farnham)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Howard, Capt D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Button, H. S,

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sanderson. Sir Frank B.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Casseis, J. D.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lord

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Steel. Major S. Strang

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Cope. Major William

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lort-Wllllams, J.

  Sutcliffe. T.

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Manville, Edward

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Davidson, J.C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Meicer, Colonel H.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Waring, Major Walter

  Doyle, N. Gratlan

  Moore. Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Wells, S. R.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Wheler. Col. Granville C. H

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Murchison. C. K.

  Willey, Arthur

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Winterton, Earl

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Wise, Frederick

  Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Excter)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Erskine-Botst, Captain C.

  Nicholson, Brio.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Felle, Major Sir Bertram Godlray

  Paget, T. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Gibbs.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 80.)
  At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act, the following Sub-section shall be added:
  (2) The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include an option as to whether the recruit is willing to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, and unless this has been signed in the affirmative by the recruit his refusal to undertake such duty during his period of service shall not constitute an offence under this Act or of any rules or regulations connected with service in the Army.—[Mr. Lansbury.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  In moving this Clause I would like to say first that it is not necessary that such a rule or such a proviso should apply to officers. Officers, it has been demonstrated in the British Army, are free either to serve or not to serve. During the Home Rule controversy at the Curragh Camp a number of officers under, I think, General Gough, refused to take orders in regard to putting down the incipient rebellion which was being organised by the friends of the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and led in the main by Lord Carson and Mr. Galloper Smith, now Lord Birkenhead.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think those events of 1914 were quite a trade dispute.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The proviso such as this which we require for the private soldier is not required for the officer, because the officer can use his discretion. If the private soldier could use his discretion as did the officers of the Curragh we should not need to move this Amendment. I think that is perfectly clear to the Committee. In connection with the war itself there was a right hon. Gentleman who made a dramatic exit from this House to go to his place in France and in a few months' time he was back in his place on the Front Treasury Bench.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member, in moving an amendment with regard to private soldiers, to make a speech as to the want of any such necessity for a resolution with regard to a totally different class, namely, the officers?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think not, because this is reference to enlistment and not to the giving of commissions. I do not think the hon. Member would be in order to pursue this.
  Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order, I want to submit to you that my hon. Friend is entitled to give reasons for his amendment that are relevant. Surely nothing is so near his contention than the fact that what he is now proposing for the private soldier is not necessary for the officer because the discretion is given, and surely he is entitled to submit that to the consideration of hon. Members who may not be aware of the fact.
  The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member at first was in order, but I see this Clause could not possibly apply to officers, so there is no need to argue that it should not.
  Mr. THOMAS: That is not my hon. Friend's contention. He has said nothing about officers—
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Hear the sentence out.
  Mr. THOMAS: He has said nothing about officers being called upon to make this declaration on enlistment. What he has contended is that officers are given this power to-day, and because they are given this power it ought not to be denied to the private soldier. Surely a Member is entitled in a matter of this kind to use officers as merely illustrating his point.
  The CHAIRMAN: Officers are riot enlisted in the technical sense of this particular Section of the Army Act. Therefore no Amendment with regard to them can be brought under this particular Clause. Officers must use discretion, but the word "discretion" here must not be so used as to introduce a new and contentious line of argument.
  Mr. THOMAS: Would it be relevant for me to point out that the present Prime Minister, from the box that I am standing at now, declared that an officer was entitled to use his discretion and act on the dictates of his conscience in a matter that affected his position as an officer, and if it is in order to quote such a statement from the Prime Minister to prove that what is now being asked for is

  1535
  already conceded to one section of the Army, is it out of order to ask the House to consider that aspect of the case?
  The CHAIRMAN: It would not, I think, be out of order to quote the sentence of the Prime Minister, but it would be out of order so to debate on it as to raise a question which was a subject of controversy in 1914.
  Mr. THOMAS: This is not now a question of the merits. This is question of protecting the rights of Members. It is a new issue, and I am raising it purely on that ground. I again submit that my hon. Friend is entitled to draw the attention of the House to an analogous position applying to officers that he is now contending should be conceded to all soldiers. I do hope you will, at least, allow that point, because it is the only subject that for the moment we are raising on the point of Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member goes no further than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, I could say nothing, but hon. Members are not entitled, under cover of a quotation, to bring in controversial matter that is not relevant to the argument.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point or Order. I wish to ask whether, in the first place, yon rule an argument by analogy out of order and, in the second place, whether you rule out of order an argument that raises controversy?
  The CHAIRMAN: I must repeat the illustration I gave the other night. Supposing one hon. Member were complaining that another hon. Member was trying to destroy a Bill. If the hon. Member said: "The hon. Member has a passion for killing even as he killed his grandmother in the past." The argument would then be diverted to the death of the grandmother. The hon. Member would be entitled to show that he did not so kill his relative, and the Debate would be diverted from its proper channel. It is against that that I protest.
  Mr. SHINWELL: May I submit, on a point of Order, that the illustration you have used is hypothetical and is not relevant to the matter?
  Mr. PRINGLE: If your ruling now is accurate it justifies, first, argument by
  1536
  analogy; secondly, a hypothetical one and, third, a controversial one.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I want, Mr. Hope, to recall to your mind that when you and others occupied the position I am occupying here this evening, there was in my judgment very considerable latitude given in discussing this Bill. We were ruled out from discussing it on Second Reading, and I was assured by yourself from the Chair that there would be ample opportunity of discussing it in Committee, and I have never yet known so restricted a discussion on this Bill as has been laid down to us to-night. I want to protest, on my own behalf, against the doctrine that I must not use an example. I am not arguing that officers are enlisted. I am arguing that they ought to come under just such a provision as shall be provided for the ordinary soldier. I am only arguing that the officers have a privilege which I want the common soldier to enjoy, that is, the freedom to decline certain service if it is obnoxious to him, It was distinctly and definitely stated in this House that certain officers would not take service against the Ulster men if called upon. I repeat that officers in the British Army, according to Lord Roberts, have a right to exercise their conscientious objections to certain service and to refuse to undertake it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Well, it is on record that the late Lord Roberts most definitely and distinctly stated that an officer had a conscientious right to refuse to do what his conscience told him he ought not to do, and I am claiming to-night that the ordinary trade unionist who, either from choice or economic force, is driven into the Army should have the same right. He may he called upon, as he was at Featherstone, to shoot miners, or at Hull to shoot dockers, or at Llanelly to shoot railwaymen, and I say every workman in the Army should have the right to say, "No, that is something I will never do, to shoot down my own class in my own country." Therefore, we want, when the man enlists, that he shall have put before him the alternative of either accepting universal service, according to the orders of his superior officer, or that he shall have the right to sign this affirmation. We ask that the man shall be, as hon. Members opposite are, loyal to his class. There are no more loyal people to their own set than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and we want to create the same

  1537
  sort of spirit among the British workmen who have to join the Army, because whenever he is called upon to shoot and interfere in a dispute he is ranging himself or the side of the employers, the capitalists and the landlords. That is what he is doing all the time. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. Could any hon. Member tell me of any strike or ally lock-out where the possessing classes have taken sides with the workmen? You know you never have. You are ranged in a clear division against the workmen and up to now you have been able to have the Army and the Navy at your disposal. We want to prevent that in future. We do not want that in addition to the weapon of hunger and the weapon of starvation you should also have the lethal weapon of the Army with you. We do not want our people to be called upon to shoot down unemployed men and men on strike. If there are disturbances —and we do not believe there would be disturbances except for the causes that lead to the disturbances, and these causes ought to be removed—we ask you to-night to give to our people the same right that was exercised by officers in the Army, either to join the regiment or leave the regiment. We want them to have this choice. We Want the ordinary common soldier to have the same choice as the officers of the Curragh had. I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who want these privileges will vote with us and give them to the working classes as well.
  Major HARVEY: Some of the words I have heard to-night with regard to the British Army have really annoyed me so much that f have decided to speak in defence of the Army which we all realise has been one of two things—if I include the Navy which has made it possible for us to sit here to-night. A privilege has always been given to Members who rise for the first time and I hope it will be accorded to me. With regard to the suggestion that a man who enlists in the Army should sign a certain declaration that he will not in certain particular circumstances carry out the duty which lie has enlisted to do, I think the ease is very similar to the system we have heard suggested that a man who joins a certain trade union should specifically sign a declaration that for certain specific purposes he will not have to pay his contribution. I was going to speak
  1538
  about officers of the Curragh but I think, Mr. Hope, you have ruled that to be out of order. Officers certainly cannot be compared, as I think has been done, to conscientious objectors. I have the honour of serving His Majesty in the Army for some 17 years and I rather object to hearing the officers M the Army compared even by inference to conscientious objectors. One other particular thing struck me in the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He said that trade unionists are driven into the Army. Perhaps that may he, but if they join the Army, I submit that they are joining the hest trades union in the country.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must interrupt the hon. and gallant Member. The proposal before the Committee is really a limited proposal and I think he must confine himself to it.
  Major HARVEY: I was just comparing the Army to the trade unions. I should be very sorry to think that this Committee would agree to the Amendment which has been proposed, that these men should be permitted to sign a declaration of the sort which would not only permit them, but absolutely force them under certain circumstances to refuse to obey the dictates of their hearts and their conscience and really stultify their very existence as soldiers of His Majesty's Forces.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would put it. to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that this new Clause is a mistake. All that can happen if this were the law of the land would be that the man who fused to sign the form saying that he was willing to do anything he eras requested—I think that is the form would not be accepted. The result would be that you would get an Army not sympathetic to the trade unions and to the Labour movement and the last resort of the people, namely, the refusal of the troops to shoot when the worst, happened, would be gone. After all, I do not think there is any danger of revolution in this country. What happened in the French, Russian and German revolutions, three great revolutions in the last hundred years or so, was that the troops went over to the other side, the side of the people. If you are going to have an Army who are willing and eager to obey orders and

  1539
  shoot down their own class, you have that last safeguard removed.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: Is it in order for the hon. Member to talk as he does in connection with this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is rather another matter.
  4.0 A. M.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Let us not put our heads into the sand and pretend these things are impossible. We may get a Government even more stupid than the present one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Impossible.") Supposing the Die-hards went into the Government, they might use the armed force so as at to exasperate the people and such a situation would arise. I think that reason I have given is a very powerful one against this Clause and I will give another. Supposing we have a Labour Government in power and there was trouble say in Northern Ireland which threatened the security of these islands, and it was necessary to send troops to restore order there—
  Mr. McENTEE: You will never restore order there.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A great part of the officers of the Regular Army might plead for the same exemption as the soldiers. That happened of course in the case of the Curragh. I do not think it will happen again. They learned a pretty severe lesson at that time. I think the much-abused Liberal Government of that day handled the situation very well. I was an officer serving in the Navy at the time, and heard it frequently discussed.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must apply the same rule against the hon. Member as against others.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When a Labour Government come in they may need a reliable Army. It is perfectly legal to call out the Army in defence of the Civil power. You cannot get away from that. But it is necessary that Parliament should watch that there is no abuse of the Army power. Nevertheless it is necessary to have an army to keep order, and hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches may be very glad in ten years time to have an army to put down a Fascisti movement organised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. These are two very
  1540
  weighty reasons why hon. Members should not press this Amendment. I have never been abused for want of sympathy with the Trade Union or democratic movement in this country, but if hon. Members go to a division I really will be forced to vote against them.
  Mr. McENTEE rose—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have got first place, Mr. Chairman. My name is on the paper. Look at the paper, and you will see my name.
  Mr. McENTEE: I have listened to some very extraordinary arguments, but I do not think any of them has been more extraordinary than the one to which we have just listened. I suppose I shall be accused, like other hon. Members on this side of not knowing anything about the Army or having no right to speak on Army Regulations because we 'have not been in the Army. It is true that I was in the Army only for about fourteen hours. My mother then came and fetched me home. It is one of the things I always thank my mother for. The only excuse I have to offer was that I vas very young. But the argument I have heard to-night appears to be that because one has never been in the Army, therefore he has no right to discuss the problems relating to the Army. That reminds me of an argument once put to me when I was discussing a question in the local Press, that because I had never been dead I had no right to discuss the burying laws. As a trade unionist, who has been in a trade union for about thirty years, I believe from my own personal contact with men who have served in the Army, and who are now serving in trade unions, that these men, like myself, are convinced that the soldiers to-day who have been trade unionists are compelled to do something that they do not desire to do, and things that no man ought to be asked to do. I remember the Curragh incident very well, and I remember then arguing that in my opinion the decision of the officer who refused to take part in any action against their colleagues was right. It might not have been strictly within the Army Regulations. I do not know whether it was or not, but I believe that it is a thing we ought not to insist upon that men who felt as they felt on a matter of conscience, a very important religious feeling—I felt that they were right in refusing to take any action against men in

  1541
  Belfast or anywhere else. I felt for these officers and I want to say I feel the same with regard to the men in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). These men who were trade unionists in principle, and desired to carry out these principles, were compelled to fire on their fellow trade unionists. I reason that as it was in the case of these officers it should have been in the case of these men and the officers did what I think they had a right to do. If this privilege is conceded to one section of the Army, it ought to be conceded to any section of the, Army. If an officer has the right, as he appears to have, to refuse to serve against his fellow countrymen with whom he is in deep sympathy and with whom he has probably worked in the same movement, then men who are in the trade union movement, and men who are Socialists as I am and who believe in those principles of Socialism for which we are prepared to make very great sacrifices—for which many on these benches have made great sacrifices—should have the same right as the officers. This House has no right to say to these men that they shall be called upon to shoot down their fellow countrymen—men with whom they have worked and in whose principles they believe. [AN HON. MEMBER: "No, no! "] An hon. Member whose principles they believe. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no "] An hon. Member says they do not, but does he know? I tell him that I know at the present time scores of men who are in the Army and who are Socialists.
  An HON. MEMBER: You made a general assertion that the men in the Army were Socialists.
  Mr. McENTEE: I made no such assertion. You are not quite awake. I say distinctly that there are scores and thousands of men in the Army who are proud to call themselves socialists, and I say you have no right to call upon these men to shoot down their fellow countrymen—[An HON. MEMBER: "They will not do it, either!"]—in a dispute between your class and my class. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the difference? "] Your class has got everything and my class has nothing. You have got it because you have the power to rob.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I ask hon. Gentlemen not to interrupt, and the hon. Member speaking to come to Section 80?
  Mr. McENTEE: I do not think I wandered from it. We are asking in this Clause that the men shall have a choice whether they shall enlist for any purpose of all purposes, or that they should have a choice of the limits of those things they agree to do on joining the Army. A man should be able to go to a recruiting office and say I am prepared to sell my labour as a soldier—I am prepared to defend my country against any foreign enemy but I am not prepared to defend your class interests against the class interests of my own class. We are asking you that that man should have an opportunity to limit his service to fighting the enemies of his country. Surely there is nothing unreasonable in that? If you allow that you will get a bigger and better Army and Navy because some of those who have been brought up in the beliefs I hold—and I had a share in teaching some of them—which tell us that under no circumstances should they be prepared to sell themselves to the Army, or any force, to shoot down their fellow countrymen. I shall continue, to teach that on every opportunity I get. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should feel ashamed of yourself."] I never criticised the action of the officers in the Curragh because I believed they were right, and I believe you should give to the men of the working classes the right to say whether they should enter into the full enlistment or should limit their Army service to that against an enemy from some other country. You have power to determine by your votes whether you will give us what we are asking for, but if you fail to give it now we shall take it by and by.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support this Amendment, and to draw your attention to the faces on the other side. We are seriously discussing a very serious matter to the people I represent, and it is being discussed when the average man here is not in a fit condition. [Interruption.] Come over here and look at yourselves, you are a sight for the gods. This is a very serious matter to the great majority of the people who join the British Army. They are not the officer class, they are the "have nots," and that is the reason why so

  1543
  very little interest is taken in the matter. If it were the officer class whose fate was at stake as much as the fate of the working class is at stake here it would be quite a different matter. What is at stake here? It is that our soldiers shall have the option whether they will blackleg the working class or not. As I understand the working class they have no desire to blackmail their own class. There is no discussion in which we will be able to get you men in the wrong so readily as this discussion and you have brought it upon yourselves. Here you are proving beyond all shadow of doubt that there are two classes in the British Army. We who believe that there is a class struggle in society find it exemplified here. The working man who has nothing but his labour power incorporated in his body, which he has to sell is to be denied the right to have a conscience. Your conception of an Army means that a soldier shall have no conscience, that he ceases to be a man. That is your idea of a soldier. Our idea of a soldier is a man who would be free to act, not a man to be dragooned, to be treated as if he had no soul. But I am not astonished at this, because the class opposite have no souls themselves. I would like the Government to be very careful what they do in matters of this kind. I would warn them to be very careful because you must under-stand—
  Sir A. HOLBROOK: Hear, hear!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Oh, it is very easy to say "hear, hear!" I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to this point, that not only the men in the Army but the potential soldiers outside the Army are watching very care fully the actions of the men on the benches opposite. It was no idle statement that I made in my maiden speech when I told you that the writing was on the wall. There are no two ways about it, because there is a body of men in opposition to the powers-that-be who have the confidence of the people of the country. There is no denying that fact. There never was a time in history when the powers-that-be in this country as far as the Army is concerned—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause under discussion
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am most anxious that those who are in authority to-day will exactly understand the feeling that is abroad in the country. Possibly there was a day when you could go on legislating in a given direction for the Army and for the working people, but that day has gone. It is over the border and away. The men who make up the Army were never so enlightened as they are to-day. The working class, from which it is largely drawn, and which we on these benches truly represent, were never so enlightened, or had as many men who are capable of stating their case as they have to-clay. Never in the history of the world, never at any time had the slave class so many capable men to defend them against you tyrants. Why we are so anxious that this Amendment should be accepted is because in 1911 the soldiers of this country were being organised to take the place of the railway men. Churchill was responsible for that. I suppose I dare not mention his name. I am desirous of burning in on the mind of those who are in power that we do not forget and we will not let our people forget, what has been done through actions like these by having the soldier tied. We are desirous of having the soldier free, so that any future Winston Churchills will not have the power to organise the British Army to take the place of the British working class, and of the railwaymen as in 1911. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) when he was Home Secretary used troops against the miners of the Featherstone, and the miners were murdered by Liberals. [Interruption.] It is all the same, whether it is Liberal or Tory or Coalition.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member really to come to the point.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am just on the point now. I must ask hon. and right hon. Members to accept this Amendment which has been put forward by the Labour party. Surely if you wish tc, be honest, if you do not wish to take a mean advantage of working men who have been driven by hunger and economic force—as the great majority of working lads are driven—into the British Army, I want you to have regard to the warning I have issued to you in good faith, because I believe everything I have told you about what is going on among the

  1545
  working classes as far as your fate is concerned. Having said so much, I want to appeal to you on this occasion to support the Labour party on this and every other occasion, as I believe the Labour party is the hope of Britain. Your day has gone.
  Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The speeches which have been made on this Amendment show that its supporters attach the very widest meaning to those duties to aid the civil power in connection with trade disputes from which, under their proposal, future recruits to the Army would be entitled to claim exemption. Those non-military duties which sometimes fall to the lot of the Army are, from the soldiers' point of view, the most detestable work they are called upon to undertake, but it is work which, in the interests of the community, must be carried out in emergency by the Army. For that reason it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The duties which may fall under this definition are of two classes. First, there is the very exceptional case of troops being used, not in a riot, but in a national emergency. That is a case which occurs very rarely and it is carefully hedged round with safeguards. Troops can only be used in that way in connection with a trade dispute when, in the words of the preamble of the Bill, we are considering, there is danger to the United Kingdom. Otherwise it would not he lawful for orders to be given or the troops to act. In an ordinary trade dispute there is not power under our law for troops to be used in interference with industrial matters.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it riot a fact that any magistrate can call up local troops in case of an emergency after the Riot Act has been read?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I said there were two functions to be performed. The first function is in a great emergency where troops can be called out in other than conditions of rioting. In the ordinary trade dispute there is no power to use troops.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but may I put the point to him that, in connection with the Forty Hours' dispute in Clydeside, troops were held in readiness.
  1546
  accompanied by all the paraphernalia of war, before the Riot Act was read or the magistrates or the Sheriff of the, County had given any intimation whatever to the Army authorities with regard to the dispute. The fact that the troops were held in readiness, without municipal sanction or judicial sanction, was largely responsible for the attitude of the public during the whole of the proceedings.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It was during the dispute. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SHINWELL: I submit very respectfully that with your consent, Mr. Chairman, and with the consent of the hon. Gentleman a very important point of Order was raised by me to which the hon. Gentleman was very generously and courteously going to reply. I wish to ask if it is desirable, in the interests of decorum that hon. Members opposite should interrupt. I warn them I will not stand it. I will not try to get up a row.
  Mr. SALTER: If you want a row, you can have it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There have been interruptions from every side.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My point is that, in the ordinary way, it is not in the scope of military service and authority for troops to be used in disputes. Time after time they have been asked for, and time after time the military authorities have held that it is not within the scope of military power or authority that they should be employed.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it not a fact that the troops were used in the miners' strike in 1920?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: It is a fact though.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members have no right to interrupt other Members' speeches. They should not do it on the excuse of a point of Order.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There was a case in Ireland, in Ballinasloe, which caused a good deal of comment, where in the case of the lunatic asylum, it was proposed that troops should be called out. It was decided that it would not be a proper occasion for troops to be called out. More often they are called out in

  1547
  connection with riots, but in these cases the troops merely have the obligation of ordinary citizens under the common law to use such force and no more force as is necessary to maintain the peace. A common law obligation does not only arise, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) suggests, after the Riot Act is read. The Riot Act is not an essential ingredient in the common law obligation of the citizen and the soldier as a citizen to maintain peace. All the difference that is made by the reading of the Riot Act is that anyone who disobeys it incurs penalties for felonies or misdemeanour. The obligation to maintain peace in no way depends upon it. The best the troops can do is to use their military formation and their discipline. They are not in any different position from any other citizens. The Amendment would really put the soldier above the law in this respect. It would exempt him from the obligation which is imposed upon any citizen, and it would further divide the Army into two classes with different obligations. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are divided already."] One can picture the hopeless position. The troops called out under conditions of riot and the officer trying to make out on a roll, perhaps by striking a match, what soldiers may be employed as citizens in their obligations to restore order, and those who are above the law and should perhaps be allowed to go over and join the rioters. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment told us that he objected to any Army, any Air Force or any fighting force at all and I recognise and am grateful for his frankness. He put before the Committee what was in his mind. He said that the people who joined the Army should he true to the class to which they belonged. I do not believe the Army is kept for that purpose. It is kept to be true to the nation and I can only say that if you wish to destroy the efficiency of the Army I can imagine few Amendments more likely to achieve that object than the one before the Committee.
  Mr. LUNN: I am perfectly convinced that this Amendment will become the law of the land in the not far distant future. It. is unfortunate that hon. Members on the opposite side are not allowed to deal with the point so insistently made on this side that there is a
  1548
  distinction in the Army between the officer and the ordinary soldier, and I believe it is admitted that it is true that au officer may object to undertake certain duties that he may be asked to do, and the private soldier is not in that position. We say in this Amendment that a man who has been a life-long trade unionist when he enlists in the army or is driven there through circumstances should have the option of declaring that he will not take part in shooting down his father or his brother. We think the civil force ought to be sufficient to deal with all trade disputes. Only this week we discussed another force, the special constables who are to add to the civil force. One thing I particularly want to mention. I come from the neighbourhood of Featherstone. I was at Featherstone in 1893 and saw the effect of what took place, and attended the funerals of the men who were shot down, and I know how the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was refused to be heard in Leeds not long after as a result of what took place at that time. The point with me is this: that more than one soldier refused to shoot on that occasion.
  Captain BENN: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent what occurred on that occasion. The military were summoned by the civil authorities and the Home Office had no option under the Statute but to comply with the request. Is not that a fact? I ask the hon. Gentleman whether that was not so and whether the Home Secretary had any knowledge of the circumstances?
  Mr. LUNN: It is quite sufficient for me to say that I never charged him in what I said. That is not my position. I said I know what happened at Leeds as a result of what happened at Featherstone, and the blame attached to the right hon. Gentleman by the population of the West Riding for the events that took place.
  An HON. MEMBER: The right hon. Gentleman was invited to lunch at Leeds last week.
  Mr. LUNN: That is not surprising when you know what Liberalism is in Leeds. A soldier must undertake any kind of duty or he must be treated as an offender and dealt with accordingly. We are not discussing whether we should have an Army or not, but one important

  1549
  matter that ought to be settled is that the Army ought never to be used in a trade dispute in this country. Men were told to shoot in the case of Featherstone and more than one refused to shoot. Is there any record of that? There ought to be a record of whether men did refuse, and it is because we wish to protect those who wished to refuse to shoot their relatives and friends that this Amendment is put down. I appeal to the Government that they ought to accept the Amendment. If they do not do so some other Government will do it before very long. It is absolutely necessary in the interests of equality in the treatment of our fellows that you should not, maintain an Army with a distinction between one section and another.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The question which has been discussed for some time this morning is one which has in the past presented very real difficulties, and is going to raise on many occasions a very unfortunate grievance. It is not my purpose to enter into the merits of any of the incidents to which reference has been made. I wish however to raise this question in a special form in relation to the present Government. We are face to face with the question of whether the officer and the private soldier are on the same footing. The contention put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley is that on the statements of Members of the present Government an officer is entitled to refuse duty to which he objects. There are hon. Members on the Government bench just now who have put forward that contention, and that contention, has been maintained by the head of the Government himself. I know of no other case in which the head of the Government in this country has said that an officer in the army is entitled to refuse duty to which he conscientiously objects. That is what justifies the Amendment. In a debate in this House on 23rd March, 1914, the present Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, not an irresponsible person, the heir presumptive to the premiership to which he has since succeeded, dealing with the situation at the Curragh, and to justify what the officers were alleged to have done said:
  " The House knows that we on this side have from the first held the view that to coerce Ulster is an operation which no Government under existing conditions has a
  1550
  right to ask the Army to undertake, and in our view, of course, it is not necessary to say that any officer who refuse is only per-funning his duty."
  5.0 A.M.
  That is one case. The importance of that submission is that it was made by the present Prime Minister, the head of this Government, for which all these gentlemen sitting on that Front bench are equally responsible now. At that time the Prime Minister sought to justify this as a constitutional doctrine of this country. That was why in an interruption I referred to the American War. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know what I meant when I made reference to the American War, but I knew it as the main precedent quoted by the present Prime Minister, and if they jeered about the American War they are jeering at their own leader. He said there were cases of this kind in that war, and here you have what he said on 23rd March, 1914:
  "We in this period of our country's history are not going to be less fair than was the case in England 100 years ago. At that time Great Britain was engaged in a war against the American Colonies. What happened then was described in a book which is quoted in a newspaper which I saw yesterday, by Sir George Trevelyan:—
  "'That war was marked by a feature unique in English history. Not a few officers of every grade, who were for the main part distinguished by valour and ability, flatly refused to serve against the Colonies, and their scruples were respected by their countrymen in general and by the King and his Ministers as well.'"
  There you have the Prime Minister, on 23rd March, 1914, stating that an officer in the Army was entitled to refuse to perform a duty to which he conscientiously objected. If that is a sound doctrine Members of the House are entitled to put forward an Amendment and ask that the same doctrine should he extended to the private soldier. They are entitled to do that until the Government disavow the doctrine put forward by the Prime Minister. There is a dilemma. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) did not accept that doctrine. Now, for the first time, we have a Prime Minister who says the officer who has a conscientious objection is entitled to down tools. [An HON. MEMBER: "Constitutionalism goes bang."] Then what is to be the position of the private soldier? Is there any hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench in a position to disavow that doctrine?

  1551
  Is he going to throw over the Prime Minister without authority? The House is placed in a position in which we do not know what the position of the Government is on this vital matter. The Prime Minister is not here: there is nobody here to talk for him. We cannot tell what the view of the Prime Minister is, and it entirely depends upon his view what line the Committee is to take upon this Amendment. They cannot say in respect of this Amendment that they are applying the same principle to the officer as to the private soldier; until this doctrine is disavowed they cannot say that. There is no man on the Front Bench who can tell us the view of the Prime Minister, but I am glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty here, for he distinguished himself in these debates of 1914. He is one of the gentlemen who got information from the officers of the Curragh and put questions by the hundred to the hon. Member for Paisley. He was one of the confederates of the mutineers. In the present Government we have not only the Prime Minister who laid down this doctrine but we have, holding one of the most responsible positions, as head of one of the fighting services, one who has been in the past a confederate of mutineers and who has supported them in their mutiny in this House. I am not so sure about the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In regard to the question of Ulster my hon. Friend undoubtedly took a leading part, but. I have no speech of his and am not going to quote him in regard to a matter in which I have no evidence to convict him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies took part in these Debates, and he was one of the supporters of this doctrine also.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think what the Prime Minister did on the Curragh debates has anything to do with this.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not want to go into history, and I am only dealing with the principle of the right of officers to refuse to obey orders to which they conscientiously object.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Ds you want to quote me?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I know the hon. Gentleman took part in the Debate, but I do not want to enter into details. I am merely dealing with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are now Ministers of the Crown, and who took sides on behalf of the men who refused to obey orders. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head and if he asserts that he did not associate himself I will at once accept the disavowal. I have not read the text of his speech and therefore I do not wish to suggest that he went further than he actually did. I have selected, as I pointed out, the Prime Minister because after all he is the most important. He is the head of the Government in a special sense because where would the Government be if he was not there? During a period of temporary incapacity we have seen to what straits the Government has been reduced and consequently he assumes a position of peculiar authority and responsibility in regard to the present Government. That is why his statement on this matter has a special importance and significance. That is why in my view so long as this statement in regard to officers is not disavowed the Committee is entitled to claim the same privilege for private soldiers.
  I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of consulting him upon this Amendment. They have probably forgotten the indiscretion of March, 1914. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is here; possibly he is a changed man now. We should be very glad to hear if he is. If he is not, of course, then we can claim that we must go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. We admire the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman. He has always been consistent. He has never flinched and as he never flinched I am quite sure that he would even at the expense of his present Ministerial position go into the Lobby in support of his convictions. Before coming to a decision on this particular Amendment we should know where the Prime Minister stands. If the Government will undertake to get an assurance on this matter from the Prime Minister then I think we ought to move to report Progress so that we may have that assurance before the Committee comes to a decision. I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Under Standing 'Order 23 I refuse to accept that Motion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not important that on a matter of this kind the views of the Prime Minister should be ascertained?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery)rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the' Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 88.]

  AYES.

  [5.14 a.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Pease, William Edwin

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Pennetather, De Fonblanque

  Amery, Rt. Hen. Leopold C M.S.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Penny, Frederick George

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Furness, G. J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Garland, C. S.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Philipson. Hilton

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Pielou, D. P.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Pownall, Lleut.-Colonel Assheton

  Banks, Mitchell

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Privett, F. J.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Raine, W.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Becker, Harry

  G wynne, Rupert S.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Rees. Sir Beddoe

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Halstead, Major D.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remer, J. R.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Robertson, J. D (Islington, W.)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Button, H. S.

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Campion, Lleut.-Colonel W, R.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Stanley, Lord

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Terrell. Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Manvlile, Edward

  Tubbs. S. W.

  Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A.C.(Honlton)

  Willey, Arthur

  Ednam, Viscount

  Murchlson, C. K.

  Winterton, Earl

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wise, Frederick

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Nield. Sir Herbert

  Yerburgh, H. D. T.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Gadfray

  Paget, T. G.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Batey, Joseph

  Bonwick, A.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Aburtillery)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Barnes, A.

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Broad, F. A.

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Buckie, J.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)

  Sexton, James

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Darblshire, C. W.

  Kenworthy, Lleut.-Commander J. M.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Dudgeon, Major C, R.

  Lawson, John James

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Leach, W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dunnico, H.

  Lee, F.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sullivan, J.

  Enwistle, Major C. F.

  Lowth, T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Foot, Isaac

  M'Entee, v. L.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, plalstow)

  Gosling, Harry

  McLaren, Andrew

  Turner, Ben

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenall, T.

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)

  Warne, G. H.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Middleton, G.

  Weir, L. M.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Groves, T.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Westwood J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Wheatley, J.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Oliver, Goorge Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hardie, George D.

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (N'castle, E.)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Herriotts, J.

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwicn)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 197.

  Division No. 89.]

  AYES.

  [5.22 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Herriotts, J.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothweil)

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Sexton, James

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Brotherton, J.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Buckie, J.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Burgess, S.

  Kenworthy, Lleut.-Commander J. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Cairns, John

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Leach, W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee. F.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Linfield, F. C.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lowth, T.

  Turner, Ben

  Ede, James Chuter

  M Entee, V. L.

  Wallhead, Richard C,

  Foot, Isaac

  McLaren, Andrew

  Warne, G. H.

  Gosling, Harry

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

  Weir, L. M.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Middleton, G.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N )

  Westwood, J.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wheatley. J.

  Groves, T.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Whiteley, w.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Paling, w.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Wright, W.

  Hardie, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Riley, Ben

  Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson, J.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Astor. J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Banks, Mitchell

  Barnett, Major Richard w.

  Garland, C. S.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Barnston, Major Harry

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Becker, Harry

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Penny, Frederick George

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Berry, Sir George

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Greene, Lt.-Col- Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bonwick, A.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Privett, F. J.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Raine, W.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Remer, J. R.

  Briggs, Harold

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hlley, Sir Ernest

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonol A.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Button, H. S.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Houfton. John Plowright

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W, R.

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Clayton, G. C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Cope, Major William

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lord

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Manville, Edward

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Waring, Major Walter

  Ednam, Viscount

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Wells, S. R.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Entwistle. Major C. F.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Willey, Arthur

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Winterton, Earl

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Wise, Frederick

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M,

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Fawkes. Major F. H.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Paget, T. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Furness, G. J,

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Gibbs.

  The CHAIRMAN: I have decided to allow the next four Amendments to be put separately, on the understanding that there be one Debate in the whole question of the death penalty.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, will you agree to let us debate a very vital question without the Closure being applied?
  Mr. THOMAS: We are desirous of endeavouring to meet your wishes. It has obvious advantages. I gather by your suggestion that the Debate would
  1558
  take a wider range. According to your suggestion the Amendments would not be debated separately. In return for that, perhaps the Government would give us some undertaking that reasonable time will be given and that we will not be closured.

  NEW CLAUSE.— (Amendment Of Section 4).
  In Section four of the Army Act, for the words "shall on conviction by court martial be liable to stiffer death, or such less' punishment at; is in this Act mentioned" there

  1559
  shall be substituted the words "shall on conviction by court martial be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life or any shorter period (not less than three years), or to such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Amendment has the very definite object of abolishing the death penalty. The Section of the Act lays down that there should be certain definite penalties, and a series of offences is set down in the Section. Previous to the beginning of the War it was the general opinion in this country, as far as the public at any rate were concerned, that the death penalty for desertion and other things was intended to apply to a good many armies in the world but not to all armies. It was known, of course, that as far as soldiers were concerned there was a death penalty in military law. I understand that when Volunteers and the Militia and so forth met at stated periods this Section was read out to the men who heard it so often that they laughed at it and no one took the matter seriously. if the average citizen in this country before the War had been asked with what he associated the death penalty he would have said it was something connected with the jack-boot armies, but not with his army. I think it was a shock to the ideals of the people of this country to find that their own sons and brothers were being shot in cold blood. I wonder if the public understands exactly how many people were shot. It has usually been very difficult to get to know exactly how far the matter went. Sometimes there was a little news by way of a letter, sometimes a case appeared in the Press, but during the past four years it has been the most difficult thing in the world to find out how many people were shot upon the field for various offences. This afternoon I received an answer from the War Office which, as far as I am concerned, will be invaluable information. I am informed that the number of cases in which death sentences were carried out for desertion on active service during the late War was 264. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How many under 18?"] It is true there was a much larger number sentenced to death.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is it in order for Members of this House to lie down on the benches.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it in order for Members of the Front Bench to use the Front Bench as a sleeping bench?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is consecrated by immemorial use.
  Mr. LAWSON: The number of men who were really sentenced to death was well over 2,000, and it is to the credit of the Commander-in-Chief that the great bulk of the men were pardoned. In the case of 264 men, however, the sentence was carried out not for offences for which they would have been indictable in a civil court but simply for desertion. One thing was certain, there were no generals among these people. When Voltaire wrote his "Letters on England"—a book which made a considerable stir—Voltaire claimed the admiration of the people of France on the ground that occasionally we shot a general or an admiral to show there was no distinction among classes. He thought it was a matter for pride. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was only the other ranks that were counted among these 264 men. There were times when the men deserted from their posts—a serious matter.
  Captain BOWYER: Involving the lives of many others.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is it not notorious that time and again there were occasions when generals during the late War were guilty of mistakes as a result of which thousands and thousands of men's lives were lost? What did they do on that occasion? They were recalled. I want to suggest that during the next war we should recall the other ranks instead of shooting them. I cannot understand why it should be said that a man highly placed who is guilty of the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives should be less guilty than a man who deserts his post and is only going to lose a few lives.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Does the hon. Gentleman allege that any man of the rank and file was shot for making a mistake?
  Mr. LAWSON: I am going to allege that, too.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: You may, but you cannot prove it.
  Mr. LAWSON: And I will demonstrate it out of the mouth of a Member on the opposite Benches, a man who, with great feeling, in 1919 told this House that he had to sit upon a court-martial where five men were sentenced to death. Some of these men were young men eighteen years of age. Some of them were men whose wives and families were waiting for them at home. In many cases they were volunteers. War is barbarism, but there is nothing more barbaric than that a man should be tied up to a stake and. have twelve rifles levelled at him and be shot to death by his fellow countrymen. It is no wonder that it is very difficult to get information upon this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for North- West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) made a speech in this House in 1919 in which he asked the House to destroy the records of men who had been shot for desertion and in which he asked that the same care should be given to the graves of those men as was given to the graves of men who fell in the face of the enemy. He said:
  "I should like to obtain an assurance from the Secretary for War that there shall he no difference made between the graves of those men who were killed in action or died of wounds or disease and those unfortunate men who paid the penalty of their lives under Sections 4 and 12 of the Army Act or who, in other words, were tried by court-martial and shot for cowardice or desertion in face of the enemy. I bring this forward because it has been on my conscience for some time."
  Courage was a very prominent feature during the war, but I think the bravest men were those who admitted very often that they were afraid. The hon. Gentle- man continued:
  " It has been on my conscience for some time, as, unfortunately, during the very early days of the War, the early winter of 1914, it was my unfortunate duty to sit on a court-martial at which five men were sentenced to death. I do not know in how many cases that sentence was commuted. I felt I could not inquire, and I thought it better not to ask, but now that the War is over I want, if possible, to make amendment, because during the whole sitting of that Court I had an uncomfortable feeling that even with my limited knowledge of law I could have got each one of those men off on a technicality if I had been in a position to act as a friend. I knew nothing about courts-martial in those days. What does an ordinary Territorial captain know about courts- martial? Nothing, less than nothing. I was sitting on a court-
  1562
  martial for this reason, that the brigade had been decimated; indeed, it had been practically annihilated. Out of 130 officers who left England a month or two previously there was scarcely one left of sufficient length of service to entitle him to sit on a court-martial. The battalion to which I had the honour to belong was called upon to find a very large proportion of officers for court-martial duty, and I was called upon to serve. I ask the House not to dismiss this petition by the remark that these men were cowards and deserved their fate. They were not cowards in the accepted meaning of the word. At any rate, they did not display one-tenth part of the cowardice that was displayed by the crowds in London who went flocking to the tube stations on the first alarm of an air raid. These men, ninny of them, volunteered in the early days of the War to serve their country. They tried and they failed. In many cases they were the victims of circumstances. Admiral Byng is not the only man in history who has been shot in order to encourage the others. In many cases, it was necessary to make an example of them."
  There is one who showed extraordinary courage in stating the facts as he found them in actual practice, and I want to ask hon. Members to dismiss from their minds the idea that those men who were shot were cowards. We ask men to take on one of the most awful contracts that a man ever undertook. If a man in civilian life makes a contract, it does not matter very much if he breaks it. Indeed if he is a minor the contract in certain circumstances does not hold at all. If he is under twenty-one years of age it may not apply, but if a boy of eighteen years of age enlists he has to accept a contract which involves death. It. involves a great many things. It involves going on I o the barrack square and giving up his mind and his will completely. A barrack square is one of the most soul-killing places on God's earth. A boy by this contract has to take on himself the onus of giving his time and his body, and it involves even the penalty of death in certain circumstances. I say that is a contract we ought not to ask any man to accept. It is true he gets something in return. It may be said he may want adventure. It is quite true he gets it all right he gets more than his fill in a very short time. It may be said that he freely accepts the contract, hut that is not true. The great bulk of the men to-clay who have accepted that contract since the Armistice have accepted it under duress of the stomach. It is passing strange that in these days of ours of the twentieth century we will clothe

  1563
  a man, feed him, and give him a horse to ride upon if needs be, that we will give him a passage overseas, send him to sunny climes, that, in abort, we will do anything in the work of death and destruction but we will riot even consider the possibility of doing something for the things of life and construction. They accept this contract which involves so much, and I say they accept it under duress. During my time as member of the House I have heard a great deal about court martial. I have bad the report of the Army Select Committee on the investigation into court-martial methods, and it all reads very fine. In actual practice when the machine is going, and the guns are roaring, and there is chaos and destruction over hundreds of miles I think that in actual practice the arrangements as laid down for courts martial do not quite work out. On many grounds, from the point of view of the contract, from the point of view of humanity, from the point of view of fairness and justice, we ought really to consider the abolition of the death penalty. I would draw the attention of the House to one fact which came to my knowledge quite recently. I was talking to a man who had been in the Foreign Legion for some years. The average person would think that in the Foreign Legion punishments were very severe. I thought that resort to the death penalty would be greater than in almost any other fighting force, and yet I am informed by this man that there is no such thing as the death penalty for desertion in the face of the enemy or abandoning positions. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought they got shot on the spot!"] As a matter of fact they do not get shot at all. The maximum penalty is five years for desertion. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not so!"] I am relying upon my authority, and what. I am saying is in harmony with my knowledge of the man's veracity.
  6.0 A.M.
  There is another side of this problem—there is the ranker's side. It is seldom we get news even from the men who have been in the vicinity of the men shot. The fighting men themselves do not place any reflection upon these men. Here is an incident I am going to repeat to this House of a man who himself was in prison with a sentence of 10 years. He finally had his sentence repealed and was reinstated in rank as a non-commissioned officer through the good
  1564
  activity and influence of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). This man came back to his work as a signalman, and he tells the facts as he knew them. These are the facts as they are going among the workers and as they are being told from street corner to street corner by men who knew. I will read this article from the "Forward." Although some hon. Members may not have any very high opinion of the "Forward," I was never so much moved in my life as I was in reading this article. The man heads his article:
  "Reminiscences of the Great War for Liberty: Devon Lads Shot at Dawn."
  They came from the same county as I come from, arid he tells his own story. This is the story, and I am going to accept the story because I have met him. He says:
  "It all happened when I was a sojer: The month of December, 1916, found me in a filthy manure soaked barn—a British rest billet! All through one terribly cold wet day we had marched from the British front at Arras to this back area 20 kilometers behind the lines."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to sneer and laugh. They are not going to do it on this matter. I have handled a serious matter in a serious manner, and I am not going to allow anyone to laugh at this serious question.
  "At that time the ' war correspondent of the Daily Mail' had been sending home some ridiculous reports regarding the love and fellowship existing between officers and men. The flowery phrases from his ever-flowing beautiful pen depicted us as a beautiful band of brave British brethren, The people at home swallowed the soothing dope—the ancient armchair critics egged on every available pint of young blood—my mates laughed cynically. Well, said he, as I eat down to write a letter to the Harms-worth Press in order to tell the facts, I pointed out not how we were winning the war, but just exactly how we should lose it. I exposed the enormous wastage of our available forces, the diversion of battalions of bayonet strength to the whims and fancies of the officers; I appealed to the Mail ' to ginger up the War Office to the importance of utilising our men as soldiers, and not as wet-nurses to the star-glad gentry—that we might get on with or get out of this seemingly everlasting conflict. Of course my letter had to be censored. Honest idiot that I was, I made no effort to evade it. I did think first of dodging local censorship by using a green envelope,' but ultimately sent it through the ordinary channel.…Next morning I was put under

  1565
  arrest and hauled before the General.…When I first entered the improvised military prison I found it already occupied by five more Tummies."
  The CHAIRMAN: The writer appears to me to be attacking the system of Army punishments and sentences generally. This particular Amendment has only to do with the death penalty.
  Mr. LAWSON: I was reading one of the few instances in which a man has told the facts as he has seen them. He tells us he was in an improvised prison with five men, and they told him what the trouble was. They said that orders had been given that if a certain post was lost somebody would be in for it. General Headquarters would want to know why. Well, it was lost. There was an attempt to use an elementary kind of gas cylinders, and so the Germans got round and it was lost. The men were court-martialled. Two were sentenced to 10 years and three of them were sentenced to death. And this is what he says:
  "'Come out, you' ordered the Corporal of the guard to me. I crawled forth. It was snowing heavily. 'Stand there!' he said, pushing me between two sentries. 'Quick march!' and away we went, not as I dreaded, to my first taste of pack drill,' but out and up the long street to an R.E. dump. There the police corporal handed in a chit,' whereupon three posts, three ropes and a spade were given me to carry back. Our return journey took us past the guard room, up a short hill until we reached a secluded spot surrounded by trees.…Certain measurements were made in the snow, after which I was ordered to dig three holes at stipulated distances apart. I began to wonder. …Could it be…? No, perhaps spies…perhaps oh, perhaps only my fancy.…The next scene a piercingly cold dawn; a crowd of brass hats, the medical officer, and three firing parties. Three stakes a few yards apart and a ring of sentries around the woodland to keep the curious away. A motor ambulance arrives conveying the doomed men. 'Manacled and blindfolded they are helped out and tied up to the stakes. Over each man's heart is placed an envelope. At the sign of command the firing parties, twelve to each, align their rifles on the envelopes. The officer in charge holds his stick aloft and as it falls 36 bullets usher the souls of three Kitchener's men to the great unknown. As a military prisoner I helped clear the traces of that triple murder. I took the posts down…I helped carry those bodies towards their last resting place; I collected all the blood-soaked straw and burnt it. Acting upon police instructions I took all their belongings from the dead men's tunics (discarded before being shot). A few letters, a pipe, some fags, a
  1566
  photo. I could tell you of the silence of the military police after reading one letter from a little girl to dear Daddy,' of the blood-stained snow that horrified the French peasants; of the chaplain's confession that braver men he had never met than those three men he prayed with just before the fatal dawn…I could take you to the graves of the murdered."
  Is it not a fact within the knowledge of Members of this House that time and again when men were pardoned they went forward and gave evidence of the greatest courage, demonstrating that 'anything might happen to the bravest men at a certain moment under certain circumstances? The time has come when, whatever may be the alternative penalty this House lays down, that the time has arrived when, in the interests of the men who may serve in the days to come, in the interests of the honour of this country we ought to abolish this death penalty, and I have great pleasure in moving.
  Major PAGET: It is naturally with very deep feelings that any soldier or anyone who has been a soldier approaches this subject, because there is not the very slightest doubt that the most painful duty any officer can be detailed to is to sit on a death sentence court-martial and feel that in his hands rests the life of another man. I can assure all hon. Members of this Committee that if there is a possible loophole an officer can find, remembering the oath he takes, to save the life of the prisoner before him I am absolutely certain that I have never met an officer who would not avail himself of that loophole. I think the very numbers the hon. Member has quoted—I do not know whether the hon. Member included all death sentences or only those for desertion—
  Mr. LAWSON: Just those for desertion.
  Major PAGET: When one thinks there were five million of men under arms, mostly for the matter of between three or four years, and when we remember the magnificent discipline all through our Armies, I do not think we would be very wise to alter that system of discipline so rapidly as is suggested in this new Clause, because I do not think it would in any way effect the result we all desire. After all, war is an extremely bloody business, and in dealing with the contract which the hon. Member has alluded to we

  1567
  must remember that when all is said and done, it is a soldier's job to kill. After one had been out to the front for some time, one lived under absolutely un-believe-able conditions which have been rightly described as the life of a sewer rat, one slept and walked with death always as his nearest neighbour. A friend of mine who was in my battery said to me "Lor' lumme, guvnor, Dart-moor was heaven to this."
  Mr. J. JONES: He was a pal of yours?
  Major PAGET: Yes, he was a pal of mine and a pal I would own anywhere, and I am not ashamed to say I had a pal who had been in Dart-moor. There must be a death penalty which could induce a man, whose vitality was low at the time, not when he was well fed and feeling fit, but in the grey dawn when you are hanging on by your eyelids, cold, exhausted, hungry and deadly frightened to go forward. No man who has been under concentrated shell-fire for any length of time does not know what deadly fear is. One must have something to counteract that, and if one knows that the only alternative to not hanging on and chancing death in front when the moral is low and the vitality is low: when one knows that to run means only disgrace and death, that has a very great effect at the bad moments of which I am speaking. There is no alternative. Panic is like a germ; it spreads and becomes infectious. I know of more than one case where an N.C.O. saved the situation by shooting an officer who panicked. It is at a moment when the man's brain goes and his self-control goes that the death penalty not only saves the life of the individual but saves the whole situation and enables him to hang on. In regard to what has been said about the Foreign Legion, I wish to say that I had a brother officer who served in the Foreign Legion and he told me that the maximum penalty is five years spent in what is called a punitive battalion where, as it was described to me, death would be a happy release from the miseries a man has to undergo in some of the worst climates and doing hard manual work under distressing conditions and with abominable food.
  As to what the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) read from a paper, I can only
  1568
  say that the man who wrote a letter of that sort was a man who would be spreading disaffection all through the Service, and that is the greatest crime a man can commit. There may have been bad officers, and there certainly were, but I have always met with the most loyal support, and in many instances deep personal kindness, which men rendered to me outside their duty.
  Mr. LAWSON: I did not wish to suggest that there was any laxity or tendency to over-strictness on the part of the officers. There are scallywags on both sides.
  Major PAGET: I was simply alluding to the terms of the letter the hon. Member read out. I think there is in the British Army, more than in any army in the world, a less respect for the mere signs of rank and a great respect, whether it comes from the officers or the men, for the man himself and not for the uniform he wears. I therefore feel that with great regret in a way, I cannot support this Clause, because I do not feel it would in a great war tend to the safety of life. That it would have a demoralising effect at times when everything that a man wants is gone and when he is practically a lunatic is certain. He should have the fixed idea that in front was a chance of life, but that in going back there was nothing but death and disgrace.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to support the Amendment for the reason that sometimes mistakes are made. During a period of detention there would be some opportunity of a mistake being cleared up. I assisted the Government during the War by recruiting among the mining population and I know of a case of a young man in a mining village who could not get work for two years before the War because he was mentally deficient. Somehow or other he was passed into the Army by a doctor and the next we heard of him was that he was executed for deserting his post. That was murder and nothing else. The man was mentally weak, everybody in the village knew it and his mother knew it. If there was any justification for the death sentence it was in the case of the doctor who had passed him into the Army. I have nothing to say against the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Major Paget). I think his tone was good and sympathetic, but

  1569
  we on this side of the Committee think killing is a dreadful thing, and I was reminded in the course of this Debate that nearly everybody in this House believes we should have no more war. If we believe in that we do not require these penalties. I hope the next war is a long way off, but I want to warn the hon. and gallant Member that the probability is that the next war will strike mole people than the active combatant and that if the death penalty has to be served out to the soldier it might be possible that it will go behind the soldier and reach somebody else, and I sincerely hope the hon. Members on the opposite side, who we believe act from conviction and think that it is essential to keep this dreadful alternative, will change their views after the speech of the hon. Member on this side who told us about the age of the boy who joined the Army. Everybody knows there were lads of 17 and 18 who were practically schoolboys with none of the training and feeling of men. It is quite possible for these lads under dreadful fire such as the hon. Member has mentioned to make a slip and instead of getting a chance to be hurled into the unknown. People get to know that and feel strongly against a Government which commits crimes of that, kind.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): We have listened to three speeches which have been of a sincere and serious tone, but so Far as I can see the criticisms in regard to the Clause have not been directed against the way the sentences are carried out, but rather against the penalty itself. There is, of course, a body of opinion in this country who say that under no circumstances should the death penalty be carried out either in civil or military cases. As long as we do recognise in this country that there are cases in which the full death penalty should be exercised I think nobody would really dispute the fact that if the death sentence should be carried out on the man who kills another man by fighting or murder, it should equally be carried out when we are in a state of war, and the various acts which are enumerated in these Clauses are carried out. For example, if the death penalty is to be carried out at all, surely a man who behaves treacherously or a man who imperils the safety of His Majesty's Forces is deserving of death. My duty is really to point out to the
  1570
  Committee that the Government cannot give way on this question of doing away entirely with the death sentence. I would point out to the Committee that under existing Regulations men who are sentenced to death have really a greater chance of leniency by court-martial than they have if they were tried by civil courts. What exactly is the process they go through? This matter was very carefully considered by an impartial body of men under the presidency of Mr. Justice Darling, and after taking evidence on this question they issued a Report and they say that during the recent War not a single officer or soldier was sentenced to death by a court-martial in the United Kingdom. Abroad a certain number of: death sentences were carried out. In each case they were carried out only after personal consideration by and upon the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, and after the Judge Advocate-General or his deputy had advised. Moreover, when considering them the Commander-in-Chief almost invariably had before him recommendations from the officers commanding the Unit to which they belonged, the Brigade, the Division, the Corps, and the Army. That means that if a man were condemned to death, before the sentence was carried out it was considered carefully by six different men, and surely a man had a better chance than if he had been tried by a civil court and had only the chance of a recommendation to mercy by the Home Secretary.
  The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) read a letter from a paper named the "Forward" in which a most distressing case was set forth. He cannot expect me to answer that, when he has not one tittle of evidence to prove that it was true. I cannot conceive that after going through the process which must have taken place before any man was condemned that this distressing case could have been carried out. To prove that I would remind him that on his own statement, out of a large number of cases in which sentence of death was passed, the death sentence was not carried alit in 89 per cent. of the men. That shows that leniency was exercised to a very full extent, and hon. Members opposite feel very strongly that the death sentence should in no case be carried out, but I would remind them that at the present moment a very few miles from these

  1571
  shores, in the Irish Free State, against which hon. Members opposite seem to have no complaint, more death sentences have been carried out in a few months than there have been in this country for many years. We have got the death penalty, and as long as we have got it we must see that we have an opportunity of enforcing it in the Army.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am one of those who believe that there never was an occasion when the public conscience was so aroused against capital punishment in general than at this moment. Recent events, and especially the hanging of that unfortunate woman, gave an opportunity to test public opinion in a very marked way. I hope the time will come shortly when this House will be given a chance of debating the general question, when I am sure the very strong volume of opinion in the House will reflect the greater volume of opinion outside for the abolition of the death penalty. The Financial Secretary rather challenged the statement of my hon. Friend in his quotation from the "Forward." That quotation was taken originally from the "Railway Review," and the boy mentioned I knew from birth. He grew up with me on the railway. He was on my engine, and I can remember the morning I got the letter intimating that he had received 10 years. The Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was then at the War Office. I promptly went to the War Office and asked at least that an investigation should be made. The investigation was made. The lad was acquitted. He rendered good service after, and he told me that to-day he is prepared to go with any British officer and direct him to the spot where these lads were shot. You have only got to talk to this boy about the impression on his mind of the torture of these young boys who were shot. If hon. Members would only listen first hand to what took place there would be no hesitation about their voting for this Amendment. The objections briefly stated by the other side are that this penalty is necessary in the interests of discipline, and because it would be impossible to maintain an army if this penalty were not exacted.
  That, in short, is the case presented from the other side. In order to test that let us visualise the circumstances which bring it about. My own boy did
  1572
  not wait. At 17½ he joined. To us he was a mere child. He knew nothing about the Army and had never handled a gun. His whole training had been in the opposite direction. When such a lad went into the Army should anyone wonder if his nerves would go under some terrible circumstances of fire. But under the military law such a boy could be charged with cowardice in front of the enemy. If there is substance in the case for the other side you must show that a boy when he was tempted to run away would say to himself "I will be shot if I do" and that is sufficient to make him do his duty. That is not only inconceivable but foreign to the facts of the case. I will challenge any right hon. Gentlemen to get up from that bench and say that they believe for a moment that these boys—and many of them were boys—thought of the punishment that would follow.
  Major PAGET: I certainly think it would be the case, and in many cases I know it.
  Mr. THOMAS: I pay tribute to the sincerity and absolutely human speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. I will give the details of a case—for obvious reasons I am not mentioning names—where a. very young battalion under exceptional circumstances took flight. The officers had to go round and shoot. I know some who were shot—boys—not by a court martial. A panic had set in and no one would pretend that a whole regiment of boys under such circumstances would say to themselves that the death penalty followed if they ran away. The whole circumstances and atmosphere were foreign to such considerations. In voting for this Amendment we do not say that there must not be some disciplinary measure. We give you the alternative of penal servitude and, if you are right in your contention, and if a soldier has got this particular penalty in mind, will he say. "If I run away it will be penal servitude for life." We have got to look at this thing from the human point of view. We all agree that the cases are, happily very small in number. I believe the fact that they are very few in number show that that kind of offence or crime is happily rare in the Army. My hon. Friend gave indication of the kind of care with which this matter has been considered and he indicated that Mr. Justice Darling presided over a committee. But

  1573
  any member of this House, or a layman sitting down to review the circumstances of the death penalty, would be in an entirely different atmosphere, and the learned judge has been trained in a different atmosphere where he has dealt with murderers.
  It is pointed out that the Judge Advocate General is always consulted on the matter, but the hen. Gentleman knows perefectly well this is a matter of psychology. The Judge Advocate General is not on the spot of the actual incident. You will be making a mistake in your own interests if you argue that them has been no change in the feeling of the people of this country on this point. If it is to be held you can only maintain your Army by the fear of the death penalty, and men will not do their duty in battle without it, all your argument about the love of country and people who are prepared to die for the cause vanishes. I am not going to say a word about the manner in which the Front Bench has met us in this matter. We have discussed very important questions without passion and with good temper on both sides. They have given us nothing. We have enabled them to have relays and to take rest and we have not protested. We have, how-veer, reached a stage where you should be more generous. You have been generous in speeches now the time has come to be generous in substance. You are being asked to consider something big and human, and whether you refuse it now the time will shortly come when it will be conceivably far better in your interests and in the interests of the Army to respond to this appeal which is right and just. The Government should show that it wishes to do what is right and just and not merely delay this until you are compelled to do it by circumstances which will be far more disastrous than the circumstances of conceding it.
  Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: I desire to point out that the whole of the arguments are equally applicable to the ordinary penalty of capital punishment in the Criminal Courts of this land. The penalty in the Army is an alternative penalty, whereas in an ordinary murder case before the Criminal Courts in this land the only penalty is death. In cases which might very often be far worse than murder there is the alternative penalty of penal servitude for life, and one cannot
  1574
  imagine a greater crime than a deliberate sacrifice on the part of a soldier to his regiment or to his country's interest. Why should a man escape the penalty when a man at home who has committed a single murder is hanged? It seems to me that we are liable to allow sentiment to overcome common sense in this matter. Every one of us has sympathy for the man who has failed by fear. At the same time, we have to maintain the punishment as a deterrent against the wicked man who runs away on purpose and causes disaster. In order to have adequate punishment in such cases, I think the sentence of death or, alternatively, penal servitude should be maintained.
  Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I listened to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). He has made out a very reasoned case for the acceptance of the Amendment and he has been fortified by another excellent speech from the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). But in my humble judgment the best speech in favour of this Amendment was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bos-worth (Major Paget). If I remember clearly, his statement was that a man who is cold, hungry and tired, whose mind was gone, who was really incapable of thinking, that the only alternative to compel that man to carry on was the fear of the death sentence that was behind him. I venture to say that in no country in the world, in no Court of Justice, would the sentence of death be carried out upon a man whose mentality was such. Not long since this House passed an Act to protect women who had murdered their infants from having the death sentence passed upon them, and when we are told that 89 per cent. of the death sentences that have been passed upon soldiers have been remitted it only shows the degree of carelessness in the way these sentences have been imposed. The right hon. gentleman who answered from the Government Bench said that he cannot do away altogether with the death sentence at the present time, and may I suggest, having regard to the fact that the first Amendment is for an alteration to Section 6 of the Army Act, that the right hon. Gentleman might find words that would be possibly acceptable to the Mover of this Amendment without accepting it in its

  1575
  entirety. If we turn to Section 6 of the Army Act we are told that a soldier who does violence to any person bringing provisions or supplies to the Forces or commits any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant of or resident in the country in which he is serving, such a man might have the sentence of death imposed upon him. I am not quite sure that that has been rigidly carried out in the past.
  Only a year or two ago those unspeakable friends who were sent to Ireland in the guise of the Black and Tans destroyed and looted property, and I am not quite sure whether they were executed and shot down according to military law. The same thing applied to an earlier period of our history in South Africa. Another Section says that any person who irregularly detains or appropriates to his own corps, battalion, or detachment any provision or supply proceeding to the Forces contrary to any orders issued in that respect may also suffer death. I remember during the War one case that came particularly under my notice of a young boy who joined the Army when be was 17 years of age, and yet after he had been in the War for something like 18 months, and having been 76 hours continuously on duty, he was then put on sentry guard, but, unfortunately, fell asleep, and was shot for deserting his post. I venture to say that any system that imposes a brutal sentence of that character stands absolutely condemned. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has pointed out, there has been since the War a great wave of sympathy, a great wave of humanity passing over us, and has even touched the War Office, the last place on God's earth where one would ever expect to find any touch of humanity. Field Punishment No. 1 has gone. Many things will have to go. The old Junker method of conducting the Army system of this country cannot be maintained to-day. It is entirely out of sympathy with modern ideas and modern demands. The time is now ripe when this House ought to accept, if not the Amendments in their entirety, and if they cannot do away with the death penalty altogether, that they should certainly revise the rules of these barbarous proposals. If we cannot abolish war we can make war at least as decent as such a thing will allow.
  7.0 A.M.
  Captain BERKELEY: It is quite clear that no civilised country wants to exact the death penalty in the case of young lads, and I am sure that is not the intention of the Act of Parliament. I was very much impressed by what was said as to the possibility of some alternative formula which would satisfy the Mover of this Amendment. It occurs to me to ask whether the Under-Secretary of State for War would not be prepared, in view of the great success which was attained during the War by what I believe was called the Suspension of Sentences Act under which sentences of penal servitude and imprisonment—I do not think it applied to the death penalty —were suspended and the man returned to his unit and a report was made after a period and the case reviewed—whether the right hon. Gentleman would not be prepared to assent to a proviso in this Section of the Act to this effect: "Provided that the death penalty shall be suspended in the case of first offenders for a period of six months for the purpose of a further report being made by the commanding officer of the condemned man." I do not suggest that the phraseology is right; that could be drawn up by the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Mr. SNELL: It is a matter of great regret to the Members on this side of the House that the Financial Secretary to the War Office said this Amendment would not be accepted. It has never been suggested from these benches that it was an attack upon the officers who had the unfortunate responsibility of administering this law. The supreme penalty of the law is a dreadful thing for the men themselves; but it is even more dreadful for those who have to administer it. What we are trying to do is to offer an alternative which would relieve the officer upon whom this duty is imposed and to see if we cannot provide an arrangement whereby every security would be given to the Army and the commanding officer and yet delay hasty executions in order that other feelings and thoughts may intervene. The officer is placed, in present circumstances, under extremely difficult conditions. He may have known the man. whose execution he orders; he may have had a respect for him, and the man himself may have been, in ordinary vocation, a really good fellow.

  1577
  but has not been equal to the supreme test. I want to say a word about the human equation in this matter. In the last war all men within the possible age were compelled to serve in the Army, but all men were not physically suited for the tasks placed upon them. To pass a law of this kind and to shoot without discrimination men who offend is to assume that all men are equal in power of resistance to temptation and in nerve strength. Human beings do differ. Some are gifted in one way and some in another, and it is so in the matter of war. We put these boys in the dreadful position which has been described. Weariness, temptation, fear seizes hold of them, the power of the will stops and at a given moment they run away little frightened things. There is no stopping them, and to say that keeping all these penalties on the books would act as a deterrent to them is to misunderstand the nature of the crime. He who deserts in face of the enemy does so because his will power is less strong than that of other men. What evil result would come to the country or the Army if in place of the death penalty, we imposed a sentence of penal servitude for life? It would not, in my judgment, put any additional risk upon the Army or the nation as a whole. We know that leniency on the whole inspires confidence.
  It occurs to me to ask the Committee whether it realises that there have been precedents for the thing we are asking the Government to do. There was a great man within the last century whose name will pass down in history and be revered by all who speak our language. He refused time after time to sanction the death penalties that his generals imposed upon their soldiers. When Grant sentenced a man with the death penalty, Abraham Lincoln steadily refused to allow it to be carried out. Does anyone suggest that in consequence, Lincoln got anything but the best from his army or that he would have got better things from it if he had allowed his men to be executed? Those who are students of American history will remember the case of William Scott of Vermont He was caught sleeping at his post and Grant sentenced him to be shot. But Lincoln said, "What good will it do to shoot him?" By that he meant "What good will it do America and humanity?" He pardoned the boy and the result was
  1578
  that a great wave of confidence passed through the men engaged in the army throughout America. They felt that the father of the State was in reality a father to them, and as he loved them, they loved him in return and gave him the best they had. I cannot help feeling that if we had something of the same principle in our Army it would bring not disaster but would relieve the officers of a very grievous and terrible burden, it would inspire confidence among the men, and our country and humanity would be the better for the change.
  Captain BENN: We all feel we have been engaged in a close discussion of an extremely difficult subject, and I myself am going to support a suggestion which perhaps might be accepted by the Government and might do something to case the difficulties we are all feeling in reference to this question. I must say I feel it is absolutely wrong to compare the offences for which soldiers are executed in war time to the crime of murder in civil life. That is a total misapprehension. I would rather he a man who had gone out voluntarily and then done something which caused me to be executed, than to be a man who had never gone out at all. I totally disagree with the view of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who says if you retain the death sentence for some brutal, squalid murder in peace time, that argument has something to do with the infliction of the death sentence in the Army. The Army is quite different. The only argument that has any weight is that war is a state of terror, and to counteract one terror you must have a greater terror on the other side. Is it a well-founded argument? The Financial Secretary himself began to answer it when he said you must remember that in most cases the sentence is not carried out. If the soldier is aware that in most cases the sentence will not be carried out, what becomes of him? He knows that out of the thousands that have been sentenced only 200 have been executed, and, therefore, the argument that he himself is so overcome by the terror of execution that he faces the terror of battle loses a great deal of its weight. I think it is a perfectly sound rule of law that you should rather have moderate penalties which you enforce than violent penalties which are seldom enforced. As a matter of fact my own belief is that this argu-

  1579
  ment of terror loses much of its weight from the number of offences for which the penalty of death can be given. Under Section 6 of the Army Act of 1881 such offences number from A to K. Some of them are of a comparatively venial character. In reply to what the Noble Lord and the hon. Member on the other side said I do not think, as a matter of fact I am informed, that in point of fact in deciding who is to be executed and who is to be let off it is not so much the gravity of the offence that is considered as the need for enforcing discipline in the battalion. I think it is the Commanding Officer who ought to be punished if that is the state of affairs. If that is so what becomes of the argument that this penalty must be retained? I believe in some cases it is the bravest who run the risk of committing offences that bring this punishment upon them. At Suvla sometimes some men took some sort of opium that rendered them more liable to sleep.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) has suggested that it might be possible to enlarge the little power which already exists in the Army Act of 1881 under Section 57, by which the confirming authority may suspend for such time as seems expedient the execution of a sentence. What I understand him to suggest is that instead of merely making it permissive for the confirming authority it should be made the right of the condemned person to have the sentence suspended for a certain period in which he could show the stuff he is made of.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am sorry I cannot agree to the moving appeal that has been made to me on this painful subject. The Debate has not really produced any substitute for this very terrible penalty, the necessity for which I am sure we all regret. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken suggested that we might impose the obligation on the confirming officer in the case of a first offender of substituting six months with his unit to try to give him an opportunity of making good. My hon. Friend has acted as a confirming officer himself and he knows how little use that would be in many cases. The other alternative put forward is that of penal servitude. I am afraid that is no alternative. It means exchanging the hell and danger of life in the trenches for the certainty of being
  1580
  kept in a place of absolute safety for the duration of the war, and an invariable amnesty after the war. That is no deterrent.
  Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman apply himself to the point I made, to the question of the penalty for offences other than what would be called deliberate cowardice in face of the enemy, and to the effect that the penalty of shooting would have on the mentality of a man whose nerve fails him? Does he say that men are not shot for that?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I would he far from asserting that men are not shot for that. You cannot see inside a man's brain. In the case of such offences as sentry sleeping on his post, from what occurred in the South African War and in the recent War there is no doubt that this particular class of offence does react very quickly to the deterrent of capital punishment. Lord Roberts in the South African War for a long time commuted all death penalties for men forsaking their posts. The same thing happened in Mesopotamia and in each case this offence became more frequent. One must be guided by commanders in the field who have found from experience that some of these crimes have a tendency to increase unless from time to time, and in the most sparing way possible, recourse is had to the extreme penalty. Cases are always examined with the greatest care. No man is ever shot for deserting his post if he has had a very tiring experience just previously. You must remember that the capital penalty is enforced not in peace, but in war. Our mentality has now become rather remote from war, but I must urge on the Committee the un-wisdom of throwing away in peace time a safeguard of the Army which those who have borne responsibility in war consider necessary.
  Mr. MORRISON: The position on both sides is becoming more clearly defined and the Government's position is that they desire to retain the death penalty as a means of imposing discipline and we deny that the death penalty is a means of enforcing discipline. May I give my own experience. When I landed at Le Havre an enthusiastic volunteer we were paraded and had read out in orders a statement that certain soldiers had been charged with a certain offence and

  1581
  sentenced to death, and that the sentence had been carried out and that was always read out to young soldiers arriving in France as a means of enforcing discipline and so far as I was concerned, and the same applied to thousands of others the effect was exactly the opposite and my feelings of enthusiasm began to die out when I found the methods adopted to enforce discipline. The first time I was under fire when a shell exploded, I was interested; that was all.
  I have been in the Army and know I had no fear whatever when I saw the first shell burst. I was interested and anxious to see what had happened. After a time I began to be a little afraid and after I had been over eighteen months I had a feeling of fear. That was after I saw one shell kill seventeen men and I happened to be one of the lucky ones who escaped. After that the feeling of fear grew. A friend of mine was on three occasions specially commended for saving wounded men under fire. He got more and more frightened. When the Germans made the tremendous attack on March 21, we were driven back forty or fifty kilometres. He and I and others were on the road for nearly a week. We had slept little for days, had little to eat and were in had condition. We arrived at the town of Albert and we were put into wagons in the station to sleep. They were covered trucks. A German airman came over and raced up and down firing his machine gun. A bomb he dropped blew down part of a building at the side of the station. My friend lost his reason, jumped out of the wagon and rushed down the line shouting at the top of his voice. We dragged him back under cover. If that had happened elsewhere he would have been liable to be shot. I want to point this out. It has never been suggested that Australian troops were loss brave and courageous or stuck to their work any less than British or other troops. The death penalty was never applied to Australian soldiers and every one of them knew they were not liable to be court-martialled and shot as British soldiers were.
  Mr. HARDIE: No two men receive the same condition under the same nervous circumstances, and I gave you a case of an accident 250 fathoms down and one mile from the shaft. Twenty-four men
  1582
  had been cut off by an explosion, and of that number eight were boys of 14 years of age. Fear should not be classed in the same category as cowardice, and I have never met a coward yet. The young boys, not having the grip of their elders, had to be looked to first because their nerves went first. When we got out after eight hours and reached the surface, it was found there was still another section where men had to be relieved and yet these boys who might in the Army have been classed as cowards were the first to volunteer to go down again at the risk of life itself.
  The man who has turned round under shock and tried to get away from the front, I would not call him a coward. If it comes to be a question in this Debate of failure at a post which may be responsible for one, two or three hundred lives, I want to give this parallel of an explosion occurring in a British mine. In these cases there is no suggestion of giving the death penalty to those responsible for neglect. We heard a great deal about the great nerve of the miner and how they dug in against Jerry when he was doing his worst. These men are employed in an occupation in which they are constantly in contact with danger, but the effect upon the nervous system of various men is different.
  But let us take some instances about boys who were shot. When the boatload of boys was sent to Antwerp there was no suggestion that because Winston Churchill failed he should receive the death penalty when he returned. Nothing was said in relation to that side of the question. If your logic were to be carried out what would it mean? I heard an hon. Member on the other side make the statement of men who lost their heads being shot. In civil life when a man loses his head we build asylums to put him in and if you are going to carry out the logic of the argument it would mean that instead of having asylums you would shoot every man who is declared to have lost; his control. I see some eminent medical Gentlemen on the other side and the hon. Member for the London University shakes his head. He ought to know better. My argument still holds good. If you take care as we have always done in war of the wounded man why not take care of the man who has been wounded in another way—wounds that do not come from the direct grip of the bayonet or the bullet

  1583
  but received a shock. Why do you treat the man who is shell-shocked? Why not shoot him since he has failed to keep the brain together? You talk about the death penalty as being something that is going to make men fear leaving their posts. I know from my experience that that is absolutely futile. You do not instil courage into men by fear. You may keep the man there, through fear but you have not produced a courageous man by frightening him. The man who can be frightened is never courageous; he becomes a simple tool, for, the enemy. I know from practical experience that in places of great danger if, you started that kind of thing the whole of your company's working would instantly be swept away. I see that another hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
  Captain BOWYER: I can give the Committee instances where that is not so.
  Mr. HARDIE: I would like, to have my hon. Friend down in a coal mine. That would change his whole outlook so far as what he has misread under the term fear. When you are in a place where there are millions of tons between you and the sunlight it is quite a different thing from being in a place where there is always a chance. When you are like rats in a trap it becomes a different matter and a different outlook upon the mind. Even the sailor has always the chance of being picked up but in the coal mine there is no chance. When you come to the word courage I say this, that if instead of shooting a man you took that man and gave him time to settle down you would find that that man would become the most courageous. Hon. Members know that the mind does not always develop at the same time and in the same stages. There are some boys who have men's minds at 16 or 18, and there are some men at 60 who have boys' minds. If instead of shooting you gave men the necessary time to settle down for the mind to reflect on the conditions you would get a better type of man.
  Sir S. HOARE: I think all hon. Members who have been present through the greater part of the Debate will agree with me that practically every side of the question has now been. covered, and certainly as far as my judgment goes it has been covered very effectively. I make an appeal to the Committee now to allow us
  1584
  to take the Division and bring this discussion to an end.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Committee will recollect, that we are debating practically five amendments and not one. We had agreed that, while we would divide on them individually, we would not debate them separately. What I suggest is that we will be quite loyal to the arrangement that was come to and that there will be no attempt to debate the separate amendments but I suggest it is too early yet to take the division. After all, we are dealing on a question of life and death, and it would be a great mistake and it would cause misunderstanding outside if at eight in the morning Members who wished to speak were denied the right of saying something on this subject.
  Mr. EDE: The Financial Secretary to the War Office said that the Army Council and other authorities he consulted were unanimous that the death penalty must be retained if discipline was to be preserved, but 12 months ago the same story was told about Field Punishment, No. 1, and now we are told it can be safely abolished. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) said that men showed cowardice in order to create a panic. I do not know if the hon. Member meant that, but anyone who had experience with the Forces overseas will not believe any man did that. Anyone who had experience of the War overseas knows that it was very difficult, a few moments before zero, to tell who was to be the coward and who was to be the bravest man in the regiment I remember being paraded at Rouen the first day I landed in France by a sergeant-major who had his breast ablaze with canteen medals. He surveyed us and gave us one order, which I am bound to say we performed very badly, and he said, "They spoiled an (adjectival) fine Army when they let you civilians join it." It was that attitude towards the voluntary soldiers of this country which was responsible for a great deal of the trouble in the Army. I have the greatest admiration for the old Army. The new Army would have been nothing without the N. C. O. 's who trained them, but there was in that new Army a spirit which the old Army could not possess. They enlisted for that particular war. If they had been faced less with the terror of the death penalty, but faced with the

  1585
  possibility that they were going to fail, there would have been less trouble. If we are not going to carry this Amendment this year, I believe we will carry it next year. I believe we will be told next year that the discipline in the British Army is so fine that we can dispense with the death penalty.
  8.0 A.M.
  Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: If I used the words quoted by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Ede) it must have been the late hour of the night or the early hour of the morning that caused me to do so. With the greatest humility I hold in the highest admiration every man who fought for me in France. I did not fight in France myself. What I intended to convey was this: If a man through treachery caused a panic that man deserved death.
  Captain BOWYER: I just want to make one point which has not been mentioned yet. It is this: All hon. Members who have been out in France will bear me out that the first thing that struck one coming out was the front line. There was a feeling which one never had before in the front line. The important thing from the point of view of the Army was to keep that front line. There came certain incidents one of which I have been trying not to recall, but which I feel it my duty to recall. In this incident to my mind you must have the death penalty. There came a time when owing to the awful terror that was instilled into the man who did his share of duty in the trenches time after time these men shot themselves in the foot or shot off their trigger finger. Why I interrupted the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) was that I understood his remedy was that if a man shot himself to escape one had to be pitiful and take him back to hospital. But what becomes of the line? The order was given out that if there were any more
  cases of self-inflicted wounds the death penalty had to be imposed, not because any one of them deserved it, but because only thus could the line be saved.
  Mr. BARKER: I think that the theory that punishment prevents cowardice is a delusion. It will be admitted by men who have been in the Army and who have been at war that men who commit crime are not deterred from recommitting crime by punishment. It was my terrible experience to see men flogged for various offences, but it turned out that some of them were not deterred by flogging, and repeated the crime for which they had been flogged. I should be ashamd to say I was a Britisher if I thought it necessary to have some superior form of terror over the minds of the soldiers before they did their duty. If the soldier is in good health it has a great deal to do with his conduct in the field. In 99 cases out of 100 he will do his duty. You will never get the coward to go to the front. He is a malingerer and a schemer and will find 120 ways of getting out of going to the front line. It is a psychological mistake to inflict the death penalty. It would be to the honour of this nation if we were to lead the way in Europe by the total abolition of capital punishment on military grounds. Capital punishment does not prevent criminal offences. Murder does not decrease by the number of scaffolds you erect. In the interests of the Army and of the honour and glory of this country we ought to abolish this penalty.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 173: Noes, 106.

  Division No. 90.]

  AYES.

  [8.13 a.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Button, H. S.

  Amery, Rt. Han. Leopold C. M. S.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Lady-wood)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Bridge-man, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Briggs, Harold

  Clayton. G. C.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Brown, Major D, C. (Hex-ham)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Barns-ton, Major Harry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Cope. Major William

  Becker. Harry

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Court-hope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Berry, Sir George

  Bruton, Sir James

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Birchall, Major J. Dear-man

  Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham. North)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lloyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Falie. Major sir Bertram Godfray

  McNeil!. Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sandon, Lord

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Forestier-Walker. L.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Furness, G. J.

  Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Stanley, Lord

  Garland, C. S.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Goff. Sir R. Park

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Greene. Lt. Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Greenwood, William {Stockport)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hacking, captain Douglas H.

  Nield. Sir Herbert

  Titchfield. Marquess of

  Halstead, Major D.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Paget, T. G.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Pease. William Edwin

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Wells, S. R.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Whl'e. Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Wise Frederick

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Privett. F. J.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Raine, W.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Hopkins. John W. W.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  NOES.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Riley, Ben

  Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson, J.

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Herriotts, J.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bonwick, A.

  Hirst. G. H.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bromfield. William

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Sexton, James

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Simpson. J. Hope

  Cairns, John

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sitch. Charles H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford. East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Darbishire. C. W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury. George

  Stephen. Campbell

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Leach, W.

  Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Turner, Ben

  Ede James Chuter

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Warne. G. H.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  McLaren, Andrew

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Foot, Isaac

  Maclean. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Westwood J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Martin, F.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Wheatley, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Maxton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T.

  Middleton, G.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wilson, R. J. Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Groves, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest. S. (York, W.B., Hemsworth)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Phillipps. Vivian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Mr Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

  Hardle, George D.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 175.

  Division No.91.]

  AYES.

  [8.21 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hiilsbro')

  Hardie, George D.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abortillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Bonwick, A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhonada, West)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (willesden, East)

  Sexton, James

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Snell, Harry

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Dunnico, H.

  Leach, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lee, F.

  Turner, Ben

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Foot, Isaac

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Gosling, Harry

  McLaren, Andrew

  Westwood, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wheatley, J.

  Greenall, T.

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Whtteley, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Middleton, G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Groves, T,

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Wright, W.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, F. (York. W. H., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Amery, Rt. Han. Leopold C. M. S.

  Curzon. Captain viscount

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Davies. Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Astor J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Doyle, N. Crattan

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Hutchison. G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Ednam, Viscount

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Becker, Harry

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Berry, Sir George

  Erskine. Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Erskine-Bolst. Captain C.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Blades. Sir George Rowland

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Blundell, F. N.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Fawkes, Major F. H

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Brass, Captain W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Brassey Sir Leonard

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Foxcroft. Captain Charles Talbot

  Lumley, L. R.

  Briggs. Harold

  Furness, G. J.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Garland, C. S.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Brown, Major D. C (Hexham)

  Goff. Sir R. Park

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C

  Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Moreing. Captain Algernon H.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Button, H. S.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Halstead, Major D.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Canpion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Nield. Sir Herbert

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Clayton, G. C.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Colfox. Major Win. Phillips

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Paget, T. G.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Cope, Major William

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Pease, William Edwin

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Penny, Frederick George

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Tubbs. S. W.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Pielou, D. P.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Sandon, Lord

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Privett, F. J.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  wells, S. R

  Raine, W.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Simpson, J. Hope

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Winterton, Earl

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wise, Frederick

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Stanley, lord

  wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: As a private Member and in view of the fact that the House was adjourned on Thursday before six o'clock and again finally adjourned at 7 o'clock and has been sitting all the,time since and that a great many Of my constituents are interested in a private Bill coming on Friday—is it possible for both sides of the House to accelerate business so that we may get on.
  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I think the appeal of the hon. Member is one that has been made by the Opposition. I was not aware of the tremendous difficulty many of the supporters of the Government were in. I understand that the Government have made arrangements, especially with the Lancashire Members, that an opportunity would he given them to express the difficulties under which the cotton trade is labouring at this moment. Obviously there will be differences of opinion on the merits of the matter that should come on this afternoon, [An HON. MEMBER "Why are you blocking it?"] I now rise to give an opportunity to the Government of helping them. There is only one way in which it can be done and that if: to accede to the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that there arc other ways of meeting the wishes of my hon. Friend than the one he has just
  suggested. I venture to think it would be quite possible to get this Bill without. reporting Progress and finish the business we hope to get and still leave time for the House to sit at the ordinary Friday sitting. We have had on the whole a very friendly discussion. I cannot accept the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. THOMAS: I obviously would not have made this Motion but for the very legitimate request made) by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Greenwood). I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot accede to the very reasonable request. I made, and there is no alternative but to go on with the business.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point which I think the Government is overlooking, and that is that this is the second occasion this week that the Government has filched away private Members' days. There was to have been an important discussion on the Carlisle experiment on Wednesday night, which, owing to various matters with which I need not charge the Government afresh, was lost to the House. Now there is the Cotton Bill, and to show that I am perfectly impartial I have a Motion down for the rejection of the Bill. I am standing up for the rights of private Members.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 107 Noes, 172.

  Division No 92.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Berkeley. Captain Reginald

  Brotherton, J

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bonwick, A.

  Buchanan, G

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Buckle. J.

  Batey, Joseph

  Broad, F. A.

  Burgess, S.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Bromfield, William

  Cairns, John

  Cape, Thomas

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich)

  Charloton, H. C.

  Junes, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sexton, James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Duff, T. Gavan

  Kirkwood, D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lansbury, George

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Ede, James Chunter

  Lawson, John James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Leach, W.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Foot. Isaac

  Lee, F.

  Snell, Harry

  Gosling, Harry

  Linfield, F C.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Lunn, William

  Stephen, Campbell

  Greenall, T.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistpw)

  Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Turner, Ben

  Groves, T.

  Martin, F.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Warne, G. H.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maxton, James

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Middleton, G.

  Westwood J.

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wheatley, J.

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Whiteley. W.

  Hardie, George D.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Va1l"y)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Phillipps. Vivian

  Wright, W.

  Herriotts, J.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colons Gibbs.

  Johnston. Thomas (Stirling)

  Ritson, J.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Erskine. Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Moore-Brabazon. Lieut. Col. J. T. C.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Codfray

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Morrison-Sell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Murchison. C. K.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Newman. Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Furness, G. J.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Becker, Harry

  Garland, C. S.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Berry, Sir George

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nield. Sir Herbert

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Blades. Sir George Rowland

  Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir w. (Hack'y, N.)

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Blundell, F. N.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Paget, T. G.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E, W.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Boyd-Carpenter. Major A.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Halstead, Major D.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Briggs, Harold

  Harrison, F. C.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Brown, Major D. C (Hexham)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Privett, F. J.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Raine, W.

  Buckley. Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Button, H. S.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hopkins. John W. W.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Rugnles-Brise, Major E.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cope, Major William

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Crook, C. W (East Ham, North)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Sanderson, sir Frank B.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sandon, Lord

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lorimer, H. D,

  Smith. Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Loyd. Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Edmondson Major A. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Ednam, Viscount

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)

  Stanley, Lord

  1594

  1595

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Waring, Major Walter

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Wellington)

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Wells. S. R.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Wheler, Col Granville C. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. John Robertson.

  Titchfield. Marquess of

  Winterton. Earl

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wise, Frederick

  New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section. 6.)
  "In section six for the words 'be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned,' there shall be substituted 'be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life, or any shorter period (not less than three years), or to such less punish-
  ment as is in this Act mentioned."—[Mr. Luwson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 104: Noes, 173.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES

  [8.50 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hardie, George D.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Herriotts, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Bonwick, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Broad, F. A.

  John. William (Rhondda. West)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston. Thomas (Stirling)

  Sexton, James

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury}

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, R. T, (Carnarvon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, T. 1. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Cairns, John

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Snell, Harry

  Cape, Thomas

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leach, w.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lee, F.

  Turner, Ben

  Dunnico, H.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan. LI.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Wheatley, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  McLaren, Andrew

  Whiteley, W.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Middleton, G.

  Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew. Western)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Oliver, George Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Briggs, Harold

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Button, H. S.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Banks, Mitchell

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Becker, Harry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.

  Berry, Sir George

  Clarry. Reginald George

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Clayton, G. C.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cope. Major William

  Forestier-Walk"r, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Brass, Captain W.

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Furness, G. J.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Garland, C. S.

  Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Gray. Harold (Cambridge)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir w. (Hack'y, N.)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. futney)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Guiness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Sandon, Lord

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Halstead. Major D.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Harrison, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Harrison, F. C.

  Newman. Colonel J. R. P. {Finchley

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Harvey. Major S. E.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Stanley, Lord

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Paget, T. G.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Sueter Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Penny, Frederick George

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. S.)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Hudson, Capt A

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Privett, F. J.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Raine, W.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Wells, S. R.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  White. Col. G D. (Southport)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Winterton, Earl

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Wise, Frederick

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon.)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. sir Philip

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Ruggles-Brlse, Major E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colons Gibbs.

  Margesson, K. D. R.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  9.0 A.M.
  Mr. THOMAS: I have just discovered that- a very serious incident has occurred, and I am sure all parts of the House will assist to remedy it. I have been informed that one of my hon. Friends, the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) has been taken advantage of, because of his stature. Unfortunately he walked into the wrong lobby, and I understand that he. was prevented from escaping. I do not suggest that it was done deliberately. If he had been like other hon. Members near me, he would have been able to defend himself, but owing to the fact that he was unable to defend himself, and also owing to the fact that he is a Welshman, I merely ask that the proper steps should be taken to see that Members are given an opportunity of exercising their rights and privileges.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not quite understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether the hon. Member for Pontypridd had missed an opportunity for recording his vote. My impression is that he did not. I did my best to secure that his exit should be possible, and that he got into the lobby to which he intended to go, but from which he had wandered by some error. If he did not get there in time to record his vote, I do not know
  1598
  that it would be possible for his vote to be recorded.
  Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman has done what we all expected. In substance he has said that if an error was made, he will do his best to rectify it. Unfortunately, the last occasion on which I saw the hon. Member for Pontypridd he was in the company of the Home Secretary.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I understand that the hon. Member ultimately voted in the way he wanted to vote, so all is well.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 7.)
  In Section seven of the Army Act, for the words "shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned," there shall be substituted the words "shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life or any shorter period (not less than throe years). or to such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."—(Mr. Lawson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
  Most Members understand that we made an arrangement last night. that we would not debate these particular

  1599
  Clauses, but take the discussion on one Clause in order to save time. I, therefore, simply formally beg to move this Clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 177.

  Division No. 94.]

  AYES.

  [9.7 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro")

  Hardie, George D.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T, (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Herriotts, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Bonwick, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Sexton. James

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cairns, John

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Kirkwood, O.

  Steven, Campbell

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Leach, W.

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lee, F.

  Turner, Ben

  Ede, James Chuter

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Foot, Isaac

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Westwood J.

  Gosling, Harry

  McLaren, Andrew

  Wheatley, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T.

  Martin, F.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Middleton, G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Groves, T.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wright, W.

  Guest, J. (York, W.H., Hemsworth)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, F. (York W. R., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Lunn and Mr. T. Griffiths.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Harrison, F. C.

  Alexander, Col M. (Southwark)

  Cope, Major William

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Archer.Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Astor, J. J, (Kent, Dover)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Doyle, N. Gratian

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Becker, Harry

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Bellairs, Commander Cartyon W.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Berry, Sir George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Ednam, Viscount

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Elliot, Capt. Waller E. (Lanark)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut. Col. C. K.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Boyd Carpenter, Major A.

  Evres Monsell, Cam. Bolton M.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Jarrett, G. W. S-

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Keiley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Briggs, Harold

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough. E.)

  Furness, G. J.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Bruton, Sir James

  Garland, C. S.

  Lorimer, H. O.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Goff. Sir R. Park

  Lumley, L. R.

  Button, H. S.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Cadogah, Major Edward

  Greene, Lt.Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Maddocks, Henry

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Margesson, H. O. R.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Glarry, Reginald George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Murchison, C. K.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Sueter, Hear Admiral Murray Fraser

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. sir P. (Chertsey)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henlay)

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Paget, T. G.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Waring, Major Walter

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sandon, Lord

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Winterton, Earl

  Philipson, Hilton

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wise, Frederick

  Pleiou, D. P.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pownall, Lieut.-Golonel Assheton

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Privett, F. J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Rains, W.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Stanley, Lord

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Reid, Capt. A. S, C. (Warrington)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Major Barston and Capt. Douglas King.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 12.)
  In Section twelve of the Army Act, for the words "be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned," there shall be substituted the words "be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life or any shorter period (not less than three years), or to such less punish-
  ment as is in this Act mentioned."—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 180.

  Division No. 95.]

  AYES.

  [9.16 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hardie, George D.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Herriotts, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Bonwick, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Sexton, James

  Brotherton, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Cairns, John

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Snell, Harry

  Cape, Thomas

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lee, F.

  Turner, Ben

  Dunnico, H.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Edo, James Chuter

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mac Donald, J. H. (Aberavon)

  Webb, Sidney

  Foot, Isaac

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Westwood, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  McLaren, Andrew

  Wheatley, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford) '

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T.

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Middleton, G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Groves, T.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Amery, Rt. Hon Leopold C. M. S.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Banks, Mitchell

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Becker, Harry

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Privett, F. J.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Halstead, Major D.

  Ratne, W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G,

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Briggs, Harold

  Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Sutler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Button, H. S.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W, H.

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Lord

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South).

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Maddocks. Henry

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wells, S. R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Winterton, Earl

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wise, Frederick

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Paget, T. G.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Furness, G. J.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Garland, C. S.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Penny, Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Major Barnston and Captain Douglas King.

  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I think it will be generally agreed that we have carried out our bargain Having carried out our side of the bargain, and since a large number of Members have come into the Committee and are not aware of the strong feeling that exists among Lancashire Members to enable them to raise their Lancashire grievances in the cotton industry, I wonder whether the Home Secretary will reconsider the decision that I know was given hastily and without due regard to all the facts.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The argument which I used a very short time ago to
  1604
  a similar Motion by the same right hon. Gentleman is even more applicable now.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am extremely sorry. I will be content with showing my feelings by going into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am delighted that upon this occasion I shall have the opportunity of making a few observations. The right hon. Gentleman has moved to report Progress. I had intended to support the Government when a previous Motion was made, my reason being that the hour at which the Motion was made was 3 o'clock, a time at which the trains were not running for Members to go home. But the situation is now changed. The sun is now high in the heavens.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I wish you were!
  Mr. PRINGLE: I hope the Home Secretary will not keep us here indefinitely as he is keeping the interned in Ireland. I am concerned, like the Members who represent Lancashire constituencies, in a Bill which is to be dealt with at the sitting of the House to-day. A continuance of this sitting would prejudice a sitting of high Imperial importance. I use both adjectives advisedly, because we all know the peril in which the cotton industry stands; we know the possibility of rescuing it, and we can only have that Measure if the House sits to-day at the usual time. I know the President of the Board of Trade is in the precincts of the House, and I understand the Government are ready to give facilities to the Bill if it passes its Second Reading at this day's sitting. In these circumstances, I can make this appeal without any suggestion on the part of any one in the House that I have been in any way contributing to the undue prolongation of the proceedings. It is always wise, when a Government is in the heyday of its power, when it has unbroken legions at its command, to show a reasonable, moderate and conciliatory spirit to an Opposition no matter how insignificant it may be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"] I am sorry if my hon. Friends on these Benches think I am applying the term to them. They are anything but a weak Opposition; they are too aggressive. I merely quote this as a warning to the Government. If these things be done in the green tree what will be done in the dry? [An HON. MEMBER "You are up a gum tree!"] I am sure these things appeal to the Patronage Secretary, who I am sorry to say, has just gone out of the House, but I wish to say a few words of sympathy to his genial deputy. We all appreciate the hard and toilsome road of a Whip in ordinary times but when a misadventure occurs and he is exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune then it is that the sympathetic heart goes out to him. I have been doing all I could to help him and his colleagues since that deplorable incident and I think he and his colleagues might make some recognition of that. We do not want to divide. We have had enough of it. Even the greatest glutton for divisions must be satisfied. We want to get away now.
  1606
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who comes in with his shining morning face, will be with me in that. We like his associations intermittent though they be.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think there is no connection between the hon. and learned Member for Ealing and the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I had not just reached that point. I feel that in view of my hon. and learned Friend's recent record, he might help us in the Lobby. There are not so many others to whom that appeal could be made. I also thought Lancashire might be with us, but Lancashire has deserted.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Lancashire knows its friends.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There are also Members in the shade. As the sun has now responded to my appeal, surely the Government will do likewise and respond to the influences of nature Let it be to them an omen of the line they should take at the present time. It is a great opportunity. The House can now rise from its labours in the cheeriest and happiest frame of mind, conscious of a night of hard work well done, long discussion reasonably and moderately maintained, decisions carefully taken and labours performed in the same spirit and in such a way as to bring the utmost gratification and satisfaction to the Government.
  Captain BERKELEY: I have no intention of saying anything provocative. I just want to urge this view on the Government. There are still to my knowledge two really important Amendments to this Bill. There is one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) which raises a very important issue connected with the propriety of Field General Courts-Martial. There is really a great amount of ground to be covered on both questions, to say nothing of the point which is being put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in connection with the Schedule to the Bill. If this matter is to be properly debated, and if we are to get, as I hope we shall, a fruitful result, I earnestly urge upon the Government that they should see their way to adopt this

  1607
  Motion of my right hon. Friend and report Progress now and resume the sitting and discussion of this Act at the earliest possible occasion.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 193.

  Division No. 96.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Harbord, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Ritson, J.

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bonwick, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bromfield, William

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sexton, James

  Brothorton, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Buckle, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Cairns, John

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Dudgeon. Major C. R.

  Leach, W.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Turner, Ben

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lunn, William

  Warne, G. H.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Webb, Sidney

  Foot, Isaac

  McLaren, Andrew

  Westwood J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wheatley, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T,

  Maxton, James

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Middleton, G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Groves, T.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Button, H. S.

  Forestier Walker, L.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Archar-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Furness, G. J.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Garland, C. S.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Gould, James C.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Banks, Mitchell

  Clayton, G. C.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Becker, Harry

  Cope, Major William

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Halstead, Major D.

  Berry, Sir George

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harrison, F. C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hampstead)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Brings, Harold

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Bruford, R.

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stanley, Lord

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Perring, William George

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Lorimer, H. O.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Preston, Sir W. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South]

  Lumley, L. R.

  Privett, F. J.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Raine, W.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Maddocks, Henry

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Manville, Edward

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Waring, Major Walter

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Rawson Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wells, S. R.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Winterton, Earl

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

  Wise, Frederick

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Murchison, C. K,

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

  Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Russell-Welts, Sir Sydney

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Paget, T. G.

  Sandon, Lord

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Courts-Martial right of appeal.)
  Notwithstanding any provision of the Army Act any member of His Majesty's forces sentenced to death by court-martial shall have the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal assisted by one or more military assessors as the Lord Chancellor may direct.—[Mr. Lansbury.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.0 A.M.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  We have had a very long discussion on the question of punishments, and especially on the question of the death penalty. I think everything I have heard to-night has confirmed me in my view that, no matter how we may draft the Regulations, the real thing that is wrong is war, and until we can get rid of the spirit of war there will always be the kind of things we have heard about this morning, which everyone deplores. What amazes me is that in the year 1923 we are obliged to sit calmly by and hear and discuss this question, which is really murder and nothing else, and we are told that in order to secure wholesale Murder we must retain the right to individual murder. I hope some day this House will sit down to a full discussion of the whole question of war, not merely the abolition of capital punishment, but
  1610
  what means we can take to bring about the abolition of war. If I were a father or mother in Iraq, I would be unable to understand why a Christian nation should send out aeroplanes to bomb me and my children—
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): Order, order!
  Mr. LANSBURY: You must not shout at me. Order yourself! I am not going to be bullied, and am not going to be shouted at by you.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. Member must not challenge the decisions of the Chair.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I shall challenge you when you bully me.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss what is going on in Iraq.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know what to call you—Mr. Chairman or Mr. Deputy-Chairman? I shall call you Sir Frederick Banbury: We have had a long discussion, and it has been one of the best Debates I have listened to. I am not going to be a party to breaking up the spirit which has animated this Committee to-night. I ought to explain that the discussion, to which you have not had the privilege of listening, has been

  1611
  concerned with capital punishment for men who fail in time of war. Incidentally I wished to say that, although I am a pacifist and bate war, I do not wish the Air Minister to think I challenge him—I feel he, personally, is not a bad man.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That may be all right, but it has nothing to do with the Question before the Committee. I would ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, I am doing so. We shall not get rid of these cases until we get rid of war.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Everyone knows a Court of Criminal Appeal was set up in this country because there was uneasiness in the minds of the public that some persons were probably sentenced to death whose cases should be considered by such a court I know that a soldier can appeal from one officer to another, but he does not get the chance to come before a court. We have failed to secure the abolition of the death penalty and we want to get this in the hope that it will finally lead to the abolition of the death penalty, and we want to give the soldier or officer the same privileges as those granted to the civilian found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hung. I hope we will not have this dismissed simply as something new and therefore dangerous, although it is something new to bring a soldier before a civil court.
  Sir S. HOARE: We have had a very good-natured Debate, on the whole, during this rather long Sitting. I hope the Committee will therefore excuse me if my answer to the hon. Member is somewhat short. The hon. Member asked me to give this Amendment careful consideration. I can assure him I have given it a lot of careful thought. I do not in the least object to it because it is something new, but I object to it because I really believe the soldier and officer would be worse off in matters of appeal than at present. The officer and the soldier or airman have at present a variety of safeguards. First, they have the review of the confirming officer of the Court Martial.
  1612
  Then the sentence has again to be reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General, who, as the Committee knows, is a lawyer and not a soldier. Thirdly, the officer or man has the right to send a petition to the Sovereign through the Secretary of State. These three safeguards are very real ones. Moreover the Secretary of State can look at the case not from the strict point of view of the letter of the law—he can quash sentences on general grounds. I think the Committee will agree that all these safeguards are very real ones. If for these safeguards they substituted a Court of Criminal Appeal what is going to happen? Take first of all the case of a Court Martial and the sentence of death upon active service. I suggest to the Committee that it would be quite impossible to adopt the machinery of the Court of Criminal Appeal. It would mean first of all that an inquiry would have to be held on the spot. It would then mean that the papers with reference to the case would have to be sent to London. It would then mean that the officer or the man charged would also have to be sent back to London and it would probably mean several months before the case could come before the Court of Criminal Appeal at all. I suggest to the Committee that such a procedure would be quite impracticable during active service. If that be so, take the other alternative of peace time. There, I suggest, that no such safeguard is necessary for the very good reason that death sentences for example within the United Kingdom are practically unknown in peace time. Not even during the War was there a single death sentence within the United Kingdom, and within peace times within the memory of man there has not been a case of a death sentence by Court Martial in the United Kingdom. What I understand does happen is that in the event of a serious charge the case is almost invariably taken into a civil court. I hope I have said enough to the Committee that upon active service the procedure would be quite impracticable, whereas in peace time it is not needed at all. I hope, therefore, that with this short explanation the Committee will agree with me in rejecting the Clause.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: The Committee were told just now that a soldier sentenced to death has three appeals after the Court

  1613
  Martial and one of the appeals and the final one apparently was to the Sovereign. But that appeal comes in the first place to the Minister of State, and so far as my knowledge of these cases goes it works out in this way, that when the man appeals to the Minister of State it is the duty of the Minister to recommend to the Sovereign the attitude of the Sovereign towards that man, and I have yet to learn that in any single case the Sovereign would intervene and upset the recommendation of the Home Secretary in such a case of capital punishment. I just want to make two observations on the Amendment. I think the Amendment has a great deal of substance in it. The object of our Amendment is this, that we shall give a man who has been tried for his life, who has been condemned to death, that he shall have a chance of being tried by judicial tribunal without that suspicion and bias and prejudice that must arise in connection with these people who have tried it on the battlefield or thereabouts. Let me point this out to the Committee. What seems strange to us is this. Let me try to draw a picture of the case of a young man 19 years of age in the Army. He has failed in his duty as a soldier. That young man is sentenced to death and the sentence of death is carried out without the appeal that would apply, for insance, to a hardened criminal in civilian clothes. Take the other side. Here you have in this country in civilian clothes a criminal hardened to the job. He will go through the whole process of the law of the land, expense is incurred in connection with his case, and he goes right up to the Court of Criminal Appeal and is given every advantage that the law allows. But this young lad, 19 years of age, is brought up before a court martial, sentenced to death, and his sentence is carried out. One last observation I wish to make. A man in soldier's clothes is sentenced to death by court martial because he declines to murder. The man who actually murders in civilian clothes gets a better opportunity of justice and fair play than the man who has declined to murder on the battlefield. That seems to me the whole point of our Amendment and I do trust, in spite of what the Minister of Air has said, that the House will seize the point in our Amendment.
  Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: I venture to intervene for a few moments on this im-
  1614
  portant question, because I think I should give the Committee some information which may be of service to it in coming to a conclusion on the merits of the Amendment. I suppose that in all quarters of the Committee we are concerned and, indeed, very anxious, that we should have a system established whereby an efficient system of appeal is opened to those who are sentenced by court martial. Indeed, if I had the information, and only the information which appears to prevail in some quarters of the Committee, I think I should be earnestly endeavouring to press upon the Minister in charge of this Bill that something like a further system of appeal should be granted to those who have been sentenced. The reason why I venture to intervene is that I feel that I can give, if the Committee will allow me, some information on this point which may remove misgivings. The appeal which is made to the Secretary of State is one which is of great moment arid great force and constantly used in favour of the man. The Secretary of State, after the matter has been considered by the Judge Advocate-General, has the opportunity of considering the case, and it is, in fact, reconsidered afresh. During the course of the War my predecessors who held the office of Attorney-General agreed that all the appeals which went to the Secretary of State should be submitted to the Attorney-General, and when I held the office of Attorney-General I was still carrying out the duty of helping to advise the Secretary of State in these cases which came before him.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is that provided for by Act of Parliament, or is it only administrative action?
  Sir E. POLLOCK: What he did was to invite the assistance of the Attorney-General after the Judge Advocate-General. It must be remembered that the class of cases which came up for appeal are not limited to cases of the death sentence. Please do not imagine that the matters which have to be dealt with are always matters for the extreme penalty of the law. Many cases which have to be considered by court martial are matters of much less importance, involving much less serious punishment. But where they involve serious breach of discipline, or serious punishment, there is an appeal and it is open to be exercised. I have

  1615
  been struck by the number of cases in which every opportunity has been given to the person against whom sentence has been given, and also by the manner in which clemency has been exercised by the Judge Advocate-General and the Secretary of State. Let us disabuse our minds of thinking that we are dealing with bad cases or of the extreme penalty only. On the contrary, under British justice, which prevails in the Army as everywhere else, an opportunity is given to try to mitigate the punishment, and often the imposition of any penalty in the system that has to be worked. The Amendments suggest that all these cases should go to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: Only if they please.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: Let us consider what an appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal is. It is an appeal in respect to which the decision can be reviewed and is reviewed in all cases which take place in this country. No confirmation from me is necessary of the words of the Air Minister that such cases brought before the War for a long period were very few. We have to take the exceptional cases which occurred in the wider and more distant parts of the Empire. In all these cases there is a standing system of appeal. Further, confirmation has to be given of the sentence by an adequate and important military authority. Do not imagine that that is a matter of course. It is a very serious step which has to be carried out effectively, and has to be carried out to the full. Then, after that, confirmation, the case is considered by the Judge Advocate-General. The present Judge Advocate-General who is well known to many of us in this House, is a man of great ability, who rendered great service to the country in the early part of the War; a man whose judgment all Members of this House have confidence in. The sentence has to be confirmed by him. I say from my experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal that the working of the system now prevailing in military circles is really more favourable to the men who are punished than any system which could be established by means of going to the Court of Appeal. I have spoken longer than I intended, because I was anxious that the Committee should have such information as was at my disposal to re-assure them
  1616
  that the present system is one about which they need have no disquiet—that the great spirit of British justice which prevails in all Courts does prevail, and work in favour of those who are punished from time to time under the military system.
  Mr. G. SPENCER: Everything the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down says on a question of this character is always worthy of the most serious attention of this House, but there are two points of view from which hon. Members approach the subject. Unless an appeal is granted to an ordinary soldier, he is looked upon as being of less regard and concern than the common criminal who is guilty of the grossest crime that could be committed.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: There is a right of appeal; it is not a question of an appeal being granted in certain cases.
  Mr. SPENCER: What I gather from the Minister in charge is that there are three stages and the sentence has to be confirmed. By whom has it to be confirmed? The right hon. Gentleman does not say by whom. So far as the man himself is concerned, it seems to me he has no right of appeal to a properly constituted tribunal. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Pollock) has had a legal training and the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Fate) has been more or less a soldier. If a case were presented in which my right hon. Friend was present, he would approach it with a legal mind, but if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton were dealing with the case, he would approach it from the military point of view, more or less with the prejudice of the soldier—he could not escape it—and he would approach it from the point of view of how it affected the Army and not how it, affected the person. So far as any military tribunal is concerned, I do not say the General has less regard for the soldier, or that he is not actuated by the highest possible motives, but what I do say is that he does not bring the same judicial mind to bear upon the question as would a tribunal constituted like the Court of Appeal.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. In the case of a death sentence that has to go before a General Court Martial and that is the very highest Military Court composed of

  1617
  officers of high rank. It goes from them to a man who is legally trained, the Judge Advocate-General, for confirmation, after the General Court Martial has dealt with it.
  Mr. SPENCER: If ever it was proposed in this House that the Courts of Justice of this country should be presided over in the same way as the Courts Martial are presided over, my right hon. Friend and the whole of his legal fraternity would immediately protest against a Court of that character.
  Sir S. HOARE: I would now ask that the Committee should come to a decision on this question.
  Captain BERKELEY: There is really a point of substance here. I was quite sure that there was some misunderstanding, and I should like to try and clear it up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney-General (Sir E. Pollock) has been talking about the case of general courts martial, That is not the case which is impeached. The case that has been impeached is that of death sentences on active service, and they are passed, not by a General Court Martial, but by a Field General Court Martial, which is quite mother matter. It is composed of the best officers of Field and lower rank that can be summoned together for the purpose by the convening officer, who, as a rule, is a Brigadier-General. Then there is an important point in connection with the confirmation. The right hon. Member for Che sea (Sir Samuel Hoare) says that
  the first safeguard of the accused person is the confirming officer, who—I quote from memory—is usually an officer of Field rank or a Brigadier-General. The confirming officer is nominally a Brigadier-General, but he may, in certain cases, be an officer of Field rank. There are difficult legal points on which he has to satisfy himself, namely, whether evidence of a nature prejudicial to the accused has been wrongfully admitted, whether the accused has been unduly restricted in his defence, whether the charge is bad in law, and whether there has been any departure from rules of procedure by which an injustice has been done. I submit that those are highly technical points which, without in any way criticising senior officers, require considerable legal knowledge for their determination. The case then goes to the Judge-Advocate-General Overseas, and the man has the right of petition to His Majesty. I am not really sure that he has this right in eases of sentence on active service; but in that event it may come before the Secretary of State, who calls in the Attorney-General. It is not always that the case of a death sentence comes before the Secretary of State, because the man does not always know that he has the right to petition, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not contend that it did.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 201.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES.

  [10.37 a.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Dunnico, H.

  Irving, Dan

  Ammon, Charles George

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Batey, Joseph

  Foot, Isaac

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

  Berke'ey, Captain Reginald

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Bonwick, A.

  Greenall, T.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)

  Jowett, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Briant, Frank

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Broad, F. A.

  Griffith, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Kanyon, Barnet

  Bromfield, William

  Groves, T.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Brothurton, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Buchanan, G.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Lawson, John James

  Buckle, J.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Leach, W.

  Burgess, S.

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lee, F.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Cairns, John

  Hancock, John George

  Lunn, William

  Cape, Thomas

  Harbord, Arthur

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hardie, George D.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Collison, Lavi

  Harris, Percy A.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Darbishlre, C. W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  March, S.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Maxton, James

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Middleton, G.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Herrlotts, J.

  Morrison. H. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Duffy, T, Gavan

  Hirst, G. H.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Webb, Sidney

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Westwood J.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wheatley, J.

  Paling, W.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western}

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Whiteley, W.

  Potts, John S.

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Steven, Campbell

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Riley, Ben

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Ritson, J.

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Wright, W.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Saklatvata, S.

  Tout, W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Turner, Ben

  Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  Sexton, James

  Warne, G. H.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Colonel D.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Newman, Colonel I. R. P. (Finchley)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen, J. (Westminster)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent. Dover)

  Fawkes, Major F. H,

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banks, Mitchell

  Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot

  Paget, T. G.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Furness, G. J.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Pease, William Edwin

  Becker, Harry

  Garland, C. S.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Gates, Percy

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bennett. Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Gould, James C.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Berry, Sir George

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Perring, William George

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Philipson, Hilton

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Preston, Sir W. R.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Privett, F. J.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l.W.D'by)

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Halstead, Major O.

  Raine, W.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Poet

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Bruford, R.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S, J. G.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Hogg,Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Butler, J. R. U. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Button, H. S.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W: R.

  Howard, Capt, D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Cot. C. K.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Sanders. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cope, Major William

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Stanley, Lord

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Lorimer, H. D,

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Maddacks, Henry

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Manville, Edward

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Waring, Major Walter

  1620

  1621

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Wise, Frederick

  Yerburgh, B. D. T.

  Wells, S. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peaky)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Whaler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Gibbs

  Winterton, Earl

  The CHAIRMAN: Several new Clauses have been handed in in manuscript: It is, as the Committee knows, my duty to select new Clauses or Amendments for discussion, and I do not look with favour upon proposals handed in in manuscript that might have been put on the Paper, but there are two of a very simple character which I am disposed to favour. The first is one in the name of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), but unfortunately it is not consistent with Clause 5, which has already been passed. He will, however, be enabled, subject, of course, to what Mr. Speaker may say, to move the substance of that Amendment on Report. The other is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley).
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the peculiar hardship that falls on us owing to the procedure adopted by the Government? I am not complaining, but merely pointing it out. In the ordinary course, I myself had an Amendment which I desired to move, if it were selected, but supposing it were not selected, I would have desired to move it on Report, but it must be—in fact, practically all Amendments to this Bill must be—in the form of new Clauses, and on the Report stage a new Clause cannot be moved unless notice is given, but the Government will not give us the chance to give notice, because they are taking the Report stage immediately after the Committee stage, and therefore I suggest to you that you should look considerately on Amendments handed in in manuscript.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member means to complain of the action of the Government, because, as a matter of fact, we did our best to meet the convenience of hon. Members, but the proposal to which we were prepared to agree met with no support from the benches opposite. It would not, therefore, be fair to impute any blame to us for the fact that this new Clause may not be able to be put on Report. We do not want, however, to deprive the hon. and gallant Member
  1622
  of having this provision, once and for all, making field punishment No. 1 illegal on the face of it, and if there is any difficulty on Report, I will consult with my Noble. Friend the Secretary of State and see if he can put it in in another place.
  Captain BENN: I should like to say that, provided it is understood, as I understand it is, that field punishment No. 1 is now to be statutorily illegal, and not a matter of rules and regulations, I am quite content, and I should not think of taking up the time of the Committee by moving my Amendment now. I understand that it will be done by the Government in another place, and I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Section 49.)
  Section 49 of the Army Act is hereby repealed.—[Captain Captain Berkeley.]
  Brought up, and. read the First time.
  Captain BERKELEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Section 49 of the Army Act is the Section which provides for what are know as field general courts martial, and as far as I can trace the history of this particular kind of tribunal, it was introduced in the Act of 1893. This particular Section was put in that Act for the purpose of combining a form of procedure for trying offences committed overseas with the then existing summary procedure or drumhead court martial, as I think it was known. The result of this fusion of practice has been to create a court which functions in the following circumstances. Where a complaint is made to any officer in command of any detachment or portion of troops in any country beyond the seas or to the commanding officer of any corps or portion of a corps on active service, that an offence has been committed by any person subject to military law, then, if in the opinion of such officer it is not practicable for such offence to be tried by the ordinary general court martial, it shall be lawful for him to convene the court martial referred to as a field general court martial.
  Just to summarise the kind of tribunal that is created, it is a body of officers of field rank brought together by the convening officer and exercising powers

  1623
  under special rules of procedure not related, except in one or two special cases, to the general rules of procedure governing courts martial, but exercising the full powers of a general court martial, including the infliction of the penalty of death. I submit for the consideration of the Committee that the state of things which gave rise to the creation of this particular tribunal has now ceased to exist. It is quite obvious that the original field general court martial was intended to meet the case where you had a small detachment of troops engaged in what you might call pioneering a country where there was not the ordinary convenience for obtaining the officers of necessary rank to constitute a general court martial. Of course, the constitution of a drumhead court martial for the summary trial of offences committed on the field of battle is familiar to everyone.
  I shall best illustrate what I think is the real objection to this particular form of summary procedure—for, of course, one must recognise that some form of summary procedure is necessary to deal with these circumstances—by reference to a case that has come to my knowledge, of what was a very serious piece of injustice done to a man who is a constituent of mine, after the Armistice, but before the conclusion of peace. This particular man was employed in the Inland Water Transport. I have very little doubt that he was a bit of a "sea lawyer," as it is called, and I have no doubt that he caused certain annoyance to his immediate superiors, the non-commissioned officers in whose charge he was. I think he prided himself rather on a greater knowledge than they possessed of King's Regulations and other rights and privileges, and I am inclined to think his superiors were out to "do" for him.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) and others to carry on a loud conversation the whole time that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham is addressing the Committee?
  Mr. BECKER: On that point of Order I was certainly talking in rather a loud voice, but I was calling attention to the fact that the Members of the front Opposition bench were exchanging very loud conversation among themselves.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was not aware of any individual talking particularly loudly, because there was such a general hum of conversation in the Committee. Perhaps hon. Members who have private confidences to exchange will do so in a lower tone.
  Captain BERKELEY: I am sure there is no one who, if I can show a substantial injustice, would be more sympathetic towards having it put right than the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker). The particular man I had in mind was brought up one day charged with the perfectly trivial offence of trying to "wangle" an extra tin of condensed milk. It sounds a preposterous thing to bring to the notice of the House of Commons, but hon. Members will perhaps agree with me, later on, that there is reason for it. He was brought before his O.C., and was deprived of 21 days' pay. He refused to accept the award. He was told he had better accept it, as they did not want all the trouble of convening a court-martial to try such a trivial offence but he persisted that he was entitled, as he was, to a court-martial. Therefore, they called together a court-martial, who met and sentenced him to 28 days' field punishment No. 2, for the perfectly trivial offence of trying to "wangle" an additional tin of condensed milk. The man served his term of imprisonment.
  The medical evidence showed that for some time he had been suffering from some defect in his feet which made him unable to march. When he was released from his field punishment, he was told by his non-commissioned officer to march and embark for a certain port. He said he was unable to march. He was told he must march, whereupon he said: "You had better take me to the guardroom; I cannot march." They court-martialled him again, charging him with disobedience of an order, and sentenced him to three years' penal servitude. The confirming officer reduced that sentence to six months' hard labour. The man was imprisoned. He asked to be allowed to appeal. He was told he must wait a certain time before his appeal could be forwarded. It was eventually forwarded, and the Director-General of Lines of Communication immediately remitted the punishment to 28 days' field punishment No. 2, which had already been served. What happened? The papers were lost, the man was sent from one gaol to another,

  1625
  and was finally taken, like a winkle out of its shell, out of the gaol at Nottingham. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who had the milk?"] I am very sorry to find that an hon. Member treats the matter as a joke, because I do not consider it funny at all. The man served four and a half months' imprisonment with hard labour, when his sentence had been reduced to 28 days' field punishment.
  11.0 A.M.
  Now comes the immediate connection of this story with my proposed new Clause. On behalf of this man, an appeal was made to the Government for special consideration, and I want to make it plain at the outset that I am not attacking the Government at all, or rather the late Government. The Government of the day were most generous. After a full investigation, the Army Council apologised, and the Government paid the man £350 compensation, but in the course of the proceedings these points were put forward on behalf of the man as reasons why the Government should take a favourable view of his case, and the Government did not take a favourable view of his case at all on account of these considerations, but from quite different considerations. The first consideration was this: Under the rules of procedure governing general courts-martial, an accused person is entitled—and it seems the most elementary justice that he should be entitled—to have a copy of the summary of evidence delivered to him in time to prepare his defence, and is entitled to be told the names of the witnesses to be called against him. That was one ground on which this man's case was put forward. With regard to that, it was replied, and replied perfectly correctly—I am not impugning the correctness of the reply—that that rule does not apply to the case of a field general court-martial, and though wherever possible effect is given to that rule of procedure there is nothing to compel the convening authority who brings the man to trial to give the man a summary of evidence. The next point is that under the rules of procedure governing general courts martial the accused is entitled to be defended by an officer. He is entitled to the assistance of counsel or a solicitor or an officer. This man applied to be defended by an officer. It was not found convenient, and that point of appeal also
  1626
  was rejected, because it was pointed out that the rules of procedure governing field courts martial do not give the accused the right to the assistance of an officer. Those are two specific points on which I would like to ask the Under-Secretary for War for an assurance that some regulation will be laid down, so that in future a man shall be entitled to be defended by an officer before a field general court martial. It ought to be given to the man as a right. It is not sufficient that where possible a summary of evidence should be given to the man. He, ought to have that also as a right. There are other irregularities of procedure with which I will not trouble the Committee and I thank hon. Members for having listened to me with such patience.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The function of a field general court martial is by no means limited to pioneering wars. Possibly it may have been originally, but in present conditions it is essential that we should have a more summary procedure than the cumbersome method of a district general court martial to deal with cases on active service. Most officers who have served on courts martial will disagree with the hon. and gallant Member in considering a district court martial better than a field general court martial. The President at a district court martial spends nearly all his time filling forms and taking down evidence, and has no time to apply his mind to the evidence, while in the case of a field general court martial all this is simplified. There is no verbatim report taken, but merely a summary. It is a far more businesslike and efficient mode than a district general court martial, certainly on active service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether we could not provide that an officer should be available to defend the accused before a field general court martial. It is a matter of universal practice already for a man to be defended by an officer if he asks for it and if an officer is available.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot you make the practice the law?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am told that you will add nothing to the rights enjoyed by the accused if that were put into the rules. The summary of evidence, in the same way, is always given to the accused if it is taken, but there are occasions when it is impossible to take it;

  1627
  Field general courts-martial have sometimes to take place when troops are marching through enemy country, when perhaps there is a crime committed against the civil population by a force on the march. It is sometimes essential for courts to sit at once, and sometimes it occurs that there is no opportunity for a

  SCHEDULE.

  Accommodation to be provided.

  Maximum Price.

  Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished

  Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.

  Breakfast as specified in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Army and Air Force Acts.

  Sevenpence each.

  Dinner as so specified

  Eightpence.

  Supper as so specified

  Threepence.

  Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat.

  Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.

  Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse.

  One shilling and ninepence per day.

  Stable room without forage

  Sixpence per day.

  Lodging and attendance for officer

  Three shillings per night.

  NOTE.—An officer shall pay for his food.

  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move in the paragraph beginning "Dinner as so specified" to leave out the word "eightpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling."
  I have sat here for twelve hours waiting patiently for an opportunity to move this Amendment. In the schedule there is every year inserted a list of prices to be paid to innkeepers, and others who have soldiers billeted on them, for meals supplied to soldiers. The scale of prices for dinner and supper is insufficient. For instance the amount allowed for a dinner to a soldier, consisting of 1 lb. of meat before cooking, 8 ozs. of bread with vegetables and a pint of beer or mineral waters, is eightpence. These cannot be adequately provided for a soldier for eightpence. It may be urged that we do not want innkeepers to make a profit out of soldiers billeted on them, though if they did sometimes it would be for the greater comfort of the soldier. A second Amendment, which I have put down, deals with the price to be paid for supper supplied to a soldier. Their supper consists of 6 ozs. of bread, with one pint of tea with milk and sugar, and 2 ozs. of cheese according to the Schedule to the Act, and all that an inn-
  1628
  summary of evidence, and it would not be consistent with justice if it were laid down as a hard and fast rule that in all cases a summary of evidence should be taken. I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
  keeper or other person supplying the meal is allowed for it is the sum of 3d. This is wholly inadequate, and I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Perhaps I may be able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman some small comfort for his long wait, though I cannot give all that he wants. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in saying that beer is included in the dinner. Though the figures which he has mentioned seem very meagre, yet it has been the immemorial custom to billet men on innkeepers at cost price. Profit has never been taken into account, and it would be very difficult at the present time, when economy is so necessary, to drop that principle. But it seems to me that the prices have been cut very close, and that exception may be taken to these figures, and that, instead of eightpence, tenpence should be allowed for dinner, and that an extra penny should be allowed for the price of supper. If we once give away the principles to which I have referred, and allow profit to the inn-keeper on the transaction, we would be opening a very wide door, not at the present moment, but in case of war. At present there are certain restrictions, the

  1629
  limit being three men for two nights. There has been no protest from innkeepers with regard to billeting. This extra threepence a day will be allowed, not as profit, but merely to cover variation in different parts of the country and the increase in prices.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Gentleman will move the necessary alteration I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "eightpence," and insert, instead thereof, the word "tenpence."—[Mr. Gwynne.]
  Further Amendment made: In paragraph beginning "Supper as so specified," leave out the word "threepence," and insert, instead thereof, the word "fourpence."—[Mr. Gwynne.]
  Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Bill as amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Sections 76 and 82.)
  (1) In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which prescribes the limit of original enlistment), the words "or classes of cases" shall be inserted after the word "cases" the words "a boy" shall be substituted for the words "any boy"; and the words "in a particular corps" shall be omitted.
  (2) At the end of Sub-section (2) of Section eighty-two of the Army Act (which relates to appointments to corps) the following proviso shall be inserted:
  "Provided that in the case of a boy enlisted for general service before attaining the age of eighteen, he need not be appointed to a particular corps until he attains that age."
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
  "the words 'or classes of cases' shall be inserted after the word 'cases'; the words 'a boy' shall be substituted for the words 'any boy'; and the words 'in a particular corps' shall be omitted,"
  and to insert instead thereof the words
  "there shall be inserted after the word 'person' where that word first occurs the words 'over the age of twenty-one' and the proviso shall be omitted."
  Briefly, the point of my Amendment is this. As the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill is aware, I have on
  1630
  more than one occasion had to bring to his notice the question of the enlistment of youths of tender years in the Army. It is not generally known, I think, to Members of this House that the age at which boys may be enlisted into the Army without the consent of their parents is not 18, but 17, and the purpose I have in view is to see to it that there shall be an age established in this Act by means of the Amendment which I have suggested, whereby persons of tender years shall not be so enlisted without the consent of their parents. I think everyone will agree it is most undesirable that boys of tender years should be allowed, as the result of the caprice of a moment, or, perhaps, some other cause, to change the course of their career, quite contrary to the anticipations and desires of their parents. That is the pith and purpose of my Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Amendment. I think a large number of Members in this House were under the impression that the age of enlistment in the Army was 18. I found, not long after I became a Member of Parliament, from letters from various constituents of mine regarding their sons, that the age was 17, and when the Secretary of State for War was approached, he refused, even where the boys joined in defiance of the wishes of their parents, to make any allowance for them. It was the general impression, and accepted in this country, that 18 was the age, and I think, therefore, the Government ought to meet this Amendment in the spirit in which it is moved.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, for the reason that we do not recruit any considerable proportion of men at or over the age of 21. If we were to accept this Amendment, it would mean a complete standstill in recruiting for the Army. At the present time, more than half our recruits are between the ages of 18 and 19. In addition to that, we must take boys to train them for trades. We cannot hope to fill up the more skilled ranks in the Army if we only get them in at the age of 21.
  Mr. LAWSON: You are taking boys at 17, and keeping them.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: We take them at 18, and the rule is that if they give a false answer on attestation, and get in younger, we release them if under

  1631
  17, and they joined without their parents' consent. If they are between 17 and 18, we only release them if there are strong compassionate grounds—the need of the family for the earning powers of the boy, or if the parents repay to the State the out-of-pocket expenses of the training. The cost of the boy getting out varies with the time he has been in the Army, and it would be quite impossible, consistent with reason, to waive this rule. The alternative is to have no one under 21. We cannot help getting these boys if they give a wrong answer, unless we always insist on a birth certificate, and that would make recruiting very difficult indeed. I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment or make any change in the present practice, which is one of long standing in the Army, and is absolutely necessary.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It seems to me that there is involved here a question of principle. If there be an objection at all to the Army, it is an objection all the time. If there be, as I have always understood, particularly from this side of the House, a strengthening of support of the principle of conscientious objection to the taking of life, it ought to be on the distinct basis of thoroughly discouraging anyone from entering upon an occupation which is admitted to have a deleterious effect on the man joining it. Anyone who knows anything about the occupation of the Army, knows perfectly well that it is not to the interest of any young man to enter upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes."] The influences at work in the training applicable to that particular machine are such, that it is considered to be absolutely essential to instil into the young man all the ferocity that the animal instinct can produce. Hon. Members on the other side smile, because they have never realised properly the devastation involved by the sustenance of such a machine, I am going into no Lobby on the question of age. I am going to stand for the principle, which, I maintain, has proved its efficacy in this country and other nations. It unquestionably comes under the scoffs and jeers of those who talk about the necessity of war to end war. The conditions upon which our country is conducted, commercially, economically and otherwise, go to prove that the forces are of a selfish character, and that the young life
  1632
  of this and other nations has been employed for the most sordid purposes that the world has ever known. I stand here to-day, as I stood during the late War, and during the South African War, by the man who goes frankly before a tribunal and declares that he believes this thing to be an evil, a powerful agency for the destruction of mankind, and that there is no other course which can be attempted whereby resistance can be made to these evil agencies, than the courage, perseverance and determination of the individual who says, "I will face the guns, and be shot down, rather than go into such a machine."
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY/: Then why were you not here all night?
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: My answer to that is that I have been discharging services in connection with this House in ways which are not, perhaps, so open to publicity. I have been undergoing experiences which are undermining my health. It is not a question of entitlement to the Victoria Cross, because you happen to stay here and sleep during the night. If absent during the night, I am all the more fresh for tackling you this morning. To be on the ground does not settle anything. It is a question of how determined you are in pursuit of your principles. I submit that if we are going to have a real issue of pacifism, we must declare ourselves prepared to stand for it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling away from the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: He is too fresh.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: On this question it seems to me that you determine an age after which a thing, which is objectionable, becomes acceptable. I say age is no determining factor in this at all. The representative of the Government says, quite rightly from their standpoint, that they take the boys in at the earliest possible age. I have known cases where parents have had a desperate struggle to get their loved ones out of the clutches of the Army fiends. I know that this is a question which has not yet had a fair chance. During the War there was difficulty in getting fair consideration for it. But things are different now. For parents and young men there is only one

  1633
  Commandment, "Thou shall not kill." That is the Commandment in the Book from which the chaplain reads every day. If there is any realistic meaning in the Book, let us prove ourselves to be honourable Members of this House and stand by the principle.
  Mr. J. JONES: Some of us, at least, have never agreed that there is a possibility of peace merely by shouting "peace." I am prepared to fight for the principles in which I believe. If anybody stands in the way of the realisation of the objects that we have in view, I, for one, am prepared to fight. I object to the kind of silent manslaughter that is taking place to-day. Thousands of the children of my class are being murdered every day under peace conditions. So far as this Amendment enables parents to have some control over the lives of their children, I agree with it, but anybody who gets up in this House and talks about universal peace knows as well as I do that he is talking through the back of his neck. What I cannot understand is that the man who objects to military service, at the same time believes in compulsion when it is a matter of individual habit. You cannot eat your cake and have it. If you are to have compulsion in one direction, you must have it in another. Will the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) say that, in the event of this country being attacked, supposing that a Labour Government, or even a Prohibition Government, were in power, he would put forward the pacifist plea, and would not defend the country? I am not arguing for one kind of Government as
  against another. Every country has the right to go to hell in its own way.
  What we ask is that at least there should be an age limit for Army service, a recognition of the principle that a boy shall not be allowed to join the Army, even of his own volition, at too early an age, and a recognition of parental control up to a certain point. I am in favour of peace; I want peace. Everybody wants peace except the professional soldier. We have nothing to gain by war; we have lost everything through it. We are not responsible for the Bible being on the Table. The chaplain reads from it every day and draws a salary for so doing. But the principle contained in that Book is not being acted upon. That is not our fault. We hope that when we get the opportunity the principles in that Book will be acted upon. In the meantime we have to face the music, and the music is that we are discussing a Bill which allows boys to join the Army, even without their parents' consent, which allows them to become trained for purposes altogether foreign to the moral principles which we pretend to advocate. Nobody objects to a boy wanting a career. We regret that such careers are necessary or desirable or possible. We want to protect the boy against himself. We have children of our own and we know how they might be led away by the man who waves the Union Jack in the face of the Union Jackasses. I say that quite deliberately.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 98.

  Division No. 98]

  AYES

  [11.40 a.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Briant, Frank

  Cope, Major William

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchall

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bruford, R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Banks, Mitchell

  Bruton, Sir James

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Becker, Harry

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Davies, S. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Dudgeon, Major C. H.

  Berry, Sir George

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Chapple, W. A.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Bowdler, w. A.

  Clayton, G. C.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Roberts. Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lloyd Greame, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godlray

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Foot, Isaac

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Forestier-Walker. L.

  Maddocks, Henry

  Sandon, Lord

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Manville, Edward

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Furness, G. J.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Millar, J. D.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Garland, C. S.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Cloydon, South)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Gould, James C.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stanley, Lord

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Li'p'l,W.D"by)

  Mold, Sir Herbert

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Haistead, Major D.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Hamilton, Sir George C (Altrincham)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thornton, M.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Paget, T. G.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Harbord, Arthur

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Pease, William Edwin

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Perring, William George

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Wells, S. R.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Bt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Preston, Sir W. S.

  White, Col. G D. (Southport)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Wise, Frederick

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Raine, W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hume, G. H.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Hutchison, G. A. C (Midlothian, N.)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Young, Rt. Hon. E. K. (Norwich)

  Jodrell. Sir Neville Paul

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartiepools)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hancock, John George

  Maxton, James

  Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hardie, George O.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottennum, N.)

  Broad, F. A.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Bromfield, William

  Hayday, Arthur

  Newbold. I. T. W.

  Brotherton, J.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Buckle, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Potts, John S.

  Burgess, S.

  Harriotts, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robertson, J.- (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Cape, Thomas

  Irving, Dan

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Sexton, James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Dunnico, H.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Edmonds, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Spencer, George A, (Broxtowe)

  Greenall, T.

  Leach, W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lee, F.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Groves, T.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Grundy T W.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Tout, W. J.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  1636

  1637

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Webb, Sidney

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Westwood, J.

  Wilson, R. I. (Jarrow)

  Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Ammon.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Wright, W.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. THOMAS: Early this morning I stated to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that the Opposition had decided to take the unusual course of not exercising their rights on a Bill of this kind, but of endeavouring to help the Government in the latter part of the week out of some of their difficulties. You, Sir, have now put from the Chair the Question that this Bill be read the Third time. There are on these benches dozens of Members who feel an obligation to their constituents, and who feel that on the Third Reading of this Bill they would be sadly lacking in their duty if they did not inform the House of their true feelings on the matter. But we started with a view to being conciliatory and helping the Government. Further, it has been in many respects a unique Debate. We have not only no complaint, but we had nothing but thanks and appreciation for the courtesy and good temper displayed all round. You, Mr. Speaker, have been absent and are unaware that there have been two incidents. One was the loss of one of my colleagues, who is now restored. A more serious point is that at 12 o'clock last night an Amendment was moved with a view to doing justice to officers of the British Army. We profoundly disagree in many things with the gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment, but we felt that here was an occasion when they were right. We continued the Debate. We pleaded their cause. At 1.30 this morning we divided. From that moment until an hour ago we lost all trace of the gentlemen who moved that Amendment. Knowing the long and distinguished military career of the seconder we were naturally apprehensive. We said, as a soldier, he would never desert his post. The Mover is more to be excused, because he has not had a long military experience. We are pained beyond words that the great tradition and example of the British Army of sticking to your guns was not maintained in this case, but we are relieved beyond measure
  1638
  to know that at least no harm has befallen him.
  Mr. HURST: The right hon. Gentleman has made some remarks about myself. I should like to explain that I should not have been away had I not been paired. Further, many millions of working people in Lancashire who have been waiting for the Cotton Industry Bill to be debated to-day will know how much they have to thank the Labour Party.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the British Gaslight Company, Limited, with respect to the Norwich undertaking of that company, which was presented on the 22nd March and published, be approved." — [Viscount Wolmer.]

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances in which the Navy and Army Canteen Board took over the assets and liabilities of the Expeditionary Force canteens and into the amounts, etc., taken over; and to inquire into the conduct, administration, trading accounts, and balance sheets of the Navy and Army Canteen Board since taking over from the Expeditionary Farce canteens."
Sir Frederick Banbury, Lieut.-Colonel Campion, Captain Viscount Curzon, Lieut.-Colonel Hodge, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. J. Robertson, Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, and Mr. Wallhead nominated members of the Committee.
Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered, "That Five be the quorum."— [Colonel Gibbs.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, "That Sir William Raeburn be discharged from the Select Committee."
Ordered, "That Major Boyd-Carpenter be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
Adjourned at Four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock, a.m., Friday, 13th April.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.
Mr. PENNY: I beg to present a petition with 4,761 signatures of workpeople employed in the manufacture of components used in the building of commercial motor vehicles, praying that the exemption from import duty of foreign commercial vehicles be abolished, and the same import duty imposed on these vehicles as on foreign touring cars. The signatures to this petition come from factories in all parts of Great Britain, and, in particular, London, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Glasgow, Huddersfield, Ipswich, Leeds, Lincoln, Newark, Northampton and Sheffield.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Maidstone Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    OFFICERS (PERMANENT PENSIONS).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that numbers of officers who were disabled as far hack as the first half of 1917, who have since been fianlly discharged by the medical clinic of the Ministry of Pensions as incurable, and who are entitled to permanent pensions, have not yet received the same; and what steps he is taking to expedite the granting of permanent pensions in such cases?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am not aware that there is any considerable number of cases of the
    1268
    kind referred to. As I informed the hon. Member on the 15th March, the consideration of suitable cases for final awards is being carried out as rapidly as practicable, especially where officers or men have been in receipt of pension for not less than four years; but for practical reasons this can ordinarily be done only on an occasion of medical re-examination. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I should be obliged if he would kindly let me have details of it.
    Mr. FRANK GRAY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of cases later than the year 1918 in respect of which permanent pensions have not been granted?
    Major TRYON: It is undoubtedly the case that permanent pensions are not granted in certain cases, and some of our decisions in which they have been awarded have been set aside by the Appeal Tribunal. It is also the case that some men are getting worse, and it would be against their interest to settle the rate of pension now.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the Minister aware that quite a considerable number of these officers are being deprived of their future livelihood because of the uncertainty in regard to these pensions?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir; it is quite clear that not making the pension permanent does not deprive anyone of that benefit. The pension goes on, and the question is merely whether it shall be made final or not.

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions whether claims for pensions by parents in respect of sons lost during the War under Article 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1) (c) of the Royal Warrant are now considered; whether, in the review of pre-War dependence pensions now being made, the dependence pension will be reduced from the amount of dependence at the time of enlistment to the amount of dependence prior to August, 1914; and, if so, what saving of public money is it anticipated will follow the review of dependence pensions?
    Major TRYON: New awards of pension to parents are, in accordance with the de-

    1269
    cision of the late Government, not now made under Article 21 (1) (a) or (1) (c) of the Royal Warrant. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The term "pre-War dependence" covers, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant, pre-enlistment dependence in the case of late enlistments, exclusive, however, of any increase of such dependence owing to circumstances arising out of the War.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of fathers and mothers who have no income owing to the death of their sons in the War?
    Major TRYON: It is quite true that those who are well off do not now get a pension on account of the loss of a son. It is limited to cases of need.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are people of the working class, but cannot work for their livelihood because of old age or infirmity?
    Mr. LAWSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "well off "? Is he aware that I could give a case in which three brothers were lost in one family, and the mother, who was dependent upon them, is getting no pension, it having been consistently refused?
    Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will give me the case, I shall be happy to go into it.
    Mr. CAIRNS: May I have an answer to my second supplementary question?
    Major TRYON: If the hon. Member can give me a case in which a dependant who has lost a son is getting no income at all. I will gladly inquire into it, as it would obviously come under the heading of need.
    Mr. CAIRNS: I have already given cases.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions (1) what was the amount disbursed by the Special Grants Committee to widows, children, and dependants under Regulation 2 of Regulations, Part I, of that Committee during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1922;
    1270
    (2), whether, seeing that Regulations, Part I, Regulation 4, of the Special Grants Committee, provides for an allowance not exceeding 20s. a week to a widow or parent, and children's allowances at 9s. 2d. for a first child, 6s. 8d. for a second child, and 5s. 10d. for each after the second, where the case is one of exceptional hardship, and the Special Grants Committee are satisfied that the man's death was due to circumstances arising from his war service, he will state what was the amount disbursed under this regulation in the 12 months ending 31st December, 1922; and is it proposed to make any alteration in the regulation?
    Major TRYON: The approximate expenditure under Regulation 2 of Part I of the Special Grants Committee's regulations during the year ended 31st December, 1922, was £5,800; and under Regulation 4, £27,000. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an explanatory circular which has been issued regarding a change in the use of these regulations.
    Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Minister of Pensions, whether he is aware that cases have arisen in which it has been held, as an interpretation of Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, that the Ministry is liable for the payment of compensation after death, though not previously liable for payment of pension in the, same case; and what steps can he take to remove this anomaly?
    Major TRYON: Under the provisions of Article 11 (c) of the Royal Warrant, a widow may be granted a pension if her husband dies within seven years of a disease on account of which he was removed from duty during his service, if the disease commenced or was contracted on service, even though it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. This is a special provision in favour of widows and dependants only, and the removal of the anomaly referred to by the hon. Member would involve the withdrawal of this generous provision, a step which I am not prepared to take.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. E. Coates, of Hatton, mother of the late Private Walter Gordon Coates, No. 14909, Grenadier Guards, whose pension has been reduced by the bonus of 2s. 1d. a week, which was discontinued on 31st March last; whether

    1271
    he is aware that the only income of Mrs. Coates, in addition to the pension, is 12s. a week unemployment insurance pay in respect of her daughter; and whether he will, under the circumstances, restore the pension of 15s. a week?
    Major TRYON: When the last award was made the applicant's circumstances were not as stated in the question. I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. WHITE: Why have they been reducing it in this way?
    Major TRYON: I am informed that the circumstances are not as stated in the question, but I am inquiring into the matter to see if there is any error.
    Mr. WHITE: Where does the information come from?
    Major TRYON: It comes from the area where the case arises. We are continually pressed in this House to rely more upon local effort in the local area.
    Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the local effort in this case is personal intervention by myself.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the widow of Private Joseph Green, No. 164,472, of Vauxhall Road, Wigan, who was in receipt. of a 100 per cent. pension up to the time of his death, has now been awarded the small pension of 13s. 9d. per week, with no allowance for the children, five of whom are under working age, the reason given being that his death took place more than seven years after his discharge; and whether his Department intends to adhere to the seven years' period in such cases?
    Major TRYON: In the short time available I have not been able to complete my inquiry into this case. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    ASSESSMENT (BRONCHITIS AND ASTHMA).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there is a general impression that pensioners suffering from bronchitis and/or asthma are seriously under-assessed in respect of their degree of disablement; what is
    1272
    the number of pensioners in receipt of pension for bronchitis and/or asthma; and whether, owing to the nature of these diseases and the difficulty in arriving at a correct assessment during the two-minutes examination by a medical board, he will issue instructions that pensioners whose disability is bronchitis and/or asthma shall be admitted to hospital for observation and that the re-survey board shall be held prior to their discharge from the institution?
    Major TRYON: The approximate number of pensions in payment. in respect of affections of the respiratory system (other than tuberculosis) is 41,000. I am not aware of the impression referred to, nor do I consider that any such views, if held, would be well founded. Procedure on the lines suggested in the last part of the question has been in force for some time, and is acted upon wherever the circumstances of the case render such a course necessary. I may add that the hon. Member is mistaken as to the time occupied by an examination by a medical board. The average time given to cases of re-examination for renewal of pension is more than a quarter of an hour, and to first claims or for final award the time given is usually over half an hour.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who have these complaints after being in the Army for two or three years joined up as Class A men, and had followed their work with great regularity, but cannot now do anything at all? What about their pensions?
    Major TRYON: I do not understand the hon. Member's point.
    Mr. CAIRNS: They had certificates from their employers before joining up that they had followed their work regularly, had had good health, and had never been off work at all; but since they went into the Army they contracted these complaints, and get no pension at all.
    Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will send me the cases I will look into them. We do not confine ourselves to pensioning A 1 cases. If a man comes in as C 2 and is made worse we give him a pension.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last six specific cases from the Ponty-pridd district that were taken before the

    1273
    officials were all turned down, and that there are hundreds of men who were certified fit for service before the War and are to-day dependent upon Poor Law relief?

    FUNERALS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether relatives of pensioners who die in a Ministry institution, and are buried in the district in which the institution is situate, are refused their travelling expenses in attending the funeral; and whether, in view of the saving to public funds effected by the relatives' decision not to press for the body to be conveyed home for interment, he will sanction the payment of reasonable travelling expenses?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to have had this point brought to notice, and I have, now arranged that where necessary reasonable travelling expenses of two near relatives will be paid.

    ADVANCES.
    Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Minister of Pensions what was the amount of advances made to men owing to papers not arriving from the issue office at the proper time during the 12 months ended December last, and the number of cases in which such advances were made by area offices?
    Major TRYON: The amount asked for in the first part of the question is £141,000, which compares with the figure of £270,000 for 1921. The former figure includes a sum of £35,000 in respect of Ireland South, due to interruptions of postal arrangements, and, of the remainder, 67 per cent. was paid in the first six months of the year. I regret that I have no particulars of the number of cases. As I have previously pointed out, these advances are largely due to delay on the part of pensioners in completing life certificates.

    MASSAGE AND ELECTRICAL TREATMENT (FEES).
    Mr. A. GREENWOODasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in the cases of officers and nurses undergoing approved home treatment the authorised fee for combined massage and electrical treatment has been reduced from 7s. per visit to 3s. 6d. per visit, and that for massage treatment reduced from
    1274
    3s. 6d. per visit to 2s. per visit; that in many cases it is not possible to obtain the treatment necessary at the authorised rates; and whether, if the authorised rates are reduced, he will give the Commissioners of Medical Services in the regions discretionary power to sanction payments at higher rates to enable patients to obtain the treatment deemed necessary?
    Major TRYON: There has been no recent change in the approved scale of charges for massage and electrical treatment given at home. The higher fees mentioned are sanctioned when the treatment is given at the patient's own home, but where the patient attends as an outpatient at an institution for the treatment the lower rates are applicable. Officers and nurses, finding difficulty in obtaining prescribed massage and electrical treatment within the authorised fees, should communicate with the Commissioner of Medical Services of the region, who will make arrangements for the provision of suitable treatment at approved charges.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. A. GREENWOODasked the Minister of Pensions whether, when a pensioner dies as a result of a disability due to war service, his widow automatically receives a pension or whether no action is taken by his Department until the widow submits an application for pension?
    Major TRYON: The widow of an ex-service man (whether he was in receipt of a pension or not) has to make her claim through the local office, where every assistance is given to her in its preparation. Where the death occurs from the disability for which pension had been granted, and the widow is eligible by reason of the date of her marriage, the local officer is empowered to make weekly advances at once pending the decision, in order to avoid any break in the continuity of payment.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the Minister of Pensions has admitted the claim of an ex-service man, is it not reasonable to ask that the claim of his widow should be automatically recognised?
    Major TRYON: It is, of course, necessary that the matter should be got through as rapidly as possible, but the hon. Member knows quite well that, if a

    1275
    man has married long after his disability, the widow would not be eligible for pension, and, therefore, it is necessary to inquire whether she is, for this purpose, eligible for pension.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Is not the onus upon the Ministry rather than upon the widow?

    ORPHANS AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Regulation of the Special Grants Committee, providing for the grant of an allowance to a motherless or illegitimate child of a deceased ex-service man, when the case is one of exceptional hardship and the death of the man can be shown to be due to circumstances arising from his service, is still in force?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to a provision for cases in which the circumstances of the death of the father do not entitle the child to pension. This provision does not now exist, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an explanatory circular on the subject.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman inquire into a case like that?
    Major TRYON: I think it would be better to wait until the hon. Member has seen the explanatory circular.
    Mr. WEBB: Would it not be for the convenience of the House to have this explanatory circular communicated to hon. Members, or, at any rate, made obtainable by hon. Members?
    Major TRYON: I shall be most happy to do everything I can to convey to hon. Members any information on the subject they may desire to have.
    Mr. WEBB: May I press my question whether these circulars could not be circulated?

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the principle of accepting liability for subsequent disabilities of men who passed A 1 on enlistment has been admitted by the United States Government; and whether he is prepared to consider the application of the same principle to disabled men in this country?
    Major TRYON: I am not aware that any such principle has been admitted by the United States Government. If the hon. Member has in mind the recent Amendments to the United States War Risks Insurance Act, I am advised that under that Act, as amended, liability for subsequent disabilities in the case of men passed fit on enlistment is confined to cases of disabilities occurring prior to or within one year of discharge from the United States Forces, or to disabilities which are up to a specified date certified as being traceable to injury existing at the time of discharge. The liability referred to is, therefore, strictly limited. In my Department it is the practice, in the absence of any record of impairment at the time of enlistment, to regard acceptance for Military Service as primâ facie evidence of fitness at that date. This principle holds good in all cases where a claim is made for any disability within seven years of the man's discharge. I consider, therefore, that the practice of my Department in this respect is fully as favourable to the man as that adopted by the United States of America, if, indeed, it is not more favourable, and I am not prepared to make any alteration in it.
    Mr. MIDDLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman go carefully into this question and see whether he cannot accept the principle accepted by the United States Government within the limits mentioned?
    Major TRYON: That matter has already been debated. It has been shown that certain cases which are obviously ineligible would be included.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to Article 5 of the French War Pensions Act of 31st March, 1919; whether he is aware that the Article provides that all diseases from which a soldier or sailor is ascertained to be suffering during the period of his service or during the six months following his discharge shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to have been contracted or aggravated as the result of the fatigues, dangers, or accidents of service; and whether, in any amending legislation he may introduce, he will include a Clause presuming origin of disability and placing the onus of proving the contrary on the Ministry of Pensions?
    Major TRYON: I am aware of the Article of the French Pensions Law to which the hon. Member refers, but a reference to the concluding paragraph of that Article shows that its provisions are a good deal more restricted than is suggested by the hon. Member, since, in the case of discharged men, it was limited to those who applied within six months of the publication of the law, that is, before the 30th September, 1919, for a certificate of their disease or disability. My Department has always acted on the view, in the case of men invalided from the service, that a disability incurred while in military service affords a primâ facie suggestion that it was connected with his service, and unless it is clear that the balance of probability is against the man's claim, the benefit of the doubt is given to him. I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

    PARENTS' PENSIONS (TRANSFER).
    Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Minister of Pensions why the transfer of pensions from a deceased parent to the surviving parent cannot be considered after 31st March, 1922.
    Major TRYON: In accordance with the decision of the late Government, following the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions, that further grants of pensions under Article 21 (i) (a) and (c) should cease to be made after the 31st March, 1922, the provision referred to lapsed so far as regards these classes of pension. But I would point out any surviving parent has the right to apply for a pension based on need.

    OVERPAYMENTS.
    Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in cases of overpayment of pensions, he can see his way to order recovery of the overpaid amount from the official responsible for the mistake in place of recovering from the innocent pensioner, to whom deduction from pension in many cases causes extreme financial embarrassment and anxiety?
    Major TRYON: It has been and still is the practice of my Department to take appropriate disciplinary action against any officer of the Ministry who, owing to gross carelessness, is responsible for overpayments to pensioners.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is sufficient? The fault is not the fault of the pensioner, and he is put to great inconvenience. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to allow the Government, for instance, to bear the loss?
    Major TRYON: Ninety-seven per cent. of the men employed in this Ministry are ex-service men, and I am not prepared to make them repay possibly large sums. That is the proposal in the question, to penalise our ex-service men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] The proposal is to make the officials responsible for the mistake repay the money. I am not prepared to do that.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is it not the case that collection of these overpayments is a very costly proceeding, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of wiping them all out and making it a national charge?
    Major TRYON: It is obvious that I could not defend failure to reclaim money which has been wrongly obtained from the taxpayers' resources. We hope by our organisation, which is to be greatly improved, that there will be far fewer cases now of mistakes. I have been going into this question of reclaims, and we are now getting it on to a footing where there will be far fewer of these reclaims, which we are anxious to avoid if we can.
    Mr. WEBB: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a distinction between mistakes arising out of ignorance of the law and arising out of mistakes of fact, and would he not take upon his own Department the liability for issues which are made merely with regard to some error or with regard to regulations, quite irrespective of issues made owing to mistakes of fact?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: is it net a fact that the Department considers each case individually on its merits and that in almost every case they are sympathetically considered from the point of view of the pensioner; and is it not a fact that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department that is really concerned but the Treasury?
    Major TRYON: It is undoubtedly the fact that the Government, as a whole, have to answer for the money with which they are entrusted, and it is impossible

    1279
    to justify sums which ought not to have been spent. On the other hand, there is the difference pointed out by the hon. Member opposite between cases where a pensioner has obtained money through misstatements and cases of simple error. We consider those cases on their merits. In cases of severe hardship we take occasion to remit the claim and in many cases that is being done now, and I am issuing orders on the subject.

    SUNDERLAND HOSPITAL.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to close the Ministry of Pensions hospital, Sunderland; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the civil hospitals in the counties of Durham and Northumberland have long waiting lists of civilian patients and are unable to deal promptly with pensioners; whether the medical officers of the northern region are in favour of the closing of the Sunderland hospital; and whether, if it be decided to close this hospital, other hospital accommodation will be provided in the county of Durham for pensioners?
    Major TRYON: Owing to the decreasing requirements of my Department in the northern region, arrangements have been made to close this hospital gradually. This step was not. taken without the fullest consideration of all the circumstances, and, after consultation with my medical advisers, I am satisfied that ample facilities will remain for providing, without delay, all necessary treatment.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: May I suggest to the Minister that he should consider combining the Ministry of Pensions with this hospital, and save a very useful hospital which is doing such good work; and does he remember the large number of men who enlisted from the County of Durham, and who may want to use the hospital in the near future instead of going as far as Gretna to receive treatment?
    Major TRYON: I cannot give an answer at once, but I will consider the suggestion.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for years the hospitals of Durham and Northumberland have not been able to meet the needs of the civilian population, and in view of that fact will
    1280
    he further investigate this matter before he places even a small number of military cases upon the civilian hospitals?

    VOLUNTARY WORKERS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that voluntary workers of the Ministry in the provinces are still refused payment of travelling expenses incurred in visiting motherless children and making inquiries for his Department; whether it is proposed to employ paid staff in place of these voluntary workers and, if not, whether he will consent to reconsider the question with a view to retaining the services of experienced voluntary workers by reimbursing them in respect of all out-of-pocket expenses?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that arrangements have been made to defray reasonable travelling expenses necessarily incurred by voluntary workers in connection with work for the Ministry.

    PENSIONS AND ADMINISTRATION (COST).
    Mr. J. GUESTasked the Minister of Pensions the amount of the reduction in the cost of war pensions during the past two years; and if he can give the amount of such reduction which is due to a lessened cost of administration and the reduction in payments to war pensioners, respectively?
    Major TRYON: The total expenditure (excluding cost of administration) of my Department for the year ending 31st March, 1923, was approximately £78,820,000 as compared with £90,035,516 for the previous year, a decrease of £11,215,516, or 12 per cent. The cost of administration for the year ending 31st March, 1923, was approximately £4,180,000, a decrease of £1,344,100, or 24 per cent., on the figure for the previous year.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that this reduction has been brought about by the skinning of the ex-service men?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member took part in the debate, when I gave an explanation, and he knows that that description is inaccurate.

    APPEALS TRIBUNAL (APPELLANTS' EVIDENCE).
    Mr. J. GUESTasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the handicap which is placed upon ex-service men when appearing before the final appeals tribunal, owing to the fact that the Ministry of Pensions make no provision for these men being represented at the tribunal and having their case properly defended; and whether, seeing that the work of the tribunal is largely the sifting and weighing of medical opinion and evidence, he can now agree for his Ministry to pay a reasonable fee for the man's local doctor for his attendance at the court in order that his more continuous and intimate knowledge of the case may be placed before the tribunal?
    Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Frame on the 7th December, and to the hon. Member for West Middles-brough on the 15th March last. of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. GUEST: Does not the Minister realise that it is the obligation of his Department to see that the case of those appellants is properly presented, and does he think that the obligation is properly met when the only provision his Department makes is the railway fare to the place of the tribunal?
    Major TRYON: I regard the preparation of the précis as a, very important and vital duty of the Ministry, and consider it to be absolutely our duty to bring out, every point in favour of the man in the précis. Further, it is not generally known that under the Regulations issued by the Lord Chancellor the instructions which he gives to the tribunal are that the tribunal shall assist any appellant who, through ignorance or otherwise, is unable to make the best of his case.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very frequently a direct conflict of opinion between the man's medical adviser and the medical board, and having regard to that, fact, and the widespread dissatisfaction about the matter will he provide reasonable facilities for the man being accompanied by his medical adviser at the appeal tribunal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question' on the Paper.
    Mr. GUEST: Is it not a fact that the précis is very often a collection of medical terms best understood by medical men, but not understood by the ordinary ex-service man, and ought not the man to have medical protection before the tribunal?
    Major TRYON: There is a medical officer on the tribunal who can explain the terms. I am anxious that. in the précis abbreviations shall be avoided, as far as possible.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many non-service established civil servants have been transferred to the Ministry since 1st January, 1922, and how many ex-service temporary civil servants have been discharged since that date?
    Major TRYON: Since the 1st January, 1922, 15 non-service and 47 ex-service established male civil servants have been transferred to the Ministry, and five non-service and 301 ex-service men have been appointed direct to established posts. During the same period, the number of ex-service men in the direct employ of the Ministry has increased by 2,010, and, generally speaking, it has not been necessary to discharge efficient ex-service temporary civil servants.

    BONUS (INDEX FIGURE).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Government Departments were instructed to regard the cost-of-living index figure as 85 in their calculations of staff bonuses for the year 1923–24; whether he is aware that during the past six months the cost-of-living index figure has not risen above 80; and, if so, why were Departments asked to estimate on calculations based on the higher figure?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last part of the question is that it was not considered safe to assume that the average cost-of-living index figure for

    1283
    the whole year ending March next will be as low as 80.
    Mr. F. GRAY: That being so, cannot the same rules be applied to the allowances to the wives of serving sailors and soldiers?

    EXPENDITURE (ECONOMIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the financial policy of the Government follows the lines of the Treasury Minute of May, 1921, or whether that Minute has been modified or superseded in any particular?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I think the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the Treasury Circular of 13th May, 1921 (Cmd. Paper 1309), which had reference to the year 1922–23. I am not aware of any Treasury Minute prescribing general financial policy, though my right hon. Friend hopes to give some indication of that policy on Monday next.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Pensions if he has seen the resolution passed by the guardians of the Newport (Mon.) Union on 24th March, 1923, condemning the recent action of the Ministry of Pensions in deciding to transfer to pauper lunatic asylums ex-service men whose condition is alleged not to be due to or worsened by the War; and will he see that these men are properly cared for and maintained by the State?
    Major TRYON: My attention has been drawn to this resolution. I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for West Bromwich on the 15th February, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. BARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No" to the last part of the question?
    Major TRYON: I have already given the answer. It. is quite definite. The answer is "No."
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has
    1284
    received a complaint from the Stockton Board of Guardians that the Ministry of Pensions has refused to recognise Herbert Johnson Elgie, a patient in the Durham County Asylum, as a Service patient: is he aware that previous to enlistment I his man had not been an inmate of an asylum or mentally affected; will he reconsider the case in order that the already heavily burdened guardians may be relieved of the cost of maintenance; and will he give the name of the doctor who passed this man as fit for service?
    Major TRYON: After careful consideration of all the circumstances my medical advisers were unable to regard this man's unfortunate mental condition as being in any way related to his few days' service at the depot. As I have already stated. I am not prepared to agree that my Department should continue to accept responsibility for ex-service men whose disabilities are not connected with their War service. I regret I have not the information asked for in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the name of the doctor or doctors who passed this man, and further ought not the question to be that if he is fit for service he is fit for pension?
    Major TRYON: The reason why I have not given the information as to the, name of the doctor is because I have not the name. The man was not examined by my Department.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Cannot you get the name?
    Major TRYON: We have not been able to get the information. On the second point, when a man like this is enlisted and he is found almost at once not to be fit, it would not be right to put him upon the same footing as the man who has been wounded or who has been clearly disabled.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In what category was this man passed for the Army?
    Major TRYON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (IRELAND).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a British Act of Parliament, setting aside a fund of £1,500,000 for the construction

    1285
    of houses for ex-service men in Ireland, and establishing a trust for the administration of the fund, is almost totally inoperative; that the Government of the Irish.Free State has failed to nominate a representative on the trust; and that in certain cases the fund is being used to provide houses and holdings for men who did no service in the Great War; and, seeing that they money is being found by the British taxpayer, what action does he propose to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. The provision to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, namely, Section 3 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, is expressly stated to be inoperative until the legislation necessary to carry it into effect has been passed by both Irish Parliaments. Neither Parliament has yet passed the necessary legislation, but a Bill has been introduced into the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I hope that a similar Bill will shortly be introduced into the Parliament of the Free State. Meanwhile, the work which had been begun under the provisions of Section 4 of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, is being continued without interruption. I have no information to the effect suggested in the third part of the question.
    Colonel NEWMAN: May I give the hon. Gentleman some information which I have?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will gladly receive it.

    NATURALISATION (ARMY SERVICE).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether service in the British Army constitutes proof of naturalisation; and whether, in a case where a soldier dies during service, his widow can claim to be a British subject?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): Service in the British Army does not confer British nationality upon an alien. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative if the soldier is an alien.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it just to refuse naturalisation to the widow of a man who died in the service of this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should be glad to consider the terms of the case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

    ORPHANS (ADOPTION IN INDIA).
    Sir JOHN HEWETTasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to prevent the recurrence of a case like that of Doris Hawker, he will, until provided with the necessary legal powers in the matter, make known to societies or institutions which undertake the charge of orphan children that it is undesirable, on moral, educational, and physical grounds, to send orphan children to India at an age when the parents of British children resident there, who can afford to do so, would be arranging to send them out of that country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    SHIP-BUILDING YARDS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of serious accidents fatal and otherwise, which occur in shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards, he has come to any decision to institute a special inquiry into the means necessary to secure a higher standard of safety?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir, I have decided to appoint a Departmental Committee whose terms of reference will be
    " to inquire into the circumstances and causes of accidents in shipbuilding and ship repairing and to report that further measures for their prevention are desirable,"
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to act as Chairman, and the other members of the Committee will consist of representatives of the employers and workers affected and a representative of the Factory Department of the Home Office.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an effort is being made by the employers to transfer the

    1287
    responsibility of staging in shipyards to the men, and will he take steps to stop that now when the Committee gets to business?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

  IRELAND.

    SHOOTING, CUSHENDALL,
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement concerning the inquiry held to investigate the circumstances, etc., in which three boys were shot at Cushendall, County Antrim, last June; and, if so, what action is to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
    Mr. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when the inquiry was held, some of the witnesses were cross-examined by the Chief Crown Solicitor and by the Deputy Inspector-General of the Constabulary?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question for the Government of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In view of the anxiety of the relatives of these poor men, whom, I believe, the report shows to have been brutally massacred, will the right hon. Gentleman press the Government of Northern Ireland to consent to the publication of the report?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that I can add anything to the answer which I have given The Government of Northern Ireland are fully aware of all the circumstances, and the question can be addressed to them.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the report, which I understand says that these men were murdered, to be hushed up, and are neither the relatives nor the public to be allowed to know anything about it?

    INTERNED PERSONS.
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that none of the Irish deportees have
    1288
    yet been brought to trial, he can say if they are to remain in confinement for an indefinite period, or whether, if no charges are preferred against them before the courts within a reasonable time, His Majesty's Government will make representations to have these people set at liberty?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I have already explained, nothing more than internment is at present contemplated in these cases, and the duration of such internment must obviously depend upon circumstances; but it is clearly understood between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Free State that if, as the result of any recommendation of the Advisory Committee, an order of internment is revoked, the person interned there-under will be at once released.
    Captain BERKELEY: Is there any historical precedent since the passage of the Habeas Corpus Act for British subjects being indefinitely imprisoned, or, as you call it, interned, without trial in any part of the British Empire?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has been a matter of debate.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government taking any steps, in view of the indefinite period of commitment, to inspect the camps and see that these people are properly treated?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite satisfied that the Free State Government will treat them as they should.

    DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the declared policy of the Government that British subjects domiciled in the Irish Free State shall receive adequate compensation for damage to which they have been subjected, he is satisfied that the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, which has recently passed through Dail Eireann, will assure this; and, if not, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. The Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is now before the Senate of the Free State, and is therefore still subject to amendment. I do not think, therefore, that I could usefully express any opinion upon the Bill at the present moment.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Does the hon. Member bear in mind the unequivocal pledge given by the Prime Minister at Glasgow last October?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.

    GERMAN MOTOR-CARS (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state if, under the arrangement for the levying of customs and other duties on dutiable goods exported from the Irish Free State to Great Britain, a German motor-car consigned to an Irish dealer, and by him re-exported to Great Britain, is liable for Reparation Duty in addition to the ordinary Customs Duty of 22 per cent.?
    Major BOYD - CARPENTER: The car in question would be liable to the full rate of motor-car import duty, namely, 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. German Reparation Levy would also be payable if the car, when des-patched from Germany, were consigned directly or indirectly to this country; but not if it were genuinely purchased outright by an Irish dealer, and thereafter re-sold and re-exported to this country.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Does that not mean that Ireland will be a dumping ground for German goods?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It will mean cheap motor-cars.

    DISORDERLY HOUSES.
    Mr. HURDasked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations from organisations of women electors as to the urgent need of further legislation in order that punishment may fall upon both sexes in cases brought before magistrates on charges referring to disorderly houses; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have received two representations on the subject Persons who keep disorderly houses are equally amenable to the law irrespective of their sex, and I know of no reason for an amendment of the law in this respect.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with the landlords who own these disorderly houses?

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of motor omnibuses registered at present by the Metropolitan police at Scotland Yard, how many of them are the new larger type of omnibus, and how many are the old type of smaller omnibus?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of motor omnibuses licensed by the Metropolitan police for the year ending the 31st March, 1923, was 3,881. Of these, 2,228 are of the new larger type and 1,653 are of the old smaller type.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the tax the same on each type of omnibus?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would like notice of that question.

  BUDGET.

    NEWSPAPER ANTICIPATIONS.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the statements contained in the "Daily Express" newspaper of 29th March, in which certain Budget proposals are set forth on what purports to be the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking action to prevent the circulation and sale to the public of news which is known by those who publish it to be false?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of any action that could be taken for this purpose.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the artcile referred to was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as containing not a word of truth from beginning to end? Is he further aware that last week a news-vendor was sent to prison for 14 days for offering false news for sale? Is there one law for newsvendors and another for publishers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member can show me what action can be taken, I will be glad to consider it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Intern them! "]
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not possible to take action against a proprietor for the publication of false information, just as you would against a newsvendor?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of what action I can take.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How many newspapers would survive in these circumstances?

    TAXATION (GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND UNITED STATES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the British official figures of taxation, direct and indirect, give £16 12s. per head for Great Britain, £5 12s. 7d. for France, and £5 11s. 10d. for federal taxes of the United States; whether the National Industrial Conference Board in the United States gave figures based upon pre-War exchange as 46 dollars per head for Great Britain, 25 dollars in France, and 41 dollars in the United States; and whether he will take steps to ask our ambassador in Washington to circulate the correct figures?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have no knowledge of the American figures or of the basis on which they are arrived at; but I do not think it necessary to take any steps in the matter.

    INCOME TAX (AWARDS FOR INVENTIONS).
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that awards for inventions during the War made to Regular officers of the Navy and Army were subject to Income Tax, while similar awards to civilians or temporary officers were not so subject, he will say on what principle a differentiation is made between the two classes of cases?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that a distinction is drawn, in regard to the Income Tax liability in respect of awards for inventions, between Regular officers of the Forces on the one hand and civilians and temporary officers on the other. The liability in a particular case depends upon the nature of the award and the circumstances in which it is granted. If the hon. and gallant Member has any individual case in mind regarding which he would like further information I will gladly have the matter investigated on being furnished with the necessary particulars.

    GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
    1292
    give the names of the present holdings of the British Government in concerns registered under the Companies Acts; and will he state the total amount received on revenue account by way of interest or dividend during the period April, 1922, to April, 1923, and the aggregate market or estimated capital value of such holdings, and similarly the capital value and income on the Government's holding of Suez Canal shares?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The information desired by my hon. Friend is being collected and I will circulate it in due course.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman not give the totals now, without giving the names?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have just said the information is being collected, and will be circulated.

    CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
    Sir WALTER PRESTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of collecting the Corporation Profits Tax from April, 1921, to March, 1922, and from April, 1922, to March, 1923; and what was the revenue derived from this tax in both of these years?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I regret that it is not possible to isolate the cost of collecting the Corporation Profis Tax from that of collecting the other duties of the Inland Revenue Department. The Exchequer receipt of this tax amounted in 1921–22 to £17,516,000 (for the United Kingdom) and in 1922–23 to £18,977,000 (for Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of teachers dismissed from grant-aid elementary and secondary schools. respectively, in England and Wales since July, 1921?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I regret that I do not possess the information asked for by the hon. Member.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ask for the information, which is easily obtainable from the authorities?
    Mr. WOOD: I should he glad enough to have it, but my hon. Friend will realise that it would impose considerable expense upon local authorities. It is a Return which they are not bound to submit to me. I cannot impose expense on them at present.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Surely there is a record kept of the teachers who have been dismissed by the authorities, and it would simply be a matter of question and answer.

    GRANTS.
    Mr. BECKERasked the President of the Board of Education if he will introduce the per capita system of making grants to local education authorities in place of the percentage grant system now used?
    Mr. WOOD: The question of percentage grants is at present under consideration by a Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Meston, and the hon. Member will understand that, pending their Report, I cannot make any statement.

    UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the President of the Board of Education the number of teachers unemployed at 31st March and the number of supplementary untrained teachers who have been introduced into the schools to replace trained teachers on the grounds of economy?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Education how many persons who are not certificated teachers are being employed in the present year by the London County Council for children under five years of age who attend London schools; if this policy has the support of his board; and what is the estimated yearly saving to his Department of such a policy?
    Mr. WOOD: I presume that the hon. Gentlemen are referring to the suitable women teachers for whose employment provision is made in. Article 11 (a) and Schedule I.D. (8) of the Code. I understand that so far 80 teachers of this class have been appointed to schools in London
    1294
    as infants' assistants. They have had a short period of training and are employed only for children under five years of age. I am not aware of any other important proposals of this kind; but it is open to local education authorities to obtain the approval of His Majesty's Inspector for the employment of such teachers far children under six. The difference between the pay of an infants' assistant and the pay of a certificated teacher (two years college-trained) in London is in the first year £85 10s. and increases annually. The saving to the Board's Vote in each case is therefore £42 15s. in the first year, increasing annually. I regret I have no figures to show the number of teachers who were unemployed on the 31st March last.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it economy to introduce those untrained teachers, who will mean such great cost in future owing to the lack of education on the part of the children who are under them?
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider stopping the engagement of un-certificated teachers so long as a number of certificated teachers are unemployed?
    Mr. WOOD: We have debated this question at some length on the Motion for Adjournment before the Recess, and I do not think that I can usefully cover the ground again by answers to supplementary questions. I must not be taken as accepting the imputations contained in the first supplementary question.

    TEACHERS' TRAINING (COST).
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the amount of public money from rates and taxes, respectively, which was expended on the training of teachers for elementary schools in the years 1913–14 and 1921–22; what sums are provided for this purpose for the year 1923–24; and whether he has any estimate of the number of elementary school teachers now out of employment?
    Mr. WOOD: The grants paid by the Board for the training of teachers for elementary schools in the financial year 1913–14, in respect of both local education authority and non-local education authority institutions, amounted to £645,943. The expenditure from rates on the train-

    1295
    ing of teachers for elementary schools in 1913–14 cannot be given, but the corresponding figure in 1912–13 was £152,019. In 1921–22 the net expenditure from rates amounted to £453,259, and of this amount, approximately, half, or £226,630 was met by grants from the Board to local education authorities. The grants paid by the Board in the same year to non-local education authority institutions and students amounted to £844,255. The local education authorities' forecasts for 1923–24 show a net expenditure of £423,000 on training of teachers, of which, approximately, one-half, or £211,500, would be met by grants from the Board. The Board's grants to non-local education authority institutions and to students for 1923–24 are estimated at £855,070. The figures given have been confined, so far as possible, to expenditure on training of teachers for elementary schools, but I cannot distinguish this expenditure in all cases from expenditure on other forms of training.
    I regret that I cannot give any estimate of the total number of persons who have been employed as teachers in elementary schools. and who are now out of employment.

    ORGANISATION SCHEMES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education how many education authorities have submitted schemes under Part II of the Education Acts of 1918 and 1921, showing the mode in which their powers under these Acts are being exercised: and the number of such schemes which have been approved by the Board of Education?
    Mr. WOOD: The number of local education authorities which have submitted schemes to the Board under the Education Act is 94. Statutory approval of these schemes has been necessarily deferred.

    CROYDON TEACHERS (STRIKE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his Department has taken any action as regards the strike of school teachers at Croydon: whether any steps have been taken in the interests of the children of the district to get the schools reopened; and can he make any statement on the subject?
    Mr. WOOD: I am watching the situation closely, but it has not presented an opportunity for useful intervention by the Board. I understand that out of the 78 departments of public elementary schools in the area 26 are open with a sufficient staff, and that the authority are taking steps to appoint teachers and expect to open seven more departments next week.

    UNIVERSITY AND STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the President of the Board of Education the number of scholarships to Universities maintained by local education authorities in the year 1921–22, and the cost of maintaining them during that period?
    Mr. BATEYasked the President of the Board of Education which counties and county boroughs did not award scholarships to Universities in the year 1921–22 and which of them did not maintain such scholarships in that year?
    Mr. RITSONasked the President of the Board of Education the number of scholarships to Universities awarded by local education authorities in the year 1921–22 and the total annual expenditure involved in these awards?
    Mr. WOOD: The Board do not possess complete information as to the number of scholarships to Universities awarded or maintained by local education authorities. The following table gives particulars of the maintenance allowances awarded or paid to students at Universities in 1921–22 under the provisions of the Board's Grant Regulations for maintenance allowances for higher education by 128 local education authorities from which returns have been received:

    —

    Maintenance Allowances awarded in 1921–22

    Total Maintenance Allowances held by Students in 1921–22.

    Number of Allowances.

    625

    2,423

    Total Expenditure

    £17,506

    £89,845

    Of the 128 local education authorities from which returns have been received. 33 did not award any new maintenance allowances to University students in 1921–22, and 27 did not make any maintenance allowances at all to such students.
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the President of the Board of Education the total number of students to whom State scholarships were awarded, and the number of these students who also hold scholarships awarded by local education

    1

    2

    3

    4

    Number in Column (4) who hold

    1. Year of Award.

    2. Total Number Awarded.

    3. Number taken up.

    4. No. of students who hold Scholarships in addition to their State Scholarships.

    L.E.A. Awards.

    University or College Scholarship.

    School Leaving Scholarships.

    Other Scholarships.

    1920

    …

    200

    196

    147

    109

    82

    29

    20

    1921

    …

    200

    198

    161

    106

    96

    38

    16

    Total

    …

    400

    394

    308

    215

    178

    67

    36

    EASTER (FIXED DATE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister the reasons why His Majesty's Government are taking no steps to ascertain whether a fixed date for Easter could be adopted throughout Christendom, in view of the favourable opinion of commercial men in all countries to this proposal and the not un-favourable attitude of ecclesiastical authorities towards it?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I can add nothing to previous re-plies on this subject, in which it was stated that His Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to take the initiative in this matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his first reply the International Chambers of Commerce at Rome have expressed themselves in favour of this, as have also the Pope and the Primate of England? Does not that make a difference?
    Mr. BALDWIN: When agreement is reached among the various churches, it may be possible to do something.

    BUILDING TRADES DISPUTE.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister, in view of the serious effects which a cessation of all work in house building would have upon the public interests, he will consult the
    1298
    authorities, universities, charitable trusts, and schools, respectively?
    Mr. WOOD: The following Table gives the information desired by the hon. Member:
    Law Officers of the Crown as to whether such an action would or would not constitute a breach of Rule 18 of the national agreement of May, 1921, in the hope that their pronouncement on this point might delay, if not altogether prevent, a stoppage of work in the building trades at the present time?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think a decision upon the construction of the building trade agreement is a matter which can properly be brought within the scope of the functions of the Law Officers of the Crown. On the general question, I may say that I am informed that the negotiations which were in progress up to a late hour yesterday have not resulted in a settlement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is in communication with the parties.
    Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiations have broken down on an exceedingly small point, and could not the Government directly ask that a final decision be postponed for seven days in order to allow those of us who are working for peace to get it effected?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The negotiations of yesterday admittedly have not resulted in the satisfactory conclusion that had been hoped for. I do not think that I could contribute anything useful by dealing with the exact point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but I can say that I am keeping in close touch with both sides, and I hope that an opportunity will be

    1299
    available for my communicating officially with them, or being communicated with by them, before many hours are over.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman further, but is he not aware that we have now only two days left, that the notices come into operation on Monday, and that if we had two or three days available it is possible that the whole question could be settled, on account of the very small point that still remains unsettled?
    Sir M. BARLOW: One of the reasons, among others, why I am in close touch with the situation, is that I desire to have the most accurate information possible as to what exact point negotiations have reached The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the point of difference is small, but my information at present does not coincide entirely with that of the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. THOMSON: Are we to understand that the Government are not prepared to give any guidance to the House or to the country as to the actual legal interpretation of this particular agreement in the opinion of the Law Officers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not a question for the Law Officers.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Would it not be better for the Government to use their good offices to keep both sides in negotiation than to attempt to act after a breach has actually occurred?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is exactly what the Minister of Labour is doing.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I did not gather that from his reply, anyhow.

    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL'S BOOK.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the reports of the Cabinet proceedings disclosed in the book entitled "The World Crisis, 1911–14," by the right hon. Winston Churchill, just published; will he have these references carefully examined to see how far they constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act; and, if their publication is deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest, will he take such steps as will deter similar disclosures in the future?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on the 19th March last, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western.
    Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of the more serious breach that has occurred, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the reply he then gave is adequate protection against a similar breach of Cabinet etiquette in future?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman in question has disclosed no official secrets which have not already appeared in the "Official History of the War "?

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOMBING ATTACKS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Air how many punitive expeditions have been undertaken by the Air Force during the year ending 28th March against tribesmen in India and Arabs and other nationals in Iraq and countries adjacent: how many casualties have been suffered by our airmen; how many persons of other nationalities have been killed or wounded; what damage has been inflicted on villages or towns; and will he state what bombs were used?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): During the year ending 28th March last, bombing attacks were carried out in connection with the various military operations in Waziristan, but there were no independent punitive expeditions carried out by the Royal Air Force against tribes on the Indian frontier. In Iraq and Southern Kurdistan, where no military operations comparable with those, undertaken in Waziristan have been carried out, there have been nine punitive air expeditions. The casualties to personnel of the Royal Air Force in these operations were in India, 3 officers and 1 airman killed, 2 officers and 1 airman injured; in Iraq, 3 officers killed and 1 injured. It is not possible to give particulars of the casualties sustained by the tribes against whom the operations were directed or of the extent of the material damage inflicted; it seems certain, however, that the use of air action in place of ground operations has resulted in a

    1301
    decrease in the loss of life incurred. The bombs used have been 230 lbs., 112 lbs., 20 lbs. and incendiary bombs.
    I would remind the hon. Member that upon the North-West frontier air operations form part of the general military operations against tribes with which the Government of India have been in a state of war, whereas in the case of Iraq punitive air expeditions are only undertaken at the request of the civil authorities in cases where ground expeditions would otherwise have been necessary.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the people who are bombed are able to retaliate? [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I will put the question in another way— whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not think that the time has arrived to stop this Hunnish and barbarous method of warfare against unarmed people?

    CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY AND CONDITIONS INQUIRY).
    Mr. PENNYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee which he has set up to inquire into the present standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment of State servants employed in the Civil Service and in the three fighting forces will he asked to consider the question of the Consolidation of Civil Service pay and bonus?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: No, Sir. Under their terms of reference it would be within the competence of the Committee to consider the question if they thought fit.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the actual cost of administration for old age pensions during the last financial year?
    Major BOYD - CARPENTER: The approximate cost to the Exchequer of administration for old age pensions during the last financial year was £784,000.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state or ascertain the exact cost to the State of granting the full old age pension in all cases where the maximum
    1302
    income does not exceed £52 per year; whether ho is aware that this limited concession would be of the greatest value to the aged; and whether, in view of the existence of a surplus, he will keep before him the possibility of taking action to help a class which merits general sympathy?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member fog Barrow-in-Furness on the 6th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

    DISPOSAL BOARD (SALES).
    Mr. NEWBOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the estimated original capital cost of the goods sold by the Disposal Board for the sum of £647,000,000; whether he is aware of the widespread uneasiness in the country concerning these transactions; and whether he will take powers to obtain a sworn declaration of the names and addresses of the partners and shareholders in the concerns which have had contracts with the Disposal Board?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The information referred to in the first part of the question is not available, and the answer to the remaining parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the allegation made that certain ex-employés of the Disposal Board are undertaking transactions of the kind referred to in the question, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make very careful inquiry as to the bonâ fides of those who are purchasing goods from the Disposal Board?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I can assure the hon. Member, I am continually having questions of that kind put to me and only this morning I was in negotiation for investigation into certain cases. The Treasury, and everybody else connected with the Disposal Board, are quite as eager as anybody else to elucidate any matters which have any foundation in fact as regards the contravention of honest rules.
    Mr. SH INWELL: When his inquiries into the matter to which he refers are completed will the hon. and gallant Gen-

    1303
    tleman acquaint the House with the facts?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Mr. SHINWELL: But it is very essential.

    VALUATION AND RATING REFORM.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any members of the Surveyors' Institution have been asked to give the benefit of their views to the Government in regard to the Rating Bill; what other bodies it is intended to consult; and whether assessment committees and overseers will have any opportunity, either collectively or otherwise, of expressing their views, and, if so, at what stage?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. Various persons including some members of the Surveyors' Institution, have been informally consulted in regard to the Government's proposals for Valuation and Rating reform, and it is intended that all the principal associations of local and other authorities concerned should be given an opportunity of expressing their views at an early stage.

    GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
    Mr. F. GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House the value of goods liable to the provisions of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, which have been imported into the country for the three months ending the 31st December, 1922, and the three months ending the 31st March, 1923, respectively?
    Major BOYD - CARPENTER: The amount of German Reparation Levy collected during the three months ended the 31st December, 1922, was-£1,953,058, and during the three months ended 31st March, 1923, £2,096,594. These amounts represent 26 per cent. of the value of the goods on which levy was charged in these periods, exclusive of freight and insurance.

    FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (M. LOUCHEUR).
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received either from the British Embassy in Paris or from any other sources information which would lead him to suppose that the visit of M. Loucheur to this country is to be repeated, and that M. Loucheur would, in that event, be entrusted by the French Government with official or semi-official proposals concerning a solution of the Franco-German situation, to be submitted either to His Majesty's Government or to individual members of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: We have received no information on the lines suggested in the question.

    POTATOES IMPORTED.
    Lieut.-Colonel COATESasked the Prime Minister whether he can state what is the attitude of the Government regarding the restriction of imported potatoes; and whether he is aware that the adoption of the Tribunal Report thereon would go a long way to re-establishing confidence in the Government among the distressed areas in East Anglia?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the grave difficulties of potato growers in East Anglia and elsewhere, but the suggested restriction of imports of potatoes raises important questions of policy and has been remitted with other recommendations of the Tribunal, for immediate examination by a special Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. Until that Committee has considered the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, realise that I cannot make any statement as to the Government's attitude in the matter. There will, however, be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May we know the business for next week?
Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Tuesday and Wednesday: Continuation of general discussion on the Budget Resolutions.
Thursday: Supply—the Vote will be announced later.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill): Captain Brass, Sir Burton Chadwick, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Captain Elliot, Mr. Jarrett, Mr. John, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Robert Murray, Mr. Samuel Pattinson, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following; Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Industrial Assurance Bill [Lords]): Captain Ainsworth, Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Emlyn-Jones, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Thomas Johnston, Mr. McCurdy, Sir Edward Manville, Sir Walter Preston, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Welsh, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Eleven Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill): Mr. Adams, Sir James Bruton, Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Grattan Doyle, Mr. Hinds, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Peto, Mr. Potts, Mr. Richards, Sir Robert Sanders, and Mr. Sutcliffe.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Special Constables Bill): Lord Apsley, Commander Bellairs, Mr Bowdler, Mr. Bridge-man, Lieut.-Commander Burney, Mr. Hugh Butler, Major Lloyd George, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Sir James Remnant, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Snell, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Wright.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir Frederick Ban-bury, Captain Bowyer, Major Burnie, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. William Graham, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. George Thorne, and Colonel Wedgwood.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Merchandise Marks Bill): Mr. Robert Jones and Mr. Morris; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Evan Davies and Mr. Hogge.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee of Selection; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Asquith, Sir John Baird, Sir Charles Barrie, Captain Wedgwood Bean, Sir George Berry, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Dr. Chapple, Sir John Collie, Sir Godfrey Collins, Sir William Cotts, Mr. Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, Major Dudgeon, Captain Elliot, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Gardiner, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Guthrie, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Captain Hay, Sir Thomas Henderson, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. Hogge, Sir Robert Horne, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. George Hutchison, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. William Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Bonar Law, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Frederick Martin, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Millar, Mr. Morel, Mr. Muir, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Robert Murray, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Mr. New-bold, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Phillipps, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. John Robertson., Mr. Rose, Mr. Scrymgeour, Mr. Shin well, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr.

  1307
  Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Sullivan, Sir William Sutherland, Major Waring, Mr. William Watson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, Major McKenzie Wood, and Mr. Wright.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1923–24.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

  EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).
  MR. BALDWIN'S STATEMENT.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move to leave out from word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
  "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the question of the initial rate of salary for ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service; and to report whether any, and, if so, what, alterations in these rates should be made."
  In moving this Resolution, I claim to be voicing the opinion of all sections of the House, that the only appropriate course for the Government to adopt in the present circumstances is to set up a Committee of Members of this House to consider immediately the case of the Lytton entrants. I deprecate the suggestion that any one party or section in this House has a monopoly of interest in these ex-service men. In pressing for an inquiry, I have been associated with hon. Members in all parts of the House, who have felt very strongly indeed the grievances to which these unfortunate men and women have been subjected. May I be allowed to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reviewing the incident of Tuesday, that the defeat of the Government was not really due simply to the "laxity" of the Government or to a "snap" Division, as has been suggested, but to the fact that there was a very strong current of feeling throughout the whole of this House on both sides in favour of an immediate inquiry being set up in order to deal with the grievances of these individuals? In fact, had it not been for the attitude of hon. Members on the other side who felt very strongly on the subject, the Government would not have been defeated. I think therefore we ought to make it quite clear that the case which we are making to-day is one which receives the support of every individual
  1340
  in this House who is interested in these men and women.
  I trust that, in view of what took place the other day, the Government may adopt what I believe has been the universal procedure in the last few years in cases where the Government have been defeated on a question of this kind, and give effect to what really is the view of the House. I do not desire to take up time by going into details of the cases, which are familiar to the Government, but may I be allowed to quote one case, which is specially applicable, that of the Teachers' Superannuation Bill, where the Government were defeated on a very similar question, namely the setting up of a Select Committee to deal with a question of good faith in regard to teachers' salaries. On that occasion, 16th May, 1922, when the Government were defeated, they agreed to set up a Select Committee to deal with the question which had been raised and upon which their defeat had taken place. The Leader of the House then said:
  " In these circumstances, the Government have decided to defer to the wish expressed by the House that a small Select Committee—which the Government think should consist of not more than nine members—should be appointed to ascertain and report the facts which the majority of the House appeared to think were insufficiently known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1922; cols. 373–4, Vol. 154.]
  That Committee was thereupon appointed. In 1921, when the Government were defeated, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, on the question of the exclusion of the profits, or surplus, arising from the trading with its own members of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts from payment of Corporation Profits. Tax, they also agreed to accept the decision of the House, a fact which was announced by the Leader of the House in these terms:
  " On this occasion, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have come to the conclusion that, as the money involved is insignificant compared with the Budget, as the House has chosen to decide ‥ ‥ against the Government, we will accept their decision. "- [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1921; col. 2164. Vol. 144.]
  Accordingly, effect was given to that view. There are other reasons which I think fortify me in the case which I am making to-day, one of which is that it was very clearly brought out on Tuesday that the Anderson Committee set up by the Chan

  1341
  cellor of the Exchequer is not an appropriate tribunal to deal with this case. The Anderson Committee was set up, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, and it was one
  " to inquire into the present standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment of the various classes of State servants employed in the Civil Service and in the three fighting Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1923; col. 706, Vol. 162.]
  The field of investigation, therefore, was so wide that it would be impossible to have this question immediately dealt with within the scope of this Committee. I suggest, further, that this particular question is not related to the general question of Civil Service pay. It relates to the initial rates of pay and to the pressing difficulties and hardships with which men and women are faced at this moment on account of the rates of pay at which they have entered the Civil Service, after many years, in some cases, of experience as temporary clerks, and having an excellent record of past work. Therefore, I submit that here we have got a very special and specific case, which is fortified very much indeed by the great hardship which is being felt every day by these men and women as long as they are not getting their grievances redressed. May I remind the House that this matter has been the subject of representations for nearly two years, that it, affects nearly 9,000 individuals all together" and that there are men and women with families, some of them middle-aged, some of them up to 50 or 55 years of age, who are at present drawing most miserable salaries in the lower grades, as low as £2 11s. ld. a week, including bonus, and £3 8s. a week, including bonus, which makes it impossible for them to carry on.
  I suggest to the House that on this matter we ought to be united in the appeal which we make to the Government that this injustice shall be immediately redressed. It is all very well to tell these people that when they have been so many years in the Civil Service they will have had increments which will have brought them up to a fair rate of salary, but the whole question is that at the present moment they are not being paid a fair rate of salary. It is an immediate need, and we press on the Government to bring their
  1342
  salaries up to a fair and decent level of subsistence. The principle for which we are fighting to-day is one which has been given effect to in many other spheres, and I suggest that we ought to do something for this most deserving class of civil servants, who served their country during the War and who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this position to-day. I believe the case we have made out, following upon the decision taken on Tuesday last, ought to be sufficient to satisfy the Government that it is now their duty to meet the desire of this House and to give effect to the Amendment which I have moved.
  Mr. JARRETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have no intention nor desire unduly to take up the, time of the House in prolonging the Debate upon a matter which has already caused a certain amount of embarrassment to the Government, but I wish, in seconding the Amendment, which has been so admirably moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar), to emphasise what he has said with reference to Tuesday night's Debate, and the fact that this demand is put forward, not by any political party, not by any section of this House, but is a demand that is supported in every quarter of this House, and, I might suggest, in every quarter of the country. Certain post-War protagonists of the ex-service men are attempting to throw this question into the cockpit of party strife.
  HON. MEMBERS: Who are they? [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not good at any time to impute motives it is against the Rules of the House, and if it be done in one quarter, I am sorry to say it is a. practice that is followed.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On that point of Order. I wish to submit, to you, Sir, in the interests of free speech in this House, that there is in fact a Resolution on the records of this House protesting against certain attempts on the part of different parties in this country to make party capital out of this very question. If it was in order for the House of Commons to place such a Resolution on its records, surely it is in order for an hon. Member to make reference to the fact.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member to make reference to parties in this House, and it was against that that I made my protest.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On this point of Order, which I raise in the interests of no individual party, but in the interests of the House as a whole, I submit that the Resolution to which I referred related to parties both in the House and in the country, and it was on that ground that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) opposed it, but we were defeated by the majority of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That Resolution dealt with the party effect of this question.
  Mr. JARRETT: May I be allowed to make an explanation, which I think should not have been necessary, in accepting your ruling on this particular Point. I referred to no party inside this House or outside it, and I had no intention of referring to any particular party. I trust you will accept that as an explanation on that particular point. What I said—if I may be allowed, and I desire, to repeat it—was that certain post-War protagonists of ex-service men are attempting to make of this matter a party question. If that he a cap that fits anybody, inside or outside this House, it is not for me to say. I am merely stating the fact. I do not wish to prolong the subject, because I quite understand that on this particular matter feeling runs somewhat high, and I have no desire, of course, to inflame feelings. All I wish to do is to emphasise that the request that was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) on Tuesday evening—a request that a Committee should be set up to deal with the most urgent and pressing grievance of the pay of certain employés of this Government whom we represent in this House—should be given immediate attention. A Committee has been set up to survey the whole field of Civil Service pay and conditions. We desire that the most urgent problem should be attacked first, and it is in pressing that upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, further, in emphasising that this is a demand from no party or section in this House or outside it, but is a general demand supported by all
  1344
  parties and all sections, that I have the greatest pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): What the Government and the House have to do this afternoon is to try to give effect to the desire of the House clearly expressed on Tuesday, and I think, in the performance of that function, we shall be able to proceed and accomplish our desire with the minimum generation of heat. The House no doubt will remember that before rising for Easter I announced, on 27th March, that a Special Committee would be appointed
  " to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee set up in July, 1920, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments."
  It was originally intended that this Committee should not deal with questions of remuneration, it being considered that any question of pay might be dealt with by what is called the Anderson Committee. I have studied very carefully the Debate on Tuesday, I have listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, I have listened to the two speeches this afternoon, and of course, I have taken note of the Vote which occurred on Tuesday, and it is quite clear that the general desire of the House, as expressed in that Vote, is to have an inquiry, which shall be separate for this subject and immediate in its action. In considering the best way in which I could give effect to this desire, it seemed to me that it might be most conveniently done by so extending the terms of reference and adding to the Committee which I was in process of setting up to deal with the whole question of the Lytton Report; and, in addition to the terms of reference which I am going to put before the House now, to make it clear that the desire of the House should be carried out, that immediate attention should be given to the subject, and that there should be an immediate presentation of a report. The original terms of reference were
  " to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider

  1345
  the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments."
  To these words I propose to add:
  " to consider the recommendation in paragraph 43 of the Third Interim Report of the Committee regarding the initial rates of remuneration to be prescribed for successful candidates at the specially limited competitions for the clerical class, and to advise whether any, and, if so, what modifications should be made in these rates."
  Paragraph 43 of the Lytton Report is the one that deals with initial salaries. I then propose to add these words?
  " It will be an instruction to the Committee to give immediate consideration to the question of initial rates of remuneration, and to report thereon."
  I think those words give effect to everything that the House desires, as expressed in the speeches delivered and in the Vote given on Tuesday, and that the House will agree with me that there is a great advantage in the same Committee that deals primarily with this subject taking in hand the whole subject of the way in which the Departments have carried out the recommendations of the Lytton Committee. With regard to the composition, I shall propose an outside Chairman, nonpartisan and of experience, as was the case in the Lytton Committee, nine Members of this House chosen in the usual way that they are chosen for Select Committees and in the usual proportions, which, I think, will be five from the Government side and four from the different sections of the Opposition. Hon. Members may remember that I originally said that there would be two women of knowledge of Civil Service and administrative matters, and I feel in a matter of this kind that covers the whole question of initial salaries, that it will be of the greatest service to Members to have associated with them two women who have had experience in these matters. I think that a Committee of that nature will be one in which the whole House will feel the utmost confidence that they will embark on the examination of this difficult question without delay and report, and, having finished that, they will then be able to devote their time to the terms of reference found in the first paragraph. I can only assure the House that I have given this matter most serious consideration. I have tried in
  1346
  every way to meet what I believe is the wish of the House, and I hope that what I have done will meet with approval.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am sure that the House will have heard with great satisfaction the announcement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there be any regret at all on this side, it is that it could not have been made yesterday. I have not risen, however, to renew memories of that occasion, but to assist, so far as possible, in letting bygones be bygones. We were very anxious—in fact, we considered it the right of the Opposition—to insist upon the Vote of Tuesday being given effect to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now makes this proposal, first of all, for a modification of his Committee, secondly, for a change in the terms of reference, and, thirdly, for an instruction to the Committee that it shall inquire, first of all, into the pay of entrants and report upon that question without delay. I have to say to the House that so far as that goes we accept it whole-heartedly. There is just one thing that I should like to ask, Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite certain that in his terms of reference this part of the hon. Member's Resolution upon which we have been laying some stress—that the Committee deal with the initial rate of salary for ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service—comes in? It is an essential part of the problem that was raised last Tuesday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider that and perhaps to conduct some negotiations to see if that can be satisfied. I am not going to carry on the controversy. We accept the proposal made by the Government, and we hope that every Member of the House will do his best to expedite the business of the Committee and to produce a Report that will give satisfaction to those deserving State servants, deserving ex-service people, who have given so much for the Slate, and who expect fair play from our hands.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I would like, though under sonic physical disability, to say two or three words in corrobation and emphasis of what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think it would be a matter infinitely to be regretted if the question of the interests of these ex-service men came to be

  1347
  regarded, not as one in which the whole House, but any particular section of the House had a special concern. Indeed, I interpret the Vote that was given two nights ago and the subsequent discussions that have taken place as showing that in this matter there is complete unanimity of opinion, and, what is more, enthusiasm and interest. I am naturally glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) who occupies a seat which I myself occupied for the best part of 30 years should have made such good use of his chances and should have shown great Parliamentary flair in selecting this subject for an Amendment to the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave, the Chair." I am going to make an appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, if he will kindly respond to it, to withdraw his Amendment in view of the unanimity of the House and the satisfactory character of the assurances which have now been given from the Treasury Bench as the result— and a very good result—of free Parliamentary discussion. We all join in the hope that the working of this Committee will result in securing what we all have in view, without distinction of party or section, namely, that we shall have an effective guaranteed system for the protection of the interests of these men who deserve so well of their country. I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. HOGGE: Before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to ask a question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has added a fresh paragraph to the original reference dealing with the pay of the Lytton entrants. Have the Committee power to make fresh recommendations if they are not satisfied with the salaries at present being paid? There is no power given to the Committee to make further recommendations in the original terms. All they are asked to do is to inquire into the working of the recommendations of the Lytton Report, and to furnish a report upon their inquiry. Is it quite clear, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if it is quite clear, that as well as the question of the initial salary being looked into, if the Committee that makes the investigation finds that the recommendations are not working satisfactorily, they will have the
  1348
  power to make recommendations about these other things as well as the entrants salary? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that clear?
  Mr. MIDDLETON: I desire to express my gratification that the Government have acceded at last to our request. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "The general request."]
  Mr. SHINWELL: Why did hon. Members vote against it then?
  Mr. MIDDLETON: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in regard to the pronoun I use, I myself am an ex-civil servant, and I think I am entitled to use the pronoun "our" in respect to the civil servants, as well as in respect to hon. Members on these benches. So far as the Civil Service is concerned, they have been anxiously looking at the keen fight put up in their interests. I think it is not too much to claim that had the demonstration not occurred yesterday——[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "]. I am far more concerned in getting justice for civil servants than 1 ant for making party kudos out of this incident. I am, therefore, very glad that this Committee is going to inquire into the question of the initial pay. I am still, however, a little hit dubious at the terms of reference, and if I express some hesitation in accepting the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this stage. I think it will be agreed that the experience that we civil servants have had in the past of the treatment of the Treasury is a justification for us to try to get the terms more definitely fixed before this Debate closes. What I am anxious to know is whether the inquiry into the initial rates will cover all the grades concerned in the terms of the Amendment of the Member for East Fife? That is, that it will include an inquiry into the rates of pay of those people who are doing the work, even although they are not ex-soldiers, that it will include the clerks because it is exceedingly important that the people who do a certain class of work shall be paid an adequate, economic living wage for it, whether they have served in the Army or not. It so happens that the overwhelming majority of the people concerned are ex-service men, but we are anxious to see that the terms of reference are those included in the

  1349
  Amendment in order that we may have the inquiry as full and complete as we can to cover. I gather so from the terms that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed by implication, but which we would like a definite assurance upon it. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will consider terms of reference that will meet the points of view expressed from this side of the House. I would like him to say that he will accept the form of words set down in the Amendment moved by my hon. and teamed Friend the Member for East Fife.
  That would in one stroke dispose of a very difficult question that has agitated civil servants for a very long time, and it will once more enable the civil servants to look to the House of Commons, and not some outside committee of employers, as the proper people to inquire into their rates of pay and conditions of employment. I would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that most of this difficulty has been caused by the impossibility we found in getting the Government to view the case from the point of view of the people who were suffering most. The announcements to the House before the adjournment were vague. They were, so far as the Committee that was announced just. before we rose was concerned, imperfectly understood by the civil servants. I am sorry to say that part of the difficulty was caused by an hon. Member on the Government side who counted its out at the very moment when we had arrived at the point when we could have settled the matter, and thus the incidents of yesterday would not have happened. That hon. Member on the Government side is the nominee of the Government on the National Civil Servants Whitley Council, the proper body to deal with this matter. I suggest, therefore, that the trouble the Government have got into is very largely due to their lack of foresight during the last few weeks. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on this side of the House are prepared to let bygones be bygones, knowing that if we get the right terms of reference in regard to the ex-service men, their case will be adequately dealt with. I am, therefore, glad to know that at last the Government have given us this Committee, and I would request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give as a Further and complete assurance that the terms of reference will be as satis
  1350
  factory as the admission that, the case is one for inquiry.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to extend the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry to cover not merely the men who fought in the late War—and all honour to them for having done so—but also the men who fought in many lands and on many seas and over a long period of years for this country? These men, in many cases, are not receiving£80 per year, but 1s. a day. I do not see that there is any reason why what I ask should not be done, and I should like with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move an Amendment extending the scope of the Inquiry to include all ex-service men who have fought in this last War or in the earlier wars for this Empire. Of many of these it may be truly said that they are starving. They have deserved thoroughly well of their country. They do not seem to have been much in the minds of hon. Members opposite. {Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] Well, I am glad to hear it then, and I would ask hon. Members to push their case, for it is one of a deserving class of men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Are these men about whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking civil servants?
  Sir B. FALLE: No. Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then I do not think they can possibly be covered by the terms of this Amendment. The Amendment deals only with ex-temporary clerks who have been appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service. We cannot go beyond that.
  Sir B. FALLE: Even if these men come under the definition of those who have fought in earlier wars? [An HON. MEMBER: "Waterloo! "]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think they can possibly be covered by these terms of reference which apply to civil servants.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to put one point which has already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for East. Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). Naturally, I thank the Government for meeting the wishes of many of us in regard to the initial salaries of the temporary ex

  1351
  service men. I understand that the Committee will issue an interim Report and recommendations on the matters referred to it. So far so good. I am glad to know that the original Resolution which is now being amended will examine the operations of the Lytton Committee since 1920 in regard to the temporary ex-service men.
  Mr. BALDWIN: And see whether the recommendations have been carried out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: To review, as my right hon. Friend says, the operations of the Lytton Committee since 1920 and see whether the Government have carried out those recommendations. What I want to put is this: Supposing the Committee, viewing the wider field, and not the immediate point, find that the recommendations of the original Lytton Committee have not been carried out, have they power to make recommendations on that point and in that sense?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad they have that power, and am obliged to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. J. JONES: Some of us are not so easily satisfied, because it seems most extraordinary that those who were the protagonists of this Amendment in this case have run away from their opportunity when they have the chance. I have put up a fight, and, if necessary, will do so any time on behalf of the things we believe to be right. In this particular case, we have fought the case of the ex-service men because we believe that they have a good case. We are told that this is going to be tacked on to the General Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] There is not a Special Committee, but additional Members are going to be added to the Committee already appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong! "] Of course, I do not understand English, being an Irishman. So far as I understand it, the answer to the question was that an additional number of Members were going to be appointed to the Committee already in existence— [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]— and the terms of reference are to inquire, first, into the rates of pay of these particular classes of men. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who is an ex-member of
  1352
  a previous Government, that we have such a thing as a Fair Wages Clause in all our Government contracts. Why are not these men paid on the basis of a Fair Wages Clause, instead of being sweated and starved? Now we are going to inquire as to whether they are sweated or not, although we have a Resolution of this House determining that every man employed by us shall receive at least the trade union rate of wages, and the minimum standard of living. The Government have ignored it.
  Why some of us felt so hot on Tuesday, why we acted as we did, was because we knew that this Regulation was in existence, that every man employed either by a Government Department, or by a contractor on behalf of the Government, should pay the trade union rate of wages, and we knew that these men were being starved and sweated. That is why we felt so strongly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Electioneering!"] There is no need for me to electioneer. The best of hon. Members opposite can come clown to Silvertown, and I will beat them. It is no electioneering with me; it is a matter of principle. We want to know why this Committee is going to be instructed to carry out a Resolution of this House that we should pay the trade union rate of wages to all people whom we employ. You are going to ask this Committee to inquire and report, and their report will cost more than their inquiry, and that will not he worth having when you get it. Give them an instruction that these men must be paid according to the Resolution carried in 1904, when this House decided that sweating is an abominable institution, and that men and women employed by us shall be paid a proper rate of wages. Imagine a Committee having to inquire whether £80 a year for a man with a family is fair or not! [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true!"] There is not a man in this House who could keep—I will not say his dog, but certainly his horse upon £80 a year.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the lowest rate of pay under this scale is £144?
  Mr. JONES: The beginning rate for entrants under the Lytton scale is £80 a year.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: That is without bonus. With bonus, the lowest amount paid to any man is £144.
  Mr. JONES: Yes, with bonus. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself spends more than that on the upkeep of his motor car. I say it is a sweating wage. We are not asking for extravagant rates to be paid, but we are asking that the Resolution of this House, that everybody employed under its control shall receive the trade union rate of wages, shall be carried out. What is the trade union rate of wages for these men? At least it ought to be £3 a week. In the East End of London, our lowest rate of wages is £3 7s. 6d. for the man doing the lowest class of work, which is described as unskilled labour, because we have analysed the situation, and we recognise that that is the lowest rate on which a man can keep his family. Does the hon. and gallant Member think that less than £3 a week is an adequate salary after a man has passed an examination?
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I did not say so.
  Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did by his vote on Tuesday night. He went into the Lobby to vote for it. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Now, on Thursday, he says it is not enough. If that be so, why not give instructions to the Committee to give enough. No, you are going to inquire whether the sweated rate is good enough.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Your leader accepted that.
  Mr. JONES: My leader accepts nothing for me. As a trade unionist, I stand for the full standard rate of wages. Anything less than that is black-legging. We do not accept it, leader or anybody else. These men are being underpaid and sweated by the party opposite—the patriots, the men who wave the Union Jack at elections, who boast about their patriotism, and yet take advantage of the position of these men. So far as we are concerned—some of us at least—we do not accept anything less than the standard rate laid down by this House as regards wages and conditions of employment. We have laid down regulations for ordinary contractors and we have told our local authorities that the full standard rate of wages must be paid to every man engaged on relief work, if the work is done by a contractor, and 75 per cent. if the work is done by the local authority itself. The
  1354
  Government themselves are not paying either rate. Therefore, we are demanding that the State shall live up to its previous Resolution, and carry out the recommendation of days gone by.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not want to prolong the Debate, nor do I want to arouse any controversy to produce heat, but in view of the hon. Gentleman's comments on my interruptions, it is only fair to the House that his very misleading statement should be corrected. It is perfectly true that the basic rate of pay for these men may be £80, but the fact, as I understand it, is that at the present time the very lowest total pay received by any of these men is £144. It does not matter whether it is bonus, or allowance or anything else; it is cash in the man's pocket.
  Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct him? I have here all the figures carefully worked out for the clerical class, and the lowest rate of pay is £128.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman correct the other hon. Gentleman? My information is that it is £144, which I believe is the fact. It is so in London, at any rate. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is £128 in Manchester."] I am glad of these interruptions; they are throwing more light on this subject, and, in my view, the public should be given the facts. It is now elicited that the lowest rate is £144 in London and £128 outside.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: There are some lower than that.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: When I interrupted the hon. Gentleman opposite, and when I voted with the Government minority on Tuesday night, I was in no way pledging myself to the opinion that those rates are adequate or fair. We had an undertaking from the Financial Secretary on Tuesday night that an inquiry—however much some hon. Members may dislike the inquiry—was to be made into the matter, and that these rates were to be considered by the Committee. The whole difficulty, as I understand it, has arisen in regard to the composition of the Committee and the Terms of Reference, and, of course, the time which is likely to be taken to get a report. I want to make it clear, however, that the figure of £80, which has been mentioned by the

  1355
  hon. Gentleman opposite, is an absolutely misleading figure, and I must confess that I was greatly astonished to see in the Press last night a statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) that the lowest rate paid to these men was £80 a year.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: It, is only fair to point out that I did not say a word about bonus. I said "pay."
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I am absolutely astonished that my hon. and learned Friend, with whom, on so many matters, I am in absolute agreement, and who holds a particularly responsible position in the party to which I belong, should have allowed his name to appear in the public Press alongside a statement which was so absolutely and so mischievously misleading.
  Sir H. NIELD: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look again at what the paper chose to put in—it was the result of an inquiry early in the morning over the telephone—he will see that I complained that these men of 20 to 30 years of age, possibly with children to support, were put upon the basis of a boy clerk, whose pay was £80 a year.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I am sure we are all glad to hear from my hon. and learned Friend that he does not altogether accept what appeared in print in the newspapers, but the fact remains that it did appear as printed that the whole of the case which he brought forward was based upon the allegation that a man of 30 years of age was being paid only £80 a year. That was the impression created in the public mind, and it was also the impression created in the minds of many hon. Members of this House. It seems to me that after all the unfortunate trouble which has arisen over this question the main issue has been narrowed down to the kind of Committee which is to be set up, and the terms of reference are to be slightly varied from what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced on Tuesday last, and that the lowest rate of pay that these men at present receive is £144 in London and R128 outside London. As a Member of this House returned to support the Government, I am very glad to he able to express the appreciation which I am sure every hon. Member feels in regard to the announcement which has
  1356
  been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure we are all glad that this matter has been disposed of in a way which, I hope, will give satisfaction to all concerned.
  Mr. SHINWELL: It would be extremely unwise not to accept the offer of the Government, which, is, on the whole, satisfactory, although it cannot be regarded as final or conclusive. From the previous remarks made by hon. Members it must be apparent that there is a very deep-seated feeling in the country with regard to the treatment meted out to the men who are concerned in this Resolution. I rise for the express purpose of directing attention to some observations which were made from the benches below the Gangway, and which have been endorsed by hon. Members opposite, with regard to the decision of the House on Tuesday last. It has been alleged that the Government have come to their decision to-day as the result of a general request made by this House. How hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway arrive at that decision it is very difficult to understand. Surely, if there had been a general request which had been accepted by the Government there would have been no Division, therefore is it fair to assume that the Government have indulged in what may be described as a death-bed repentance because of the vote which caused the defeat of the Government and the incidents of yesterday afternoon.
  I would say to the Treasury Bench that it will he a very bad day indeed for the ex-service men of this country, and for others similarly placed who looked to this House for a redress of their grievances, if it is laid down that such redress is only to ensue as a result of the defeat of the Government, or after turbulent scenes such as we witnessed yesterday afternoon. If we are not to have adequate payment for ex-service men in the Civil Service unless disturbances take place in this House, then all I can say is that the Government is far from appreciating the feeling in the country with regard to what is, or what is not, adequate remuneration for such a purpose.
  Something has been said this afternoon with regard to the rates of pay which the men are in receipt of in the Civil Service. I am unconcerned as to whether it is £144 or £128 for men who

  1357
  enter the service for the first time, but I do submit to hon. Members opposite and to this House generally that a minimum wage of £2 11s. per week is neither consistent with the services rendered or with the needs of the persons concerned. We on this side of the House are quite frank in our declaration that we are entitled to make party capital out of such a question until the Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, provide these men with decent and adequate remuneration.
  I cannot understand why hon. Members should make so much fuss about the attempt to make party capital, as they allege, out of the needs of ex-service men. There is a very simple expedient for them which is quite outside the realm of partisanship. We are assured that the Government and their supporters are full of sympathy for the ex-service men who rendered such valuable service during the War, but I would point out that they can destroy any case we may have to submit to the electors by providing the ex-service men concerned in this Resolution, and those concerned in the decision of the Government this afternoon, with just that measure of consideration which they would demand for themselves and their wives and families. We shall bring this question within the scope of partisanship until the Government recognises that ex-service men are entitled to all the promises made to them by the last Government. If we go to our constituencies and argue that ex-service men are entitled to full consideration how can that be described as making party capital out of it? If it is making party capital, then it has only been placed in that position because the Government have failed to give proper treatment to these men.
  The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has informed us that he did not vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend below the Gangway because he believed that the terms of reference were sufficiently wide in character to make further Amendment undesirable. I think that is rather asking us to stretch our imagination. Surely the hon. Member was aware of the point of view which had been expressed, and I make hold to say—and I think in this I shall Le supported by hon. Members on this side—that those who voted with the Government on the last occasion did so despite their pro
  1358
  mises to the electorate, and in order to bolster up what is regarded as one of the weakest Governments of modern times.
  There has been revealed this afternoon something which hon. Members opposite are very desirous of concealing, that is a marked difference of opinion amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whether those differences will take those supporters of the Government into the Opposition Lobby is a matter for the future to decide, hut I think the Government should take warning, because there are vital questions affecting certain interests of this country upon which hon. Members opposite, despite their desire for loyalty to the Government, will be compelled to act, because their constituencies and public opinions demand that they should so express their opinions in this House. Therefore I would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do it no matter whether it is described in a partisan sense or not, because I believe that ex-service men are entitled to the fullest consideration, that he should not stop merely at remitting this question to a Departmental Committee, hut I think he should expedite the transactions of that Committee and so satisfy the desires of the men concerned. It is also important that the Report should to presented to this House without delay, and that Report should be in accordance with the spirit expressed by the Vote of Tuesday last, and in accordance with the attitude and in accordance of the House this afternoon. Unless that be done, we shall only have a repetition of Tuesday's incidents and a repetition of yesterday's episodes.
  However anxious I am to conform to the Rules of this House, and to preserve an attitude which is desired, for my part, and I say it without any passion and with all the coolness at my command, that I shall use every weapon that is within the power of Members of this House in order to compel the Government to mete out justice to the ex-service men of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you an ex-service man? "] If hon. Members opposite imagine that points of that description will trouble me they are greatly mistaken. I know there are hon. Members opposite whose knowledge of actual war conditions was gained on this side of the Channel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they? I should not care to unduly delay the House by discriminations

  1359
  of that kind. The frequent intervention of the newly-discovered apologist for the Government, who sits on the National Liberal Benches, does not trouble me, and I sweep these unnecessary interruptions aside and emphasise what I have already said, that we are gravely concerned about these things in our constituencies, as hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members opposite know full well by the communications they receive from ex-service men, which show that they are placed in a most deplorable position because of their extremely low remuneration, and this has all arisen because hon. Members opposite did not make the late Government carry out the promises which they made to these men during the War. We demand justice for these men, and unless it is meted out to them we shall be reluctantly compelled to have recourse to episodes such as those which happened yesterday in order to compel the Government to act up to their promises.
  Mr. MILLAR: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I understand that be has promised to deal with this matter in a satisfactory way, and I withdraw my Amendment on the distinct understanding that the Committee which is going to deal with this question will be able to deal with all the matters that fall within the scope of my Amendment, which includes the case of ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service, and I understand that will include non-service as well as ex-service men and women, including the writers' assistants class. If there be any doubt upon that point I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that it includes all the classes intended to be included within the terms of my Amendment.
  Mr. AMMON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether writers assistants will be included in the terms of reference?
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALDWIN: That is a point which I shall promise to consider. I do not think that class was brought under my notice. What have been brought under my notice were the Lytton entrants. Whether it be possible to cover the others I will give my consideration 'to that point without delay. The undertaking I have given
  1360
  related to all classes in the third paragraph of the Lytton Report.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will cover all the field that was covered by the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar)?
  Mr. BALDWIN: It covers all I understood my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to cover. I do not know whether there may not be other classes of entrants. It includes ex-service and non-service men who are classified as entrants under that paragraph.
  Mr. HOGGE: You must put this on the Order Paper before this Committee is set up, and we will require time for discussion. Will my right hon. Friend say he will then state definitely what it covers, and we shall know exactly'?
  Mr. BALDWIN indicted assent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Main Question again proposed.

  BUILDING TRADES DISPUTE.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I wish to raise another question. At Question Time I put a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the interpretation of the agreement between the National Fderation of Builders and the employés. At Question time the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that he did not consider the interpretation of that agreement was a matter which concerned the Government.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would ask the hon. Member how he connects this matter with any Department of the Civil Service?
  Mr. THOMSON: With the Ministry of Labour. In connection with the dispute, the Minister of Labour said negotiations had broken down. It is not the interest of one side or the other, but the interest of the public as a whole which will be affected in the most disastrous way if the negotiations are not resumed. It is somewhat ironical that to-day the Government have produced their Housing Bill for the provision of hundreds of thousands of houses, and that we should be on the verge of one of the most disastrous disputes which has taken place in the building trade.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether this is in order on a question dealing with the pay of civil servants, and that a Committee should be appointed to enter into their cases?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not now before the House.
  Mr. THOMSON: I understood the Minister of Labour to say that these negotiations had broken down. The question I put was whether the Government would not consult the Law Officers as to the interpretation of this agreement, particularly of Clause 18, which provides that, before there shall be any cessation of work, six months' notice shall be given by either side to terminate the agreement. I submit it is important in the interests of the community, particularly of the hundreds of thousands who are homeless and whose opportunity of getting houses will be removed should this disastrous strike take place. This is the last opportunity the House will have of raising the question before this unfortunate calamity occurs. I ask the Minister of Labour to waive any scruples he has with regard to seeking the opinion of the Law Officers and that he should ask them to tell the House what their interpretation of this agreement is, because I cannot help feeling that the influence of public opinion would be so great; that it would be a determining influence in a settlement. A leading jurist—Lord Buckmaster—has said there was a distinct breach of the agreement. If we could have guidance from the Government, as advised by the Law Officers, I cannot but feel that the employers would have to hold their hands until this particular point had beer settled. Time is everything on an occasion of this sort, and I appeal to the Minister to consult the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Before the Minister of Labour replies to that question, I have been wondering whether the hon. Member who has just spoken is aware of the fact that the question he refers to, the interpretation of the alleged agreement—
  Mr. J. JONES: It is not an alleged agreement; it is a real agreement—a signed document.
  Sir P. PILDITCH: Very well, the agreement—and what arises out of it, is
  1362
  now under negotiation between the parties as to its being referred to arbitration. It seems most undesirable that the Government should make itself a party at this moment to this dispute, which looks as if it were to be a subject for amicable settlement, by calling in the Law Officers. They could—and I speak with all respect for their admitted eminence—only give an opinion, which would not have the effect of an adjudication and settle the question, which is what is wanted. The Government would be wise in the interests of the community and the parties to keep out of the matter, except by way of facilitating the bringing of the parties together.
  Mr. AMMON: I want to put one point to the Ministry of Labour in regard to the building schemes of the London County Council. There are certain contracts which have been entered into between the builders and the London County Council. If the notices are handed in by the builders and the employés are locked out, there will be a breach of contract. I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not the builders will be held liable and will have to suffer the usual penalty for breach I want to put it to the Minister of Labour that if the position were reversed and if there were a strike, there would be some serious charges made to his Department about the action of the trade unions if they acted in this way.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how this can be a matter for the Ministry of Labour. It is a matter for the County Council.
  Mr. AMMON: I submit that this is directly under the control of the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. J. JONES: As one interested in this question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of the Government in connection with Government contracts? It must be understood that the Government are probably the largest employers of the building trade indirectly and directly. A large number of the greatest building contractors in the country are carrying out work permanently on behalf of the Government. We have entered into an agreement saying that, if a dispute arises between the parties, it shall be referred to the Wages and Conditions Council and,

  1363
  if they fail to agree, the matter is to go to arbitration. So far as the question in dispute is concerned, there is practically no question of arbitration except on the lines that the employers say must be agreed to before there is arbitration. The workmen have agreed to arbitration on certain definite questions. The question that now arises is the legality of the agreement, and whether it means what it says. When the War was on and we could have done as we liked because the employés in the building trade could have demanded any wages they liked, we simply entered into an agreement. Now they tell us that that agreement was based on cost of living, and that wages automatically go down.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only matter to which the hon. Gentleman can refer is what the Government might or ought to have done in this matter. It is not in order to go into the merits of the dispute.
  Mr. JONES: I am sorry if I made a mistake. I only wanted to find out the basis of the dispute. What I think the Government should do, as the largest employers of the building industry, is to get a decision as to what this agreement really means. The men stop work at 12 o'clock on Saturday, and the Government work on which these men are engaged will stop. We have a right to ask that the representatives of the Government should be able to give an interpretation of the agreement. We are entitled to six months' notice, but we are getting no notice at all, practically speaking. We are entitled to ask that the Government, in their own interest, shall see that their own work will not stop. We are out to fight this to the hitter end. If we are to be locked out, we are to find out where we stand. Those of us who are workers in the building trade claim that there is no clause in the contract which allows an employer to break away from a contract legally entered into merely at his own dictation. We have surrendered all that we have been able to surrender in the matter of wages. We have tried to make a compromise which they have refused to accept. Therefore, I hope it will be possible to submit this matter of interpretation of the agreement to the proper authorities and give us the decision.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) should have raised this matter. There can be no question in any part of the House as to its urgency. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has just pointed out, the sands are running out. Two days from now, on Saturday next, these notices will expire, and this is the last opportunity upon which this matter can be raised in the House of Commons. If it had not been raised on the present Motion, there would have been no opportunity for hon. Members in this House to express an opinion on the subject, or to have elicited a statement from His Majesty's Ministers. I think that in this matter the Ministry of Labour can be charged with culpable delay. It is a great misfortune that, an issue of this kind having been raised, the Ministry itself should not have done something to reach a. settlement. There are in this matter, as it seems to me, two questions. I am not going to deal with the merits of those questions, or express any opinion upon them. There is, however, in the first place, the question as to the agreement, and as to whether the notices now given are a breach of an agreement which exists at the present time between the employers and the employed in the building trade, and which, therefore, still continues for a further six months. That is a perfectly simple question. It is a question which should he determined by judicial arbitration. It is really a matter of interpretation, and in these circumstances I cannot understand why, before this time, that clear and definite matter of interpretation has not been submitted to judicial arbitration.
  Sir P. PILDITCH: That is exactly what the parties are at the moment endeavouring to do.
  Mr. J. JONES: No, Sir; you turned it down last night.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Of course, I have some hesitation in disputing any statement made by the hon. Member opposite, who is conversant with the employers' side of the case.
  Sir P. PILDITCH: I know something about both sides.
  Mr. JONES: You broke down last night; you would not agree.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I admit the hon. Member's special authority and title to speak on this question, but I would point out to the House and to the Government that, for some time past, there has been a willingness on the part of the men to have this question settled by judicial arbitration, and, if both sides are agreed that it should be settled by judicial arbitration, why should it have waited till last night or even till to-day? If, as it is contended, the agreement still continues for another six months, then any attempt to vary the terms of the agreement in relation to wages during that six months is a breach of the agreement, and in those circumstances I seriously suggest that, once you have settled the interpretation, the whole matter will be concluded. I do not want to express an opinion upon the interpretation of the agreement, hut, although the hon. Gentleman opposite is, of course, better acquainted than I am with the actual progress of the dispute, and with many of the other issues in that dispute, I think I might be better qualified than he to express an opinion on the legal interpretation of the agreement, and, so far as I have been able to read it, it seems to me that there is a clear case that this agreement continues for a further six months. An ex-Lord Chancellor, whose authority cannot be impeached, has also come to the same conclusion.
  Mr. JONES: Six months from March.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Six months from March if that be the situation, it seems to me very strange that this dispute, which threatens a stoppage in the building trade, should have been allowed to reach its present stage. A Bill has been circulated to Members to-day. I am not going to deal with its terms, or discuss the policy in it but we all know what its object is, namely, to accelerate housing; and, while this House on Monday week is to devote its attention to that question, we are face to face with a dispute which, if it is allowed to go on unchecked, is going to stop all the operations which would be carried out under that Bill. That seems to me to be a most paradoxical situation. I regret very much that this dispute should have been allowed so to drag itself out that, even now, less than 48 hours before the notices expire, the parties are not yet in a position to come to a settlement. It should have been the duty of the Ministry of
  1366
  Labour to concentrate attention on this matter, which is susceptible of judicial decision, and had that been done I believe a settlement would ere this have been reached.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked why this dispute should have been allowed to drag on so long, and should not have been settled before. I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons may possibly be that both sides are hoping that the Government will step in. During the last few years, and especially during the War, in nearly every industrial dispute the Government did step in, and generally patched up some compromise, some short cut, which very often did not really settle anything. The hon. Member has said that both sides are now ready to submit the matter to some legal arbitration. Surely it would be much better if that were allowed to continue, and that both sides should submit it to arbitration than that the Government should step in and, possibly, settle nothing, the controversy being simply closed for the moment, to break out another time. I think that that is a very likely reason, and I think it would be much better that the matter should go to legal arbitration.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why has it not gone?
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Because they are waiting for the Government; because they hope to get something.
  Mr. McENTEE: I am personally very glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this most important subject, and even now, at the last moment, I would make a special appeal to the Minister of Labour to do that which he has not done yet, namely, to use his personal influence and the influence of his Department to stop this calamity—because the dispute on the verge of which we now are cannot be considered as anything but a calamity to the nation. It is because I feel that very intensely, having been engaged in the building industry all my life, that I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to use the influence that his Department must possess. I do not want to enter into the merits of the dispute. The two sides have reached a stage when it appears to me that the differences between them are so small that it would be practically criminal to drive half a million men out on to the streets, and cause suffering to

  1367
  two millions or more of people as a consequence of such action. We claim to be a civilised nation, and when we have discussed, as these two differing parties have discussed, the differences between them, and when those differences have been reduced to a mere matter of petty detail, as is the case at the present time, it is in the interest of the nation that someone with some power or influence should try to prevent such criminal action as throwing these people out and ruining the building industry for, perhaps, a number of months to come. I put it to the Government that, even from the point of view of their own contracts, it is in the interests of this House and of the Government to see that no stoppage on those contracts takes place.
  What, after all, are the matters in dispute 1 Reference has been made to one, the agreement itself. If I were asked for my view on that agreement I should give it, but I do not want to give it, because it might be considered to be a prejudiced view. Personally, I think there can be no question about the interpretation of the agreement that has been signed by both sides, but there is a different view. The employers put forward the opposite view to that, and, although I do not agree with it and cannot accept their view, I think, seeing that there is another view besides the view that I and others hold, surely it is a question for arbitration. for decision by some body independent of the two disputing parties. It has been suggested that three eminent lawyers, whose names have been mentioned, should act as interpreters of the meaning of this agreement, but that, apparently, has not been accepted up to the present. I suggest that the Minister himself might go to the contending parties and offer them an-ether alternative—the arbitration of the responsible legal authorities of the Crown. Surely, if there is any desire at all to settle the matter, that offer' would be accepted. I understand from the Press this morning that the men have been prepared to go even further, and say that the question of wages, under certain conditions, may also be submitted to arbitration. That might be a matter for different arbitration, or, at least, for different arbitrators. It may not be considered wise to submit the question of wages, or anything but the working conditions of the building industry, to the
  1368
  Ministers of the Crown; but this is the one question upon which they above all others could probably give an opinion that would be acceptable to the nation and to the public generally, and the two contending parties might be compelled by the weight of public opinion to accept such arbitration if it were offered. Surely, it would be in the interests of this house and of the nation generally to make such an offer.
  This question appears to me to be outside the actual interpretation of the agreement, and outside the question of whatever may result from arbitration if it be resorted to. It is a question of very much greater importance than that; it is a question of the future of the industry—whether the industry is going to continue as it has been for a long time past, as an industry in which there has been a very considerable amount of good will on either side. In proof of that, may I point out to the Minister of Labour that the men have actually forfeited that to which it was admitted they were entitled in wages? They have forfeited, on an average, 1½d. an hour, some time ago, rather than enter into any dispute. That, at any rate, showed their desire for peace and for continuing the good will that has existed in the industry in the past. If this good will breaks down now, if they are going to enter into a struggle now that will throw them on to the streets, that will probably mean starvation for many hundreds of thousands, it may be for two millions of people or even more: it will mean that bitterness will come into the industry again. At any rate, I feel it will mean that, whereas I have always been an advocate of peace and conciliation on matters in dispute, I cannot any longer advocate conciliation or peace because of the rejection of methods such as we are discussing at the present time. It cannot mean greater production to the employers in the future. If the industry is going to get a good production, it can only be obtained by that spirit of good will which has obtained in the building industry up to now, and if they break that spirit of good will, if they bring into the industry a spirit of strife and a desire for strife, it will be fatal to the industry itself.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I fear the hon. Member is now going into the merits of the dispute and is not dealing with

  1369
  possible Government action, which is the only point before us.
  Mr. McENTEE: I am sorry I offended. It was only because I feel so deeply on the matter. I appeal now to the Minister. I know he has been keeping in touch with both parties, but that is not quite enough. To keep in touch with them and to know what each side is doing will not carry us anywhere. If a definite suggestion was made by the Ministry themselves that the time has now arrived when the differences between the two contending parties are so small that they ought to accept the intervention of the Minister and agree to arbitration by the Law Officers of the Crown on this question of the agreement, I believe it would be accepted. I hope the Minister will do something more than merely watch the coining of a terrible calamity, especially in view of the fact that we are hoping almost immediately to get on with the building of houses for millions who are needing houses, and it is because I feel that if this thing comes it is going to lead to strife in the future, which will be a decided disadvantage to the industry itself as well as to the nation, that I am pleading that the Minister should do something more than simply look on and see the struggle come and perhaps be too late to do anything once it has come.
  Sir J. SIMON: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to give the House some assurance on this subject. I can quite understand that, with his heavy responsibilities and, no doubt, constant work on this subject, involving, it may be, interviews with representatives of both sides, he cannot make on the Floor of the House a complete declaration of rights and wrongs which might interfore with the negotiations. Everyone who has ever had anything to do with trying to settle a dispute understands that. At the carne time, I think the Minister must agree that, so far as the public know at present, the situation is a very remarkable one and the speech we have just heard, which was so moderate in tone and obviously came from a real knowledge of the subject, is one with which a great many people will sympathise. How does the matter stand? It is not disputed that this is one of the cases where there is a written agreement between the two sides. It is a printed document. I have had it in my hands.
  1370
  though I have never set to work to try to form a conclusion about it. That is not for me to do. It is not disputed that the agreement deals with the conditions under which rates of wages may be altered. It is an agreement between the employers on the one hand and the work-people on the other, which defines on what conditions rates of wages and things of that sort may be altered. There is a third point which is not disputed. It is not only an agreement between the two sides, it not only deals with the subject of the conditions upon which rates of wages may be altered, but it contains a Clause requiring a certain length of notice to be given. In view of the fact that the men on the one side are contending that their rights are not being safeguarded if they are treated as liable to receive notices without that period having elapsed, it undoubtedly becomes a very serious problem for the Ministry what help they can give in throwing light upon that contention and securing that justice is done. I do not doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman has been doing his best about this, but his answer to-day, when he said he did not regard the question involved as one calling upon them to make use of the Law Officers, seemed almost to suggest that the Ministry on their side did not think it was an important element in the dispute that there is a written agreement containing terms which define when and how rates of wages may be altered, and that the matter really was to he disposed of on other lines and without regard to the bargains existing between the parties.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct regarding the terms of my answer. I made no suggestion in the form of words that he used. I said the Government did not propose to submit it to the Law Officers.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to have the correction, because this is not a matter in which only one corner of the House is interested. We are on the eve of discussing the Housing Bill, and the hon. Member behind me was right when he said it is well within the topics that the House ought to discuss whether they can do anything at all to help in getting this matter settled. I am glad to hear from the Minister that we are not to understand that they regard the question of the

  1371
  meaning and the application of this agreement as unimportant. If it is admittedly an important and relevant question, we come to this. I have not formed any opinion about it myself, and I dare say the opinion would not be important if I had, but we all know that a very distinguished legal authority, an ex-Lord Chancellor, who usual y measures his language and his judgment in things of this sort very carefully, has thought it his duty to write to the public Press and say that as far as he can see, though, of course, there may be other facts which are not before him, there is here a very serious case on the side of those who contend that the agreement is in danger of being broken. I am quite willing to believe that the Government have better ways of dealing with this than by appealing to the Law Officers. I have no prejudice on that. I know the purpose to which they used to be put. They were always to be brought in to make speeches when no one else could be found to make them, and it may be this is a case where there are all sorts of colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman who are able and willing to offer the most competent assistance. I ask him to give the House such assurance as he can to show that this aspect of the matter, a very important aspect from the point of view of industry especially, that. whatever else is done, promises must be kept and promises are just as sacred on one side as on the other, is an aspect which the Ministry is pressing on all who are concerned, because if any other impression got abroad it would be a most injurious example for disputes which may arise in the future. I hope the Minister will be disposed to give us an assurance on this point. The Ministry, which may for all I know be conducting negotiations, cannot of course be expected by reasonable people to make a full and elaborate disclosure awarding blame and praise in terms which might possibly cause the breakdown of the very effort in which they are engaged, but I think we ought to have some assurance to show that the legality of this matter, the question whether a bargain is being broken or kept, is regarded as one of the governing considerations.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it would not
  1372
  be advisable to discuss the merits of the situation because that might interfere with any negotiations which might go on. I thoroughly agree with him in that, and I do not propose to say a word as to whether one side is right and the other wrong or what the merits of the case are. But I should like to say a few words on the question of the intervention of the Government. Government intervention was started during the Coalition Government, in my opinion with disastrous results. I do not believe Government intervention in any case has really settled any dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "The railway strike! "] You can always settle a dispute by giving way to one side, which is what the Government did in the railway strike. If the Government had not interfered in the railway strike, we should not have had all this outcry about dear railway rates. A great number of people on this side of the House and in the country have viewed with dismay the intervention of the Government in these disputes. It has nothing to do with the Government at all. The only real way to settle them is to allow the trade unions and the employers to settle the matter between them. It concerns them, it does not concern the Government, and the only result of there being an idea of their intervention is to encourage one party or the other to prolong the dispute in the hope that the intervention of the Government may result in their favour.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope the Government will take some action in what is agreed by all sides to be a very unfortunate dispute if it takes place. The issues involved are totally different from those in any previous dispute. At the close of the War, workmen and employers were told there was need first of all for peace in industry and for having agreements between the two sides and good-will on both sides. You can have no goodwill and no peace in industry if you are going to have the violation of an agreement either on one side or the other. If there is a dispute about the terms of an agreement, the best people to settle the exact meaning of the agreement are not the employers or the workmen but some legal authority who can read the document, apart from an ordinary person who may or may not be engaged in the dispute. The Government have a responsibility in the matter. Assuming that a dispute takes place, it cannot be con

  1373
  fined to the half million men engaged in the industry. Hardly will it have started before the Department will have tens of thousands of claims for unemployment benefit. Unemployment will be intensified and claims on the Department out of all knowledge of any of us here are likely to arise. If some legal authority or learned Judge could look into the terms of the agreement and give his decision one, way or the other, the force of public opinion would compel the employers or the workmen to accept that point of view. The last speaker said that the Government have only intervened where the effects have not been good for the country. Those who can go back to the engineering lock-out, where the Government did not intervene and they allowed the lock-out to take place, must be aware of the deplorable effects of that lock-out, which are still felt in the industry. If we look over all these strikes and disputes, and especially at the present time, we must agree that victory for either side means nothing. Supposing the employers win. All that they have is disgruntled workmen if the workmen win, the same thing will apply to the other side. I hope the whole question will be submitted, not to the workmen or the employers, but to any learned judge or any group of lawyers who may be chosen by the Minister, and. that he will ask them to go into the whole question of the agreement and give a decision which will be binding on both sides.
  Mr. HOHLER: Like every other hon. Member, I should deplore a strike in the building trade or any difficulty in regard to it, but I do ask the Minister of Labour and the Government not to act as is proposed. On the one hand you have a. union of a number of builders, acting on behalf of the majority of builders, who have entered into an agreement, and on the other hand you have the trades unions who through their representatives, I doubt not properly advised, have entered into an agreement with the builders. There is one thing, at least, which everybody will realise, and that is that the parties so entering into an agreement must have had present to their minds the possibility of a dispute arising in respect of the agreement, however carefully drawn. In any commercial document the first thing you think of is, "How can we get this dispute settled?" and I doubt not
  1374
  that it was present to the minds of both parties in this case and that an arbitration clause was proposed. Probably it was not accepted. We all know full well from the history of trade movements that trade unionists as a rule are wholly opposed to arbitration clauses. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), in a moderate speech, said he did not wish to express any opinion upon it, though he had a very clear one, but unfortunately a few moments later he expressed the opinion that the men were quite right.
  Mr. McENTEE: I said that the men are arguing that they are right, and that the employers argue that they are right.
  Mr. HOHLER: I did not so understand the hon. Member. However that may be, unfortunately an ex-Lord Chancellor has entered into this matter what on earth has he to do with it? I have seen a letter from Lord Buckmaster. Why cannot these gentlemen confine themselves to their own n province? Nothing is more calculated to do harm in this matter than such intervention. I know nothing' of the agreement. It may be that the ex-Lord Chancellor is wrong, but it may be that the trade unionists, encouraged by his uninvited opinion, will think that they are right. Therefore they come and say, "We have no arbitration clause." Very likely such a clause was put before them and rejected. Possibly it was rejected by both sides, and knowingly not placed in the agreement. Then it is said that the Government should intervene. We are told that very small points are involved. I hope they are small points and, if so, surely good sense will settle them. If they are small points, then if there is give and take on both sides they should be able to get out of the difficulty, and be able to come to a sound settlement.
  The Law Officers forsooth, are asked to give an opinion. If the Government want to come to irretrievable ruin, let them agree to that. Did anybody ever hear of such a notion? Hon. Members on the other side seem to he so confident that they would naturally conclude that the opinion of the Law Officers ought to he on the side of the men. Lord help the Law Officers if they gave an opinion in favour of the employers and against the men! We should have some further scenes in this Rouse. I implore the

  1375
  Government to do nothing of the kind. We are not babies, although perhaps we are a little foolish at times. We all know that there is a Minister of Labour. Is there no admirable counsel at the Bar who can be approached, and to whom the parties can go to get his opinion as to the construction of the agreement? That is usually done. There are perfectly impartial men of great ability at the Bar. If the parties want to have arbitration, there is no difficulty in this respect. They have the machinery to their hand. They could come to the Minister of Labour and ask him to nominate some person to decide the point, but not the Law Officers of the Crown, somebody outside the political sphere, who does not care twopence about politics. If the Minister of Labour were approached by one side, he could say to the other side, "Will you accept that course?" and, if they agreed, he could nominate someone.
  Do not let the Minister of Labour take the initiative. If he did so, he would be as silly as Lord Buckmaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I say so advisedly What right has an ex-Lord Chancellor, who is called to sit judicially in the House of Lords, to express an opinion upon this dispute? It may be that he may be the very gentleman called upon to decide matters arising out of it. I protest against his interference. I urge the Minister of Labour to thank everybody for the confidence they desire to repose in him, but to say to them: "Not to-day, thank you. There is no Act of Parliament which gives me authority in the matter. I might be considered just as impertinent in approaching this matter as, say, X or Y. I have nothing to do with it. I deplore the possibility of a strike, and I would willingly and gladly do anything if the parties will approach me." If I were the Minister of Labour I would not act as arbitrator, but I would nominate somebody. I would tell the parties: "If you will give me a panel of names, I will nominate from that panel a fit and proper person to arbitrate." It is childish and foolish to say that the parties cannot do this for themselves. Of course they can. Why then is this put before the Government? We have enough burdens on our shoulders without undertaking this additional one, which might be made the subject of attack and of sinister charges. Sinister charges have
  1376
  been made against Ministers in this House, and in this Parliament.
  Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: It is somewhat difficult to follow the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. He impeaches the motives of the trade unionists generally in regard to arbitration. He says that they are opposed to arbitration. That is true to some extent, but he objects to legal authorities expressing an opinion upon one particular form out of which this dispute will probably arise. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) deplored any possible intervention on the part of the Government in this dispute. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) very aptly remarked, the hon. Baronet asked for Government intervention during the railway dispute in 1911. The intervention he then asked was for Government soldiers to support the railway companies against the workers who dared to come out on strike.
  The case that I desire to put to the Minister of Labour is somewhat different from the ordinary industrial dispute. I can divide the question into two categories; first, as to the legal interpretation of the existing agreement, and secondly, the dispute that probably will arise owing to difficulty in the interpretation of that agreement and whether the Minister of Labour should intervene. We are not asking for compulsory arbitration. In principle we are opposed to that. I believe that the Minister of Labour, with the power he has at his disposal and with the machinery he has in his Department, especially in the Department for dealing with disputes could exercise conciliatory powers so that it might be possible to avoid this difficulty. It has been said that this is not merely a question that will confine itself to the building trade.
  6.0 P.M.
  I have a letter from the largest brick-making centre in the country, in which the question of the determination or the continuance of an agreement between the brickmaking employers and their workpeople is under consideration. The letter from the Association of Employers is to the effect that they cannot consider anything in the direction of continuing the present agreement unless they know definitely what will arise out of the present dispute. Whether that is an

  1377
  indication that, in the event of the hours being increased in the building trade, it will apply ultimately to the brickmaking industry, I cannot say, but it certainly is ominous that we should have the probability of this extending to such subsidiary industries as brickmaking, the furnishing trades and others, which will suffer unless some stops are taken in the direction of peace. I appeal to the' Minister of Labour to give us an assurance that some further steps will be taken, more than keeping in touch with the two parties, that he will give us some guarantee that legal opinion will be taken upon the vital point, and that he will use the influence of the machinery of his Department in the direction of attempting within the next few hours to do something to obviate this calamity.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: After the discussion which we have had, it is clear that the House will desire some statement to he made. We all realise that the position is a serious one, and though I deprecate at this stage a discussion on the Floor of the House on the merits of an industrial issue of this kind, I do not complain that discussion has taken place, because it is evidence of the realisation in all parts of the House of the serious state of affairs which has arisen. But while Members in various parts of the House can make statements, and use arguments, I do beg the House to realise that, standing at this Box in the position which I occupy, almost any statement of fact which I make at present is subject to possible misinterpretation. It has been suggested that the Law Officers should be called in. I think that there is considerable confusion between the functions of interpretation and the distinct functions of arbitration.
  It was suggested by one hon. Member that the Law Officers might be called in to interpret the document. That is not a course which I propose to adopt, but it is a conceivable line of policy. The Law Officers are frequently asked to interpret documents, but other hon. Members went on to suggest that if the Law Officers were called in they should be, called in, not to interpret a document but to arbitrate on the dispute. Believe me, those two functions are entirely different, and one of the reasons that we leave this course, in reference to the Law Officers, out of the
  1378
  question is that while it is true that there is a written agreement, a great deal turns on how far that written agreement is applicable or not. I do not wish to go into that, because, although I could, if circumstances and the time were proper, substantiate that statement, I do not wish to do so for obvious reasons. But having said that, I wish the House to realise that. I made arrangements, as I told the House earlier this afternoon, for the experts who are skilled in these matters attached to the Ministry of Labour to get into touch in the course of the day with both sides, because one of the first necessities in an industrial dispute is that it should be quite clear to those who are responsible I what are the exact issues on which the difference, if there is a difference, has taken place.
  The Leader of the Opposition has stated that the point at issue is a small one. That is not my conception. I may receive at any moment the reports from my officials as to the discussions that have taken place, but all quarters of the House will agree that the first necessity is to get quite clearly, and as closely defined as possible, the exact points of difference, and it was with that object that I directed the officials of the Department to get in touch with both sides. But then I am pressed to go further, and to intervene. I am pressed, it is true, not by those who sit behind me, but by those who sit opposite. Those who sit behind me take an entirely different view. Those very differences, in view both as to the course of policy to be adopted and on the questions at issue between the two sides, show how desirable it is that the Government, who are trustees for all parties in this matter, should be most careful, in whatever steps they take to intervene, that by so doing there is no risk that, so far from assisting to achieve the result which we all desire, such intervention may have entirely the opposite result.
  Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise how very closely this matter presses the Ministry here, and I was very much obliged when I heard the last speaker, while he was asking me to do something, say that he and his friends had been against compulsory arbitration. We threshed this thing out very fully in 1919. The Industrial Courts Act is a result of the discussion. That Act says, in Part that the Minister of Labour may refer matters in dispute to the Industrial

  1379
  Court or to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by him or to the Board of Arbitration, but on one condition—and that is the vital point—that both parties consent.
  Mr. McENTEE: Why not ask them?
  Sir M. BARLOW: Both parties profess to be anxious—here, again, I have not the latest information, and I do not wish to pledge myself, but I saw it stated in the Press and I merely repeat the statement with no special authority—to go to arbitration, but on a different basis. In other words, there is no consent between them to go to arbitration, and therefore there is no consent of the parties. It is idle to suggest that the Minister of Labour has any powers to compel or coerce, or to intervene for the purpose of forcing a settlement, because he has not. I am sure that my hon. Friends opposite would be the first to protest in circumstances which the House could easily conceive, if he attempted to arrogate to himself any such powers. It is true that under Part II of the Act, in certain circumstances, the Minister has power to direct an inquiry, but so far as arbitration is concerned, the powers of the Minister of Labour are strictly limited to cases where the parties consent. Having said so much, having outlined the steps which have been taken to-day, and the legal powers as laid down for me by the Industrial Courts Act, I would beg the House not to think me in any way discourteous if I ask that the matter should not be pressed any further this afternoon. I can only give the House these two assurances. First, that the burden which falls upon the Minister of Labour, in the case of a big industrial dispute of this kind, is a very heavy one, and second, that I shall endeavour, in so far as in me lies, to discharge that difficult task to the best of my ability.
  Mr. MacDONALD: We know the great difficulty that a Government Department has on such an occasion as this, but I think the facts are dear so far as we have gone. The dispute has arisen on three points. First the interpretation of the agreement—were the lock-out notices in order under that agreement? The employers say "yes" and the workmen say "no." The second point was the wages, and the third point was the hours. Then the question was, how far could this
  1380
  question be arbitrated? The employers' position -was that they would arbitrate only on the whole of the three points together. The workmen's point was, "Let us arbitrate first upon the agreement and, when that has been settled, then we can consider the question of hours and labour." The position, so far as I can understand it to-day, is that the workers agree to arbitration on the agreement and on wages, and that they are not opposed to arbitration as to hours, on one condition, and that is that they have time to consult the local committees. That is the whole situation as I understand it.
  This is Thursday The lock-out notices take effect to-morrow night, and there is not time between now and to-morrow night to consult the local committees. I am not going to ask the Government to intervene or do anything like that. I express no opinion on that. I do suggest that it would be a great service if the Government could manage to secure one of two things—either that the lock-out notices should be suspended for a week, or, in the alternative, that they should secure the adoption of a method which is a very familiar expedient in the case of lock-out notices, when negotiations are still going on. That is, that the lock-out notices should be suspended from day to day. I have got some reason for suggesting this. The suspension from week to week is certainly the better course. But suppose that that is impossible, then it would be well if the Government could induce the employers to agree that the lock-out notices should not: be put into operation, but should be suspended from day to day, until there is some opportunity of discovering whether this small point, to which I have referred, is so important to both sides that it should be allowed to cause a continuance of the dispute. That will not amount to intervention. It is simply a proposal that the Government should use its friendly and persuasive offices to get conciliation between the two sides directly. They are still in contact, or could be brought into contact this evening, if necessary, so that the operations of conciliation could have an opportunity and not be broken off abruptly.

  BRITISH TRADE WITH GERMANY.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to raise another topic, namely, the ques

  1381
  tion of the conditions under which British traders in the Rhineland are labouring. I do not make any apology for raising this question again, for, I am sorry to say, all the efforts made in the past have been, so far as I can judge, completely unavailing to do anything to relieve the difficulties of the traders. In fact, it appears that the Government is indifferent to the sufferings of these people, and, so interested are they in the development of trade in other directions, that they regard our trade with the Continent as of comparatively small importance. That is the conclusion to which one is driven from consideration of their inactivity and also from the speeches made by some members of the Government. There was a very remarkable speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty a short time ago. From a export in the "Times," he said:
  " We are not, properly speaking, a European Power. What happens on the Continent is of relatively small importance economically."
  Judging from the complete ineffectiveness of the Government's action, or their refusal to do anything, that appears to be the view of the Government. At any rate, we can say that they are indifferent. The position is that the traders in the occupied territory, and in unoccupied Germany so far as the traders in the occupied territory as a channel, are now subject to two controls. As previously, they pay duties to the German Government and receive licences from the German Government. Now they find themselves under the control, not only of the German Government, hut of the Franco-Belgian administration also.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The hon. and gallant Member speaks of the inactivity of the Government. Would he make some suggestion as to the line of action that he thinks the Government ought to take?
  Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of an Opposition himself. He knows that it is the business of the Government to decide lines of action, and not for a Member of the Opposition to offer precise prescriptions. It is the business of those who have control to find a remedy for the difficulties. When I speak of inactivity, I may he wrong. The Government may have been
  1382
  very active. All I can say is, that there has been no fruitful result of their action, and that the state of affairs now is as bad as it was on the first day when we raised the subject in this House. The difficulty is, that there are three authorities interfering with the trader. First of all there is the German Government, which asks for duties and licences as before. Then there is the Franco-Belgian administration, which also asks for duties and licences. Arid by no means the least important, there are the German transport workers in this territory. Although the traders may be willing to comply with the Franco-Belgian demand, yet by so doing they make it impossible for their goods to be moved by the workmen of the occupied territory, because the German Ministry of Transport, on the 26th of last month, issued an order forbidding any railwaymen to obey the instructions of the Franco-Belgian administration. Therefore, even compliance with the demands for payment of double duty does not assist the trader, because his goods cannot be removed.
  When we first raised the point we had speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the President of the Board of Trade—speeches which really suggested that this grievance was nonexistent, because the volume of trade was unaffected. That was certainly the impression created in the minds of most Members of this House by those speeches. What the spokesmen of the Government did not say, until they were most straightly cross-examined, was that as far as the trade in the occupied territory was concerned it was absolutely non-existent. It was only under the strongest pressure that the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday or the day before that the exportation was very small: and he added:
  " It is correct to say that the German Government is making trade impossible."
  We were led to believe that the whole grievance was a storm in a tea-cup The fact is that there is no trade going on, though hitherto it was a very valuable trade, which ran into millions of pounds a year, over this particular territory. Apart from export and import duties there is another point, and that is the reparation levy. As everyone knows, goods coming from Germany into this country are subject to a levy of 26 per cent. of their value; 26 per cent. is paid

  1383
  to the Customs and on the document going forward to Berlin the money is reimbursed by the Berlin Government.. The exporter, therefore, gets his 100 per cent., and the British Government has intercepted 26 per cent. for reparation. I will not enter into the question of who pays the 26 per cent. What has happened is that in respect of any goods which, in the German mind, bear the taint of French consent, the German Government has given notice that it will not reimburse the 26 per cent. If the 26 per cent. is not reimbursed it becomes an ordinary import duty. Is it not a fact that traders sending goods find those goods subject now to 26 per cent. reparation duty and 10 per cent. export duty, making in all a duty of 36 per cent., whereas if these goods were sent to any neighbouring countries where the Reparation Recovery Act does not operate, they are subject to only 10 per cent.? That is to say, it is a 26 per cent. prejudice against our own interests, because the money is not reimbursed from Berlin, and is in fact the same as an import duty. A few clays ago I introduced a Motion which proposed that we should suspend the operation of the Act. To my great surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade denied all knowledge of the German Govern-merit's refusal to reimburse. That was a very surprising statement. I relied on information from traders and on announcements in the Press. To make the matter quite clear I have received from the British Chamber of Commerce in Cologne a sworn Declaration which says:
  " We hereby testify that the 26 per cent. Reparation Tax on deliveries to England is not refunded by the German Government when the Cousignments in question have been made on foreign permits."
  In these discussions the President of the Board of Trade has introduced rather a new note. We always understood that the attitude of the Government was that the Government did not take one side or the other in the Ruhr dispute, The Prime Minister has always said so. Not so the President of the Board of Trade. He is more Royalist than the King. He says it is the German Government's fault that these things are happening The answer he gave the other day was that the German Government had made trade impossible.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): It is true.
  Captain BENN: The right bon. Gentleman will no doubt give the same answer again, because "it is true." Is it not a fact that the German Government weeks ago offered to waive their duties? Is it not a fact that they proposed that they and everyone else concerned should waive the duties and the demand for licences, and permit the traders in this district to rejoice in the exceptional advantage of having no duties to pay and no licences to seek, so long as the occupation continued I would like precise information on that subject. The "Kölnische Zeitung," on 6th April, said that that was so if it. be true that the German Government made that offer, what substance can there be in the statement that it is the German Government which is making trade impossible? I am not concerned to take a pro-German or a pro-French line. I am concerned solely with the interests of people who are trying to do trade there. We can get no satisfaction from the Government in the matter. From the day when we first raised this question not a tittle of help has been given to these people. I have seen at least a dozen merchants, men of substance who were doing a very large business with this territory, and they have said, "Nothing is being done; no help is being given." I have been asked by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs what I would suggest. I reply that on the benches opposite is the Government. I am not well informed as to the negotiations that go on between our Government and the French Government-. I know that the French came to us and asked for permission for trains to run through to Cologne, and the British General in command had longnegotiations on the subject. I know that the French owe us £500,000,000—a not immaterial point. Debtors to that extent should not treat our traders so badly. It is not my business to make suggestions, but to emphasise the very severe hardships of these traders, and to ask the Government what they intend to do.
  Mr. FRANK GRAY: In the few observations which I propose to address to the House on this subject, if do not propose to confine my remarks to acts of omission by the Government, but, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1385
  evidently desires it, I shall extend them to acts of commission by the Government which I consider have materially affected the situation. This country has at the present time in Germany at least three interests. The first, is, so far as possible, to secure our share of reparation. The second is to secure" in respect of trade under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act of 1921, our 26 per cent., and the third is to watch, to protect, and to advance the interests of traders of this country in Germany, both at present and in the future. I desire to show that not only are our trade interests materially adversely affected at the present time, but that, as a result of the transactions which are going on, they are likely to he affected even more in the future. I think it will be conceded that as a result of the acts of the French our chance of securing reparation is at least postponed. It will also be conceded, I think—contrary to the view expressed by the President of the Board of Trade—that the whole of our trade, excepting four accidental barge loads of stuff which got through, has ended in so far as the occupied area is concerned. Therefore, whatever revenue we may be getting now under the Act of 1921, it is quite clear we are losing a very large revenue in respect of potential trade with the occupied area. These losses to the country are undeniably due to the action taken by the French Government. The President of the Board of Trade, I understand, denies it, but the French officials quite frankly admit it. The acts of commission of which I complain are these— that, notwithstanding our duty to probed our trade interests, we have facilitated the action of the French by making concessions to them, first, in respect of area, by a rearrangement of the areas of influence, and, secondly, by giving them transport facilities to enable them to carry out the peculiar transactions in which they are now engaged in the Ruhr district.
  Let me give one example of what is taking place—of what actually took place only yesterday. The French officials, that is to say, a number of officers and men armed to the teeth with machine guns and sometimes with tanks, go to a mine. Incidentally, may I say, that I believe, they took nine tanks to capture a post office occupied by one man. They come with this force to the mine and say, "We are here to take possession of, and to run
  1386
  this mine." Whether such an act is in pursuance of any Treaty or international arrangement or international law, or whether it is merely an act of war and nothing better I do not know, but I suggest to His Majesty's Government that whatever it may be, by the concessions of which I have spoken, we are parties to the transaction, although we are, as a result, sustaining a very substantial loss instead of gaining a benefit. The Germans when they are approached in this way say, "We are very pleased to see you; we expected you yesterday, and what exactly do you propose to do? Do you propose to go down and work the mine or do you propose to be the surface men on the job? "The French say," We only propose to do the surface work." Then the Germans, aside and in a stage whisper, say, "Yes, they dare not go down, because; they are afraid we are going to gas them." The French proceed, I believe with no better machinery than their hands, to try to load coal and coke from the surface, and in large quantities they are quite unable to remove it from that area to their own country when they have done so. The; Germans proceed to work underground, not of course to bring up further coal to be taken away by the French, but, as they quite frankly admit, to do necessary work for future development which they have been unable to do during the pressure of work preceding the occupation by the French.
  In respect of such a transaction as that or in respect of the taking possession of a factory, where either unproductive work is being done or where there is an accumulation of finished articles, the Berlin Government are making a credit arrangement to enable this passive resistance to be put up. Again, in the ease of the railway and the surface workers who naturally refused to work side by side with the French, the Berlin Government provide wages or doles in lieu of wages, to enable this passive war to be continued. Trade in Germany having in the past been good and there having been practically no unemployment, the Berlin Government are able to make that provision. That state of affairs is likely to go on for some time. The Germans are quite confident of their ability to resist passively, and the French at the present time are depressed and doubtful as to their chance of success. To those

  1387
  acquainted with the situation in the Ruhr it was not surprising that advances should be made for conferences and for an arrangement with His Majesty's Government, and we on this side of the House regret that, so far, nothing has been done which is likely to end the present situation in the Ruhr. But if nothing is done and if the French are likely to fail, what is the position? I had an opportunity of speaking with French Deputies on the subject, and they say quite frankly that they desire to injure the trade that might be going on between the Ruhr area and this country. The President of the Board of Trade repeatedly says—which very much amazes me—that the Germans are the cause of the cessation of trade between that area and this country. It should be quite obvious to him—it would be obvious to every business man—that if the Germans are putting up a war of passive resistance and are endeavouring to manufacture and produce, whether permitted to do so by the French or not, and if in respect of stocks thus created they have got to be backed up by the credit system of the Berlin Government, then it is in their interest to get out of their country the stocks thus created to countries other than France, if they can do so without interfering with the passive war they are carrying on. As I have said, the Germans are confident and the difficulty at the present moment rests with the French. They have put themselves into a position —and, however injurious it may he to us, for that they care nothing, except that they hope it will become so injurious as to bring us in on their side—they have put themselves into a position which is perilously near to ridiculous, and they cannot remain in that position. They are unlikely to withdraw, however, unless ways and means are provided by others to enable them to do so. Meantime they must go on. They are going on, and their next progressive step—and there are indications to-day that they are taking that step—is fraught with great danger to the world at large and is certainly fraught with great and increasing injury to the trade of this country which we are under an obligation to protect.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down covered a very wide field in the general discussion of reparation. I do not propose to follow him in view of the previous statement of
  1388
  policy made by the Prime Minister. I will say this, that unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Kenn), who preceded him he suggested a certain course of action which might be taken. That was that we should attempt to make things as difficult as we could for the French in the Ruhr. I do not think that is a policy which is likely to appeal to the people of this country. I do not think it is a policy which is likely to bring the question of reparation to a satisfactory conclusion. It is not likely to lead to better relations between this country and France, which is a vital consideration in this matter, and certainly it is not a course which His Majesty's Government have the least intention of pursuing. I would deprecate roost sincerely the suggestion—indeed it was more than a suggestion, it was a statement—that the French have shown themselves utterly careless of how much damage is done to British trade by their action.
  Mr. GRAY: I put it stronger than that.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, the hon. Gentleman did put it, stronger than that, because he said not only were they careless of the damage they did, but that they were anxious to damage British trade as much as they could in order to bring us in.
  Mr. GRAY: Trade from that area.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: From that area. That is, I believe, a gross insult to the French. I am convinced they have no such intention, and the action which they have taken and the arrangements which they have made, at our request, certainly negative any such suggestion as that. I will deal now with the more detailed and localised question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. He said, in the first place, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I had advanced the theory that trade with the occupied territory had not really suffered. I am sure that is not so. I did not hear the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am conscious of the speech which I myself delivered, and the point of my argument was, not that trade with the occupied area had not suffered—quite obviously it is suffering most seriously—but the whole point of the speech was to show the steps which His Majesty's

  1389
  Government were taking in order to restore trade with the occupied area. What I did say was that if the suggestion were made that the action of the French in going into the Ruhr had paralysed trade between Britain and Germany, that was untrue, and it was an unfair picture to paint, because you had got to see what were the total figures of trade passing between the whole of Germany and this country and between this country and the whole of Germany. If you are going to speak of the general damage which is done to trade between two countries, the fair position to take is to see what is the aggregate trade which is passing between those countries, and it is a remarkable fact that there is still a very considerable volume of trade going on. The figures which I quoted the last time I spoke on this subject show that the aggregate volume of trade between the whole of Germany and this country and between this country and the whole of Germany has not seriously fallen.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Including coal?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, that includes coal.
  Mr. GRAY: In an answer given to me this afternoon, when I asked for the figures for the three months ending 31st March last and the three months ending 31st December last, it was shown that there was an increase, hut that is quite irrelevant to the question.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is not the least irrelevant to the question of what is the total volume of trade being done between Germany and this country, and when hon. Members are trying to make out a case against the French, they ought to put their case fairly.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is against you, not against the French.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am prepared to defend myself, but the French are not here to defend themselves, and the whole suggestion made by the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) was that it was the intention of the French to damage our trade—
  Mr. GRAY: In the Ruhr.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GIREAME—to damage our trade in the Ruhr. But I repudiate
  1390
  that absolutely. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith said that the Government had not only apparently been unconscious of the difficulties of trading with the occupied territory, of which we have been only too conscious, but that we had been indifferent and had done nothing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout the whole of the period, the British Government have been in close consultation with the French Government. They have made constant representations—
  Dr. SALTER: And nothing has happened.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to reply for the Government, and to say what has happened. I am aware that trade is still held up, but that is not the fault of His Majesty's Government or the fault of the French. We represented to the, French that they should give every facility the was possible for trade with the occupied territories, and, both on general principles and on the question of detailed contracts, the British representative on the Rhineland Commission has been working continuously in order to facilitate trade. So much for the charge that, we have done nothing. What have the French agreed to? The French have agreed that exactly the same regulations should he in force in the occupied territory as were in force before the occupation, that where a licence hail to be applied for before, a licence should still be applied for, that where an export or an import duty was payable before, it would still be payable, and at the same rate, and, further, that the German seller or buyer need not himself apply for that licence, but that that could be applied for by the British seller or purchaser, who would make his own arrangements with his German customer to deduct the amount of duty from the purchase price.
  Therefore, the French proposal was in effect that exactly the same duties should be enforced as previously. In addition to that, they arranged that goods passing from unoccupied Germany through unoccupied Germany to this country or other countries, if they had paid a licence and an export duty in Germany, should not be chargeable to any duty or susceptible of any licence in passing through the

  1391
  occupied territory. I venture to say that that action was not action which showed that the French wished to hinder British trade in every way possible. I think it was the action of a country which was desirous of giving such reasonable facilities as lay in its power in order to facilitate trade with that territory. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith challenged me because I said that, that being so, the onus of holding up the trade rested on the German Government. He said, "Not at all. The German Government have made you an offer and have said that, if the French are prepared to make no charge of customs duty and to exact no licences," if, in fact, the French are prepared to forego everything for which they went into the Ruhr—
  Captain BENN: Oh, no.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Let us see whether this is a real situation. The German Government said: "If the French are prepared to forego all these duties, we, the Germans, will agree not to collect duty in a country of which we are not in occupation, and in which we could not possibly collect the duty."
  Captain BENN: Was such an offer made? I am going by the newspapers, and it was stated in the Cologne Chamber of Commerce. If such an offer was made, what did His Majesty's Government say to it? Did they encourage it or press it forward in any way?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Whether or not it was an absolutely firm offer, it was certainly a suggestion made by the German Government. That suggestion was tantamount to saying to the French, "If you acknowledge in effect that you have no rights in the Ruhr, that you will exercise none of your functions in the Ruhr, we propose not to make a charge." The answer of the British Government was that that was an impossible proposal, and I justify the action of His Majesty's Government in saying that that was an impossible proposal to make, for what did it mean. I can quite understand the hon. and gallant Member for Leith wishing us to accept, and pressing us to accept, an offer of that kind, because he is anxious that. His Majesty's Government should go to the French Government and say, "We wish to put every obstacle
  1392
  in your way," but surely, for those of us who take the view of wishing as far as possible to act with France and sincerely hope that we shall come to a position and an agreement in which it will he possible for us to act with France, to have taken action of that kind would be utterly impossible, and, I would add, not only utterly impossible, but absolutely ineffective.
  Captain BENN: Why ineffective?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Because the French Government would not have consented. Let us face the realities of this position. If such a course of action was not only impolitic, because it would have been treated by the French as a hostile action towards them by us, but was absolutely useless because the French Government could not have accepted it, it seems to me that it would have been a wrong and a singularly futile course to have taken. The only object that could have been served by accepting a proposal of that kind would have been to have absolutely taken sides on the side of the Germans in this matter, and that is not a course which His Majesty's Government care to adopt.
  Mr. GRAY: If you think the French right, why do you not join them?
  Captain BENN: You are neglecting the interests of British traders.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant. Member has no business to say that. The view which His Majesty's Government have taken is the view that British interests lay in our acting, as far as it is possible to act, with our Allies. The best opportunity for Britain and for British trade in all quarters of the world is that we should as far as possible act with our Allies the French in the matter of reparations. On those facts I still assert that the onus of holding up British trade in the occupied territory to-day rests on the German Government and not on the French Government. The hon. and gallant Member raised one other point to which I wish to refer, and that was the question of the collection of reparation duty. He said the Germans were unwilling, and in fact had refused, to refund to their nationals the amount of reparation levy collected in this country in respect of goods which had been exported from the Rhineland under

  1393
  a French licence. I think that is accurate.
  Captain BENN: You did not say that before.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What I have said myself was that, while I understood that such a policy had been announced, I knew of no case in which it had taken place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He was saying that the fact that reparation duty is collected in this country was stopping trade, but it is not that which is stopping trade. The thing which is stopping trade is that the German Government are refusing to allow their nationals to export even under contracts which still exist, but the reparation duty is being collected upon other goods which come in, and will continue to he collected. Let the House observe what the hon. and gallant Gentle-man is proposing to us. He is, in the first place, proposing that in our action we should side completely with Germany, because we should be taking an attitude hostile to France and which made the French position impossible, an action which the German Government want us to take because they know that it would make the French position impossible.
  Captain BENN: I suggest that you should side with the British trader.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is what I am doing. The hon. and gallant. Member suggests, further, not only that we should do that, but that we should, as regards our own interests—and the collection of reparation is a British interest—forego the method of the 26 per cent. duty and the reparations which we are at present ourselves collecting. Both of those would be at once, not only contrary to French interests, but certainly contrary to British interests, and His Majesty's Government certainly decline to adopt any such suggestion.
  Mr. DARBISHIRE: I wish to intervene for one or two minutes because of the -unsatisfactory nature of the replies given to me by the Government on certain questions which I have put in this House recently. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down told us just now that the first consideration of this Government was to further French interests, and that any other course was not one which His
  1394
  Majesty's Government would pursue. I wish to suggest to the House that the first interest—
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. I do not wish him to misunderstand me. I said that the first consideration of the British Government was to safeguard and promote British interests, and that British interests were best served by working as far as possible in agreement with the French.
  Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am within the recollection of the House in maintaining that what I have just said was what the right hon. Gentleman said in the beginning of his speech. He said the first consideration was to further French interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] At any rate I am glad to hear that he has some sympathy with British interests. There are several questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the three licensing offices in the occupied area. A suggestion was made to the effect that instead of those three licensing offices which as a matter of fact are all working against each other, some central licensing office should be established in Cologne which would devote itself especially to British interests. I have a letter from a firm which has had some experience of transactions with this office. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) the other day referred to the benevolent impotence of the Government, and this letter gives one an impression that those licence offices in the occupied area are adopting an attitude of malevolent insolence to the British traders in that district.
  The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the offer which the German Government recently made at a meeting of traders in Berlin. It. was actually made, and I have spoken to gentlemen who were at that meeting in Berlin. They say that if the French would allow goods to come out of the Ruhr without any licence or duty, the Germans are quite prepared to do the same. I put a question, to-day, to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on that point, and he referred me to a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 28th March. I find that on that date, the President of the

  1395
  Board of Trade did refer to the question, in these words:
  " The German Government replied that they could not agree to any such arrangement unless the French were prepared to forego the whole of the licence duty, and the whole of the export duty to which these goods would have been subject in any case."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  " I have put it to both Governments that whoever is in occupation, the same duty should be chargeable as before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1923; col. 629, Vol. 162.]
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion to the French Government.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, pardon me. The hon. Gentleman is quoting me, and I am sure he does not wish to misquote me. The proposal was that there should be one duty; that the duty chargeable should be the same as the duty previously levied on German nationals; that where the French were in occupation that duty should be charged and collected by the French; and the duty in unoccupied territory would be charged and collected by the Germans.
  Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will see that the sense of his speech is that the same duty should be charged as before, and that is the proposition which the French Government should be compelled to accept. If the right hon. Gentleman were so solicitous of British trade he would be in favour of the German contention that the goods should come out free from that country, and should not he subject to those taxes. He said that if we agreed to the German suggestions that those goods should come out duty free, and that the French should not impose any duty, it would sacrifice everything for which the French went into the Ruhr. What is the trade which is coming out of the Ruhr? About £20,000,000 a year, and a tax of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. comes to about £1,000,000 or £2,000,000. Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he seriously suggests that that is what the French went into the Ruhr for? He knows, as well as anyone in this House, that they did not go into the Ruhr to collect the export duties on trade coming out of that country. They went into the Ruhr to annex it. The right hon. Gentleman talks
  1396
  about the aggregate of foreign trade; as compared with totals now, it is the same as it was last year. Does not he know anything about potential trade? If this absurd and mad adventure had not been undertaken by the French, does not he know that the trade might he £4,000,000 instead of £2,000,000? I have never heard such ridiculous nonsense.
  Then there is the matter of the 26 per cent. import duty under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, which, I understand, was a brain wave of the late Prime Minister. It was opposed by everyone in the City. There was no man of any financial interest or experience in the City who had a good word to say for it. We were told the other evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the 26 per cent. was bringing in £7,000,000 a year, and that if we did not go on collecting it we should lose that £7,000,000. Assume, for a moment, that the German exporter does get paid; that he does get reimbursed for the 26 per cent. How is it done? It is done by printing marks, by inflating the currency, thus making it more easy for the Germans to export goods in competition with us. That is the result of that operation. We may have got £7,000,000 here, but we are setting up a competitor who can compete on better exchange conditions than we can in the markets of the world. So far as my information goes, it confirms what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), that they were not reimbursing exporters in the occupied areas at the rate of export, and that the German Government has refused to reimburse those shippers.
  The whole trouble is this. It is a mistaken policy on the part of the Government. They do not realise and appreciate the value and importance to this country of the trade of Germany and of Central Europe. We were told by the Prime Minister at the end of last Session that if an earthquake came and swallowed up Germany it would make no difference to the trade of the world. If that be the opinion of the Government, it shows that the sooner they are out of office the better for this country. The Prime Minister gave us figures. He told us that the trade with the Colonies amounted to £15 per head, while that with Germany amounted to £1 per head or some such per capita figures. What on earth has that to do with it?

  1397
  Does the trader in this country, when he books an order for £10,000 with America, divide that £10,000 by the total population of America in order to find out what that amounts to per head? Of course he does not. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the total trade with the Colonies was £400,000,000— divided up amongst 17,000,000 people—and that the trade with Europe was so much less per head. But what was the total value of the exchange of commodities between the nations of Europe before the War? Not £400,000,000, but £4,000,000,000 yearly. That is the trade we wish to get going again, the surplus of goods exchanged between nation and nation. It is all a question of policy, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) that the Government are to blame because their policy is wrong. They have got to tell the French that we are not going to stand this sort of treatment.
  Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarks which have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade. They have fallen from him also on several occasions, in reply to questions that have been asked in this House. In those remarks, the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to impress upon us that if there be any trouble for British traders, if there be any difficulties or complications arising in the Ruhr district, it is entirely the fault of the Germans. Tie has taken the trouble, by frequent repetition, to suggest this view to us. To hear the President of the Board of Trade talk, one would think that the Ruhr was French territory. One would think that the French and the Belgian authorities there, in the pursuit of their ordinary avocations, as governing authorities, were conducting an ordinary legal government in a country which belonged to them, where they had an old-established and long-continued position. One would think that somebody or other, some unauthorised person, coming from some unauthorised quarter, had put spokes in their wheel, and had caused all the trouble; and that the whole blame had to rest upon this unauthorised person, coming into their territory and interfering with their jurisdiction. I want to know, What is their jurisdiction? What is their legal position? What is their right
  1398
  to claim that troubles caused by certain action on the part of the Germans are to be attributed to the Germans alone, and that the difficulties of the position have nothing whatever to do with them or their action in going there? As a matter of fact, it seems to me very like the position which might occur in a street fight, where some unfortunate person is knocked down on the footpath and then the police come along and arrest the person who has been knocked down for obstructing the public highway.
  The question is, who began the aggression who started the trouble? To cast the blame upon the action of the Germans in this matter is very much like the condemnation visited upon a certain animal by the naturalist, who said, "It. is a very wicked animal, because when it is attacked, it defends itself."
  I do not, in the very least, share the sentiments of hostility to the French people or to France—I do not know whether they are held or experienced by others—which the President of the Board of Trade, at any rate, attributed to some Members of this House. I so far agree with the right hon. Gentleman: I think there is a danger in so putting the position as to appear to be hostile to France. We simply are describing a position which exists. The President or the Board of Trade himself said, "You must look at the situation as it exists, and at the facts as they are." I think we can do that. I think we can describe the position as it exists at present, with all its injustices, all its illegalities, and all the suffering it is inflicting on innocent people in Germany, without assuming an attitude of hostility to France.
  Whenever we are endeavouring to outline a policy as regards the situation, and to meet the situation, we ought not merely to make it the negative policy of protesting against what has been done by France. We ought to combine with it a policy of explaining what this country would do to assist France out of the undoubted difficulties which she experiences to-day. The two sides of our policy oughtto go together. We should protest against the present action in the Ruhr, which is only the outcome of a policy for which we ourselves were responsible, so far as our Government is concerned, and which is only the culmination of a policy

  1399
  we helped to initiate and carry out. We ought, however, while protesting and objecting to what has been done now, to explain that we, on our part, would be prepared, in any final and satisfactory settlement of this question, to come to the aid of France. We also have our part to bear; we also have our contribution to make to this settlement. I consider that our Government ought to make it clear that, so far as we are concerned, we should renounce our share in the reparation claims upon Germany. There are many reasons why we should, not only on grounds of common justice, but on grounds of particular interest to this country, because we have not yet been shown in what form great reparations can be made to this country without injuring the trade of this country, and, until that is shown, I think there is a very strong case for renouncing those reparation payments. That renunciation would, ipso facto, help the French so far as they want to get reparations themselves, because it would enable them to reap the benefit of whatever reparations were paid.
  I certainly do not think this country has behaved well towards France. Immediately after the War we should have said to France "We will see you through your troubles, and before any claims of our own country with regard to damaged property are met, we will make quite sure that you will get your devastated legions restored "We ought to have made that our first duly. We did not do it, and I think the French people have a quite legitimate complaint against us. I mention those points to enforce the contention that I am not in the least in the position of those who take a purely negative or hostile attitude towards France. I think the policy should be regarded as a whole. While protesting against what they are doing now, we should say at the same time what in the final settlement, we should be prepared to do for them.
  The question of the interference with British trade which has been raised this evening is merely one little corner of a vast question, and a question pregnant with danger for this country, as well as for France herself and Germany. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade only illustrates what has been illustrated again and again, that you cannot I deal with, and you cannot explain and dis-
  1400
  pose of, some particular side or aspect of this question, such as that of British trade, without being forced back upon the question of the whole policy being pursued towards Germany and the German people at the present time.
  The question is not merely a trade question, though I should be the last to minimise that side of it. It is of vital importance to my own constituents, as Lancashire people, because of the injury done, particularly in the cotton industry, to the trade of this country through the disturbance which has taken place in the Ruhr. But, after all, that is only one side, as I say, of a great question, and we shall not be able to solve this trade difficulty, and these complications, about which so much has been said here to night, unless we are prepared boldly to tackle the whole political problem involved. It is a problem of vast political significance, and of vast human significance. To hear the President of the Board of Trade talk, one might imagine there were no human interests involved in this question at all, and that everything was perfectly calm and clear, except so far as this particular trade question was concerned; but, as a matter of fact, you have in the Ruhr at the present time what can only be described as a powder magazine, which may quite possibly, within a very short time, lead to a great explosion in which it will be impossible for this country not to be in some way or other involved. You have a most dangerous situation, and I have seen it only recently with my own eyes.
  It is not merely that great suffering and great loss are being inflicted upon a very considerable industrial population. It is also that, by the methods which are being applied, by the continual arrests, by the atrocious condition in the prisons of those persons who are arrested, by the expulsion of many thousands of railway men with their families from their homes at a moment's notice across the frontier of the occupied districts, by the closing—as I saw with my own eyes in certain towns—of the whole of the shops in the centre of the town, and the barring off, by a cordon, of the centre, and the insistance upon passes being shown by every person wishing to pass a certain street-corner—by these and many other things, into which I will not go, because I do not want to detain the House, you are creating a state of feeling which may, at

  1401
  any moment, lead to a most dangerous explosion. You had an example the other day in what happened at Krupp's works at Essen. It so happened that in that particular tragedy only—I will use the word "only "—12 persons were killed, apart from a large number wounded. But that particular incident might very easily have developed into one of a far more tragical character. It might very well have been that you would have had 100, or more than 100, killed instead of 12, and it might easily have created a popular explosion, which would have led, in an extremely short time, to a state of civil or guerilla warfare, and nobody can tell how far a situation of that kind might lead.
  Therefore, I want to emphasise that the troubles which are arising in connection with our trade in the Ruhr and the Rhine Valley are not to be treated by themselves, and are not to be attributed to the action of the German people or the German Government, which is merely an incident, which is merely one link in the chain of causes, and does not go back to she original trouble out of which these complications have arisen. You have got to deal with the question as a whole. You have got to treat it not merely as an economic question, but as a vast political problem, and as I understand that our right as Members of this House is to demand the redress of grievances before getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, I demand, in the name of my constituents, and in the name of common humanity and common justice, that we shall have some effort on the part of the Government to tackle this great political question as a whole, in a spirit of impartiality, and with a determination to secure peace.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I will not follow the hon. Member into the larger issues into which he has gone. I am anxious to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a subject affecting unemployment directly in this country. It will be within the recollection of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that during the first week of the present Session, I placed a question on the Order Paper relating to a large shipment of steel plates for shipbuilding purposes on the Clyde, and he will recollect that he gave me an assurance that he would inquire,
  1402
  into the matter. I removed my question from the Order Paper. I have waited, I think, with patience, and my constituents are still waiting with patience, but the large quantity of steel plates, the order for which this firm placed with makers in the Ruhr district before the 10th January, is not forthcoming, and my correspondents advise me that the French are to blame. These importers purchased these steel plates at a very low price, with the result that shipbuilding firms on the Clyde have been enabled to secure orders for ships, and there are to-day ships being constructed on the Clyde because of the low price of steel plates from the Ruhr district, The French entered the Ruhr district on the 10th January. The supplies which were forthcoming from those firms before that date are not forthcoming to-day, with the result—and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong—that in shipyards on the Clyde, unemployment is being directly created because these firms are unable to import the steel plates they require.
  This particular order —avery large one—was placed before the 10th January. The French authorities demand from the Scottish importers an extra duty of 10 per cent. This firm is willing to pay the 26 per cent. import duty into this country, but they do not think it, reasonable, having undertaken contracts with firms in the Ruhr Valley, and to construct ships on the Clyde based on that original price, that they should be asked by the French Government to pay an extra high duty. Not only are they being hindered by the operation of that duty, but they find great difficulty in getting licences from the Freneh authorities. I have spoken to reliable people, upon whose word I can rely, and they assure me that the French officials in the Ruhr Valley, acting under the authority of the French Government, are taking up in this matter a distinctly anti-British attitude. They are refusing I do not doubt that the Under-Secretary has received information to the same effect—licences to British firms which they readily grant to other nationals. I put this question down in the first week of the Session, and to-day there are orders for 2,000 tons of steel plates awaiting delivery from the firms in the Ruhr Valley for ship construction on the Clyde, where there is extremely heavy unemployment, and un-

  1403
  employment is being created to-day because the British Government are unable to take steps to free this large quantity of steel plates from firms in the Rohr Valley, although the French Government profess to be friends of the British Government.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I understood the hon. Member to say just now that I probably had information from other sources confirming his allegation that the French were discriminating to our disadvantage. If I understood him aright, not only have I no information to that effect, but I have information which entirely contradicts it.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I have information on the subject of discriminating between British firms anxious to import manufactured goods from the Ruhr Valley. I pass on that information to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I would not do so if it did not come to me from a reliable source—not from any party source, but from some very large traders —some of the largest—in the West of Scotland. The hon. Member will bear me out when I repeat that I put down my question in the first week of the Session, and removed it from the Order Paper, trusting that the British interest would be the first consideration of the President of the Board of Trade. My constituents to-day are suffering unemployment, and, in the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde, ships are being delayed because the British Government are unable to protect the interests of British traders in the Ruhr Valley. Let me bring one other case before the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. I wrote to the Foreign Office from Glasgow last week about a very large order for a certain type of machinery for new works within 30 miles of Glasgow. I have to-day seen a letter from the President of the Board of Trade which is dated 11th April, in which he informs me that his Department have transmitted my request to the British High Commissioner with a request that he should take such steps as he possibly can to secure the release of the goods in question. This is a very large order which was placed before 10th January. The firm in question have paid 50 per cent. of the price. The works are ready in Scotland to-day, but until they receive this particular type of machinery the workers cannot be employed although orders are
  1404
  waiting. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade recollects the particular case to which I refer. I sent it ten days ago to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and he courteously informed me that he was forwarding it to the President of the Board of Trade. The type of machinery to which I refer cannot be produced in any other quarter of the globe. It is specialised machinery made by a firm in the Ruhr valley. Many months ago the orders were placed and yet under proposals to which the Government have willingly agreed, these firms in Scotland not only have had to pay the 26 per cent. import duty, but in addition the extra 10 per cent. duty, and they have also found very great difficulty in getting licences. These are facts beyond dispute.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman has said that the British Government have willingly acceded to the conditions. That is not the case. The British Government are to-day pressing the German Government to agree to the conditions we have proposed.
  Sir G. COLLINS: My complaint is that the French Government have no right.— I say it quite definitely—to levy an extra tax on orders placed in Germany.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member says; in fact I agree with, most of it. But among the difficulties is not there the difficulty that the German workmen refuse to handle these goods in the Ruhr because they think this is the best way of making a protest against the French? Is not the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman somewhat outside the British Board of Trade jurisdiction?
  Sir G. COLLINS: But does any hon. Member in this House think that it is possible for the British Government to bring pressure to bear upon the German worker? That is not the point. These goods are ready to be delivered in some cases.
  Mr. SAMUEL: But the German workmen will not handle them
  Sir G. COLLINS: Therefore, it rests not with the German Government but with the French authorities in the Ruhr Valley. The President of the Board of Trade has all the information about these two big cases at his disposal and T say, speaking from my place in the House of

  1405
  Commons, the policy of the French Government in the Ruhr Valley is being reflected in growing unemployment. The figures of the banks of the Clyde and other districts show it. The President of the Board of Trade replied to a point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith, and stated that the aggregate trade was the same to-day as in the past. Are we satisfied with the present conditions of trade? Are hon. Members satisfied with the comparison with last year, with hungry people outside unable to get employment? Is it any satisfaction to the traders who are unable to get their goods, for us, or any other Member of this House to come forward and tell them: "Oh, well, you must not complain too bitterly; the total trade permitted by the French authorities to leave the Ruhr is as great to-day as last year "? That is no answer to the points raised by hon. Members I have spoken to-night of definite cases, and I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that, although he is anxious to satisfy France and the French Government, yet his duty as President of the Board of Trade is to satisfy the demand of our own traders. By every legitimate step he has to point out to the French Government that their action is unfair in levying a tax on orders placed before 10th January, and that there is to-day a very general feeling, substantiated by facts, that the French authorities in the Ruhr are acting against British interests. The right hon. Gentleman will find agreement on that point, I think, among Members in all quarters of the House. With these facts before him, I trust he will be able to snake representations to the French Government, and take such steps as he may with the full support of the Government, and then employment will be created, works will be started and re-starred, and our people will receive that due weight to which they are entitled.
  Sir NEWTON MOORE: My few remarks will be made from a different point of view to that already put forward: that is from a desire to see the exportation of products from the overseas Dominions into the Ruhr Valley. Up till now we have had a considerable amount of trade, but I am quite satisfied that there is a ground of complaint. As a matter of fact, it has been represented to me that the usual procedure has been, when complaints have been made, to refer
  1406
  people to the High Commissioner. The High Commissioner, however, is absolutely incompetent to deal with the question in so far as the Ruhr Valley is concerned, for he has no authority. He is concerned with the original occupied territory, and consequently helpless to effect any relief.
  I am more particularly concerned with certain raw products being sent into the Ruhr Valley at the present time. As a result of certain regulations, which have been promulgated by the French and Belgian authorities, it is not possible for vessels carrying ore to proceed up the Rhine Valley or up the canals from the North Sea to the Ruhr Valley. What is the result? You see thousands of lighters and tugs lying in the largest inland harbour in the world, Duisburg, doing nothing. If the French are there to get reparations, why do they not give the opportunity for industry to get working? They will never get reparations if they keep the whole country idle. I speak with all due deference, and with the greatest possible respect, for the French, but I say that the French industrialists are behind the whole business. In connection with the Saar Valley we know that 60 per cent. of these great primary steel works are now in possession of the French authorities. I am speaking of the French industrial group. In my opinion they are attempting to obtain control of the finishing mills in the Ruhr Valley. Before the War we know that pig-iron, plates, and billets were sent from the Saar Valley to the finishing mills in the Ruhr where the different classes of steel were completed. One can quite understand that it is considered justifiable from the point of view of the French industrialists to follow the same procedure in this case. Fortunately, at the present time the French have not that control. The position, however, is that many of the big industrial works have closed down. In respect to the particular instance to which I have referred, if force maieure is declared, it will simply mean that no additional lighters will be allowed up the Rhine, with the result that the miners in Newfoundland and elsewhere will be thrown out of employment.
  This is a most important question. It is imperative that the Government should realise their duty, not only to protect the trade of this country, but also to protect the traders in the Dominions. We have

  1407
  to realise that we are the representatives of British interests generally, and we do not want the Dominions making application to deal direct with these other countries rather than having their case presented, as at the present time, through the President of the Board of Trade. One can quite sympathise with the traders at the present time. There are some hundreds of thousands of tons of steel awaiting despatch, and they are very anxious that this should be exported. The German naturally argues: "If I cannot send my finished material out, I cannot become possessed of the necessary cash to purchase the raw products." I think it will be argued that that is a logical argument to use. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to make representations both to Paris and to Berlin that these irritating restrictions should be removed. I think both parties are to blame. This is a question of permitting the admission of ore, not a question of collecting a tax. It is simply the question of exhibiting a manifest at the French cordon. This does not give any advantage to the Frenchman who can easily ascertain if necessary the amount of ore shipped from Rotterdam. Then as to the position of the Germans. Their Government have issued a counter regulation to the effect that if any German receives a cargo which bears the stamp of the French or the Belgian authorities he renders himself liable to a penalty of a term of imprisonment from three months up to five years. The result is that the whole industry will soon be, if it is not now, practically at a standstill. On the other hand, we know that certain attempts are being made by the Germans to make it impossible for the French to get their coal. Only the day before yesterday I heard of vessels being sunk and thus blocking one of the great canals over which is carried the coal which in an ordinary way would go to France. So far as we are concerned we did not consider it wise apparently to go in with the French. Personally, after due consideration, I have come to the conclusion, in view of the position that now exists, it would have been wise to have gone in with the French. At least then we should have been in the position of being able to say that as partners we insist that in any action taken British interests must, be protected.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With the latter part of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman I am entirely in agreement; in fact, perhaps, the whole of his speech. The French in this matter arc either right or wrong. If the French are right we ought to be on their side, as in the War. If wrong, we ought to take some more energetic steps to get at the details, and look into this great injury to British trade, and what is of more importance, British interests. This is, I think, the eighth or ninth Debate on the Ruhr that has taken place in this Chamber, and from either being away from the House, or from being unable to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, or some other cause, this is the first time I have been able to intervene for a little while, though I have listened to or read every word that has been uttered in this House on the matter. Every speaker—and I trust my hon. Friend who spoke a while ago (Mr. Charles Buxton) will forgive me when I say this—has missed the real point. It is the story of the company being out of step and the individual recruit right. On this occasion hon. Members may not wholly agree with me, but I think I am right. I think our case is so crisp and clear that there cannot be any two views of it held by any fair-minded Englishman or Welshman.
  The President of the Board of Trace asked us if we wanted the Government to side with the Germans in this matter. Supposing the Germans were in the right and the French in the wrong, are we still to say that the French should continue to hold our allegiance? I have heard people say, "My country first, right or wrong." In this ease it is not "My country first," but the country across the Channel. We have had a very important ease put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in regard to British trade and the way it has been injured, and this is a matter of great importance. The French action in the Bahr is certainly laying up the certainty of a great upheaval in Europe, and if it goes on it means another war. But there is something more important than that. Under the Treaty of Versailles we insisted and partially carried out the disarmament of Germany, and we rendered her helpless. If Germany were armed now does any hon. Member think that there would have been this advance into the Ruhr? The fact that we assisted to disarm Germany

  1409
  places upon us a responsibility to see that she is treated justly.
  The Government admit that the French action in the Ruhr is wrong, in fact, that has been admitted by the Prime Minister and everybody who has spoken. By the policy we are adopting we are assisting the French in a crime, and we are ignoring our responsibility. It is no good talking about the present temper of the German people, because that is absolutely beside the point. We assisted in rendering Germany helpless, and we are responsible in consequence of that action. A prisoner taken in war is sacred, and it is considered cowardly to ill-use him after he has been taken prisoner on the field of battle. I am not suggesting that you were not right in disarming Germany, but we should recognise our responsibility for her because she has been disarmed.
  I want to see armaments reduced all round and abolished, and the proposals made recently at Paris for general disarmament and the establishment of an international police force was an admirable one. This country cannot divert herself of her part and lot in regard to French action in the Ruhr. The only effect of the shilly-shallying policy adopted by our Government is that we are not gaining the friendship of France, and at the same time we are earning the contempt of the neutrals and we are not gaining the friendship of Germany. I think we should try to get on good terms with Germany because she is a country which in the past was one of our best customers. We are doing none of these things. We find ourselves to-day getting gradually into a more helpless and impossible position, and, what is worst of all, I believe that all honest men who examine the situation impartially and the citizens of the future will write us down as acting dishonourably in this miserable transaction.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The Debate is following a very interesting course. Like the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, I have listened to many Debates on the Ruhr, and I have noticed that there has been a gradual conversion amongst hon. Members opposite with regard to the effects of the various policies which have been adopted Almost on my first, entry into this Chamber I put a question to the Prime Minister, and I asked him what would
  1410
  be the British policy in the event of the French occupying the Ruhr Valley and the Rhine Head. I was then told that that was a hypothetical question. I held then and I hold now, and events have proved my contention to be correct, that it ought to be the business of British statesmanship and Government to provide for hypothetical eventualities, particularly when such hypotheses are likely to become realities at a very early date.
  Yesterday, during the course of the disturbances that occurred, and on account of the eruptions on these benches, we were told that the Labour party were not fit to govern. Eruptions of that description do not determine the capacity of a party to govern. The capacity for governing does not consist of interjection or of noise, but it consists of the capacity for understanding where policies will take one. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that in former.Debates on this question we had missed the essential point, and I was hoping that the hon. and gallant Member would have told us something about the point which he said we had missed. I think we are still missing the point, in spite of the hon. and gallant Member's attempt to enlighten us. The point we are missing is that the whole of our policy with regard to Germany is based upon a fundamental lie.
  The policy of this Government and its predecessor was based upon the assumption that Germany alone was wholly responsible for the War, and that whatever was meted out to her in the way of punishment, for that dastardly attack upon Belgium was justified, and she deserved whatever she had received. I do not believe history will bear that out, and I do not think the documents which have been published since the War give colour to that assumption. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has stated that the Versailles Treaty was based upon the assumption of the guilt of Germany, and he further stated that if that assumption is given up, then the whole of the Versailles Treaty falls to pieces, and becomes of such a character that it could not be considered by just thinking men. The sooner the Government begins to change its attitude in its relations with our late enemy, and bases its policy on

  1411
  some of the facts which are emerging, which cannot be denied and which, indeed, are admitted by many of those who took part in the deliberations at Versailles, and which are admitted by the leading responsible men of all parties, the sooner we are likely to get back to the real point, which is that we shall have to revise our position with regard to the whole of the Versailles Treaty.
  I do not agree that Germany is altogether helpless in this matter because she is disarmed. I have just come back from Austria. I spent last week there and I was accompanied there by some leading German politicians and members of the French Chamber of Deputies, and, believe me, Germany is not helpless. It is true that the German policy of passive resistance is defeating the policy of France, and the French Government is now finding that the policy of passive resistance is far more effective than any policy Germany could have pursued based upon weapons of war. Supposing Germany succeeds by passive resistance, her success means the ruin of the whole of Europe. Germany may succeed from her own point of view, but it will mean the impoverishment of our people and Central Europe will rush more rapidly towards chaos both industrially and economically.
  I think I am correct in saying that the Board of Trade figures relating to unemployment show that there are about 45,000 more out of employment now than there were in the previous week and that number is increasing. Under present conditions that is only natural. The policy of the French in the Ruhr is beginning to show itself here. It did not tell so much in the first week or the first month, but it is beginning to tell now. If this insane policy in the Ruhr is pursued our unemployment problem here will become of a far more acute character than it is at the present moment. I think it is quite time that the Government abandoned its policy of benevolent neutrality. You cannot pursue benevolent neutrality towards the policy of a country which is driving your people to destitution, and causing you to pile up burdens that have already become too ponderous to bear. It is time the Government abandoned this policy and began to speak in no uncertain terms to our Allies, and we ought to let France understand that she cannot continue to adopt that policy
  1412
  towards our late enemy. Why do we not bring some pressure to bear on France and tell her that we shall not stand this humbug any longer.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Would you go to war with France?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: No, I would not. There are many other forces one can use without going to war. We could demand the payment of our just debts from France, and we could bring pressure to bear in various ways of an economic character in order to show French politicians that they cannot treat our Government in the way they are doing.I agree with what has been said, that the policy of the French in the Ruhr is an industrial policy. I fail to understand why our commercial magnates here have not realised this fact before. Germany had become a great commercial competitor with France, and that fact was at the back of the minds of those who support the Ruhr policy. By this policy you are only building up some of the animosity and antagonisms which will he aroused when France becomes the principal economic factor so far as Central Europe is concerned. It is a had policy. I come back to this. You ask, is the Labour party fitted to govern? Are you on the other benches fitted to govern? Did any of you show in the years before this Parliament where your policies were likely to lead you? Did you stand up in your places on this side or the other side of the House and tell the masses of the people that the result of your policy was hound to be sorrow and misery and degradation for them? When you backed the policy of squeezing our late enemies until the very pips squeaked, when you declared that you would rifle their pockets, when you were told by a leading shipowner that we would get them down and trample on their faces and never let them get up again, when you persuaded the people to follow that polio, had you the prescience and the foresight to see that the result would be destitution and misery and poverty for them, and even bankruptcy for some of your own class? The only indication of what was likely to he the outcome of your policy came from men who sat on the benches here What I have said was not only confined to Members of the present Government. It

  1413
  also included gentlemen who sit on this side of the House below the Gangway.
  The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs talked of the sunrise on the Cambrian Hills. That sunrise has turned to gloomy shade, and the people now instead of contemplating sunrises are watching the gloom deepen as the days go by. That was your fatal policy. The tree is judged by its fruit, and your capacity and ability are judged by your policies and the results of your policies. It does not become you to twit us on these benches with incapacity to govern, when during the last six months you have never been able to do anything of a definite character. You are doing nothing, only moving—well, that is a bad bull, but let me say moving only When you are pushed in the way you
  were pushed yesterday. I submit that the time has come when the Government of this country ought to develop a definite policy with regard to this question of international policy, which must, unless it is dealt with in a statesmanlike and practical manner, bring more misery and ruin and heap greater burdens on our people and make our recovery more difficult than has been the case up to the present.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 155.

  Division No. 79.]

  AYES.

  [8.6 p.m.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Barks, Mitchell

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Haufton, John Plowright

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Becker, Harry

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hume, G. H.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hurd, Percy A,

  Berry, Sir George

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Blundell, F. N.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Brass, Captain W.

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Briggs, Harold

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Bruford, R.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Furness, G. J.

  Lorden, John William

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Garland, C. S.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Lumley, L. R.

  Butler. H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Button, H. S.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Maddocks, Henry

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Cairne, Gordon Hall

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R,

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Halstead, Major D.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harrison, F. C.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Clayton, G. C.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cohen, Major J Brunei

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Nesbitt, Robert C.

  Cope, Major William

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Paget, T. G.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watts. Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Pennefather, De Fonbianque

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sandon, Lord

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Perring, William George

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Willey, Arthur

  Philipson, Hilton

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Winterton, Earl

  Pielou, D. P.

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Wise, Frederick

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Simpson-Hincheliffe, W. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Preston, Sir W. R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Privett, F. J.

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Rae, Sir Henry N,

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Yerburgh, H. D. T.

  Raine, W.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Stanley, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rawson, Lieut.-Corn. A. C.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ritey, Ben

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Mayday, Arthur

  Ritson, J.

  Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Eromwich)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Barnes, A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Irving, Dan

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bonwick, A.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Sexton, James

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Briant, Frank

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Broad, F. A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Brothferton, J.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Buckle, J.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Snell, Harry

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cairns, John

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Sullivan, J.

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Leach, W.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West )

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Thornton, M.

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Lowth, T.

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Tout. W. J.

  Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Turner, Ben

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Warne, G. H.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. E.)

  Watts-Morean, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Sidney

  Ede, James Chuter

  Middleton, G.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Millar, J. D.

  Weir, L. M.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Morel, E. D.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  Morris, Harold

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Muir, John W.

  White. H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Murnin. H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Williams, Dr. j. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Nichol, Robert

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Groves, T.

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  Wright, W.

  Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Potts, John S.

  Hancock, John George

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harbord, Arthur

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.

  Hardie, George D.

  Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  BRITISH TRADE WITH GERMANY.
    CLASS 1.

      REVENUE BUILDINGS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      " That a sum, not exceeding £827,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1024, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad."—[NOTE: £414,000 has been voted on, account.]
      It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set dawn by direction, of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
      The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
      Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL. (By
    Order.)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 26th April, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £827,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.
  1418
  for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. THOMAS: May I ask what is the Government's intention with regard to the Votes to-night?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The Government hope that the Committee will be able to give them Votes 8, 10, 9 and 6, and, as I understand that these Votes are in the main non-controversial, I trust that the Committee will be able to grant them without a very long discussion. I understand that, if these Votes be granted, it will enable the Office of Works to get on with the building, and it is very desirable that they should be able to build economically. If we can get these Votes without much delay, we shall then be able to proceed to the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill at, I hope, an early hour.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £50.
  I do not think that, in these hard times, we can let a Vote for such a very large sum of money go through without one or two explanations from the Government. Hen. Members will observe that a very large sum indeed is taken for new works, and I think we should be informed a little more fully as to the necessity for these new works. I am not quite sure which Minister is in charge of this Estimate, but, whoever he may be, I should like to ask him to explain to me one or two matters. We are told that this Vote is necessary in order that the building work may be continued. Does that mean that, should the unfortunate dispute in the building trade unhappily come to a head, and should there be a general national stoppage, the Government will be able to get on with their building programme? I should be very much surprised to hear that they will, and, therefore, there is not the urgency that there is represented to be for these four Votes. The urgent problem is to try and get the building dispute settled one way or the other. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter at Question Ti me that the Government are showing their usual ineptitude and idleness in this matter. They are not showing sufficient energy at

  1419
  all, in the opinion of many of us on this side of the House.
  Further, I noticed that the work of the Customs and Revenue has been considerably increased. In deference to the pressure of certain mistaken hon. Members opposite, the Government have put all sorts of obstacles in the way of the free ingress of commodities into our ports, and I should like to know whether their heavy expenditure on alterations, removals, new furniture, and the rest of it, has anything to do with that, because it would be extremely interesting to know whether the policy to which we on this side object so much has a still further objection, namely, increased expenditure in bricks and mortar for the Revenue Departments. This is a very relevant question at the present time, because the Government have been so misguided as to declare their intention of taking another Bill, the Merchandise Marks Bill, which, of course, I should not be in order in discussing now, but which I think will give rise to a need for extra accommodation and extra expenditure on Custom's premises, furniture, removals, and so on. To come down to details, I think that, in these times of great financial stringency, when, as I believe, the citizens, lieges and subjects are hampered in their natural business, it is very wrong that so much money is being spent on new Post Office buildings. After all, the population has not increased to such a very great extent.
  Mr. MIDDLETON: What about the Post Office servants?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Gentleman will follow me and explain better than the Government can the reasons for this Vote, I shall be very delighted. I am only asking for information. I am not trying to make any party capital out of this, but am simply exercising my right, and, indeed, my duty, as an individual Member, in scrutinising all Government expenditure. I object to any expenditure on this Vote with the exception of that for unemployment relief works. All expenditure of money for unemployment relief I am prepared to pass without any further scrutiny; but we cannot pass without scrutiny a Vote of nearly a million and a quarter, which is mostly for new building works—bricks and mortar for the Post Office. Why, for
  1420
  example, it should be necessary to expend this great amount on the Post Office at Brighton I do not know. I do not see either of the Members for Brighton here. It would be very interesting to know why £34,000 is required for the new post office at Brighton. The population of Brighton has not increased so tremendously since the War, and neither has the amount of letters. I do not think there is justification for that nor do I see why Luton should have a new post office at a cost of £37,000. They burnt down the Town Hall the other day but not the post office, and why we should pay this amount I do not know. As regards my own constituency, there is not a penny in these Estimates for new buildings and the population and the importance of the port have increased very much in recent years. I shall therefore most certainly expect some explanation of these new works and buildings. I do not make these remarks in any hostile spirit to the Government. They have received sufficient buffets, slings and arrows and misfortunes lately without my adding to them, so I will temper the wind to the shorn lamb. [Interruption.] I am quoting from the good book—my hon. Friend is not familiar with it—which talks of the shorn lamb. I do not wish to go into this but lambs are shorn to make certain decorations for women's clothes, as I can explain to my hon. Friend.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be under the impression that this is a Vote for the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. OLIVER: I wish to draw attention to the waste of public money through employing labour on Government maintenance work through private contractors. I understand there are over 1,800 workmen employed by the Office of Works, who are in every sense Government employés. They work continuously on Government work. Whether the contractor is one person or another they continue to do the same job. They are not casual employés in as much as many of them have been working on this job for as long as 30 years, and the only difference between the employés employed directly by the Government and the 1,800 in question, is that one is paid by the Government direct and the other is paid through a private contractor.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear that the hon. Member is not out of order, neither am I clear that he is. This is a Vote for Customs, Excise and Inland Revenue buildings. Does the hon. Member state that these men are employed on these buildings? If it is a matter of general policy it should come on the salary of the secretary of the Office of Works.
  Mr. OLIVER: Decidedly I can say they are employed on these works. Eighteen hundred men are employed by the Office of Works in the main on the jobs specified in this Vote, and the waste of public menu comes in here, that 7½, per cent. on the wages paid is paid to the profit of the contractor, which represents roughly, on every thousand men employed, in a year's time £14,000. That is a matter for which some justification should be given to the House. The magnificent results which have been obtained by employing labour direct during the past two or three years should be an incentive to Government Departments to employ labour wherever they can without the intervention of private contractors. In Derby we have just concluded a contract which two years ago was thrown open to tender and £45,000 was the lowest of nine tenders which were sent in. We were able to induce the Corporation to do the work by direct labour, and instead of paying out £45,000 we have been able to do it at just over £30,000—a net saving to the ratepayers of £15,000. That applies in many hundreds of instances which could be cited during the past two years by different corporations. Why do the great firms employ labour direct whenever they can? Why do Messrs. Lyons, the Mac Fisheries and the Imperial Tobacco Company employ their labour direct when they can? For no other reason than that they are business firms with business men at the head. They do not do it out of love or benevolence, but because it is a sound business practice, and I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of this matter will be able to give us some assurance that this practice will be discontinued and that these men will be employed direct in the future.
  Mr. G. SPENCER: I should have been very pleased if the hon. Baronet in charge of the Vote had given us some explanation, because, so far as the Post Office is concerned, there is no Department
  1422
  which has over-estimated during the last two or three years as it has. No other Department has brought before the House immature schemes which have not been ready to be fully carried out. In this Vote there is a sum of £51,500 for Thread-needle Street branch post office rebuilding. In 1921, £50,000 were put down for this building and not a penny of it was expended. We are entitled to an assurance from the Minister that if he is going to budget for this building, which has been on hand for two or three years, the work is going to be undertaken. This is not the only instance. I think I am right in saying that in the year.1920–21, the total Vote passed by this House was £702,940, and only about 50 per cent. of that sum was actually spent upon the work. We are entitled to ask the Minister whether he can say that the whole of this £800,000 in the present Estimate asked for in regard to building is actually required during this year. I ask because most of the spending Committees act upon a principle which would not find general acceptance in this House. Most of the Departments claim that if a Vote is passed in this House, and if any amount of that Vote is not used for the object for which it was voted, they have a perfect right to take that money and spend it upon some other object, so long as they do not exceed the total Vote.
  Sir J. BAIRD indicated dissent.
  Mr. SPENCER: My hon. Friend shakes his head. Upstairs I have heard, and my hon. Friends have heard, of cases where, with the Treasury consent, money that was voted for one particular object has been appropriated for another object, so long as the total Vote is not exceeded.
  Sir J. BAIRD indicated dissent.
  Mr. SPENCER: My hon. Friend again shakes his head. If he will read the accounts and the minutes of the Public Accounts Committee he will see that what I am stating is a fact, and that it has been done by Treasury consent. If that is so, and the Departments take up that attitude, we ought to be very careful in scrutinising every conceivable item of expenditure that comes before us. That is the reason why I ask whether all this money is required. Can the hon. Gentleman say, as head of his Department, that if we pass this Vote to-night the money

  1423
  will be used this year for the object for which it is voted? If he cannot do so, I respectfully suggest that his Department has been very remiss in informing him as to the amount of money that will be required.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Can the Minister consider the question of re-establishing something which, so far as I know, the public have not asked to be discontinued, namely, can he re-establish the Sunday delivery of letters?
  The CHAIRMAN: This Vote is only for buildings.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I thought that as we were dealing with Post Office buildings, I could mention the subject of letter delivery.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait for the Post Office Estimates.
  Mr. HARDIE: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some details in regard to what is called maintenance and repairs. There are huge sums of money lost every year to the people of this country in this way. I will give an illustration. Most of the floors in the Post Offices are laid with wood blocks. These floors give way, and certain parts have to be repaired. What then happens, contractors in and around the district receive through the post a long envelope, containing one sheet of printed matter, with certain instructions as to the conditions of labour. Sheet No. 2 contains the name of the Post Office at which the repairs are to be carried out, and underneath is some printed matter drawing attention to certain conditions of entry. Then comes the real kernel of the communication. Instead of asking those who have knowledge of such things to call and inspect the repairs necessary, the Department sets out how many blocks of wood may be required, and asks the contractors to quote the price per dozen. These blocks have to be laid in bitumen, and the schedule sets down the pounds of bitumen that will be required. One generally finds that the printing of the matter contained in the envelope and the clerical work that must necessarily be entailed in sending out these forms costs much more than the actual repair of the floor.
  The people engaged in this kind of work are used to laying floors, and they
  1424
  know that, for instance, when a square yard of blocks are loose it happens that when you begin the work of lifting the loose blocks the whole floor begins to move, and twice or three times the space that was originally required to be repaired needs to be repaired, because of the loosening bricks. Further expenditure takes place because the man who is successful in obtaining this "huge" contract has to interview the superintendent engineer and he, not having full power, has to consult his superiors in order to know whether it is possible to grant the extension of the repairs. Therefore, you have the clerical staff that sends out the envelopes, the clerical staff of the contractors who are competing for the work, and you have the superintendent and inspecting engineer, and all this means expense. If we had any sense at all, we should have a different way of carrying out these repairs, which would save money. Instead of waiting until more than one or two blocks got loose, we should attend to these at once, and save perhaps the expense of having to repair yards of floor space that would come loose. Moreover, by buying the blocks in large quantities and putting them into store we could save 50 per cent. on the cost of the wood alone, and if we stored the bitumen we could save 75 per cent., because when you put the contractor down to quoting for a few pounds of bitumen, it makes the thing ridiculous.
  I give this detailed illustration, not to show that there is a lack of skilled men in the employment of the Government—the engineers are all capable men—but to show the policy which these men have to carry out. They are trained men of great skill, and imagine the indignity of compelling them to take part in sending out for pennyworths and twopennyworths of this, that and the other thing in a national organisation such as the postal service. It is not stupidity either. It is more than that. It is an organisation of certain men who are in power to militate against the possibilities that lie behind the nation having its repair workshops in proper centres. If you had these centres you would be in the position of showing private enterprise that you could beat it both in regard to prices and to workmanship, and by the workmanship I do not mean the actual work carried out, but I mean the workmanship of the man who

  1425
  knows how to adapt and do a thing in order to save greater waste by letting it go further.
  This method that was adopted by the Government, which is said to be in the interests of economy, is just one of these stupidities put out in the name of economy which have necessarily increased expenditure. I do not ask the First Commissioner of Works to take advice, but I ask him to become acquainted with the facts in relation to this class of work. If he takes the time to go into the details, he will find that the Departments are at the moment compelled to go out for smalls, and if you are on a job and decrease its size, you are bound to increase the cost, whereas with a staff of your own men and being able to take your districts in proper order the men can be used to the best advantage, whereas at the present moment, having all the contractors visiting, and all the Estimates sent in, you find under the Regulations that someone has got the job. He misunderstands some little thing. He finds that there is a mistake in the work. Then he is asked to bear a loss. Sometimes he is not. Sometimes there is a way out.
  I would ask those in charge of work like this to consider these things from a practical point of view. I give this experience in order to guide those who have not been fortunate enough to have that experience. I ask sincerely that something should be done in this direction in order to save the great waste that is going on now in the maintenance and repairs section of the work. With regard to new buildings, you go through the same process. You have all the men examining plans, going to the site, getting to know how far they have to cart the stuff, getting to know if there is any possibility of getting a cut by buying some materials near the site from somebody else; but, worse than that, if they are in a big city and the work happens to be in the country, not a sub-let, but something worse, trying to get some arrangement with some local person in order to keep a watchful eye over what is taking place. That is always unfortunate. You can never depend on a proxy when it comes to a question of this kind of work, and skilled and keen as the Government men in charge of Post Office work are, they have to depend largely upon the clerk of works in charge of the job. Here again
  1426
  you have got a fine set of men as clerks of works, but these men have not all the power which they should have. A clerk of works who knows his business ought to be in full command in the absence of his superior, whether he is a visiting superior or a permanent one. He ought to have a great deal more power, and be fully acquainted with the class of work, and if the First Commissioner of Works will do something in the direction which I have suggested, he will effect great saving and produce a much better class of work, so far as the Government are concerned.
  Mr. LINFIELD: I am not fully conversant with the procedure of this House, but it does appear to me that, as we are voting very large sums of money, we should have in the first instance some sort of explanation. We are asked by the First Commissioner of Works, and I think also by the Postmaster-General, to vote £368,000 for proposed new works, and apparently, unless attention is called to the various items of expenditure, no information will be accorded to us. We should have full details before we vote. We should have some explanation of these items before we are asked to discuss them. Otherwise we might spend, not only one night, but several weeks, if we are to do our duty to the taxpayers. If we are to study real economy, we ought not to vote this large sum of money without having the fullest information as to the necessity for the expenditure. In most towns there are separate buildings for the carrying on of Government business. In many cases, I understand, the tax collector provides his own office. There is a very large amount of inconvenience to the general public, who are bandied about from one place to another. When new buildings are being constructed would it not be desirable to consider whether the necessities of the various Departments could not be brought together in one building. A very considerable amount of money might thus be saved in rent, upkeep, and office expenses. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General has now arrived. Perhaps he will give the explanations for which I have asked.
  9.0 P.M.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): Before the discussion proceeds further, perhaps it would be well if I cleared the ground by

  1427
  making a statement. If the suggestion of an hon. Member opposite were applied to every Vote we certainly should not get through the Votes in a year. If the last speaker would study the details which are furnished with the Vote, he would observe that the fullest possible information is given. Although the sum for new works in connection with the Post Office, namely, £368,000, is undoubtedly large, it is £107,000 less than last year's total. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too small."] I anticipated that there would be that difference of opinion in an otherwise united opposition. We have done the best we can to meet the requirements of the nation, so far as we understand them. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman was one which I admit occurred to me when I first tackled these Estimates and saw the very large sums which had to be re-voted. What occurs is this: the need for preparing estimates a long time ahead makes it very difficult to estimate as accurately as could be done if the interval were shorter. For example, we had to begin in September to estimate the expenditure for the year beginning in the following April. In addition, there are all kinds of things for which we have to make allowance, such as legal difficulties with regard to the acquisition of sites, labour difficulties, and so forth. There is this to be remembered. When the money has been voted and it has not been spent, except in rare cases it returns automatically to the Treasury for the reduction of debt. It would, of course, be much simpler for the Department if we could do what the hon. Member has suggested, that is to say, when there was a balance on one Vote and a deficit on another, adjust the finance in that way. That would be simpler from a Departmental point of view.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But against all the traditions of the House.
  Sir J. BAIRD: Though the present arrangement is inconvenient for the Department, it is doubtless sound from a national point of view.
  Mr. G. SPENCER: On this particular point the Comptroller and Auditor-General says:
  " At the date of my Report formal Treasury authority had not been received for the application of surpluses on certain sub-heads to meet deficits on other sub-heads in the case of certain Votes."
  1428
  That was where the Estimate had been exceeded or where the money had not been spent.
  Sir J. BAIRD: I would very much like to be able to do that. Before we can spend any money we have to get Treasury sanction. Only in certain cases do we obtain permission from the Treasury to use the money in another way. Two speakers in the Debate have expressed a wish that we should employ direct labour to a greater extent than we now employ it. I could not identify from the description of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) the particular places where the incidents he referred to had occurred, and I would be grateful if he would let me know more about them.
  Mr. HARDIE: Would it satisfy the right hon. Gentleman if I produced to him envelopes containing the information
  Sir J. BAIRD: The hon. Member referred to a great deal more than envelopes.
  Mr. HARDIE: One of these envelopes contains a request for the return of blocks.
  Sir J. BAIRD: On the question of direct labour I cannot go as far as the hon. Member would like. We already employ a great deal of direct labour. We employ, on maintenance work mainly, 2,426 people in London. They are mostly engineers, park-keepers and night watchmen. Building work is done through contractors. Contrary to the view of hon. Members opposite, we hold that that is more economical and sounder business. There is, first of all, the question of plant. If the Government undertook all its building operations, it would have to invest in immense quantities of plant. Hon. Members can see in St. James's Park now some interesting examples of up-to-date plant. I am very thankful that I am not responsible for looking after some of these curious, but very useful appliances, for I could not guarantee to employ them constantly throughout the year. Surely it is advantage to pay someone to produce these curious and useful articles, and to use them, and after the work is done to be able to forget all about them without any further expense being entailed.

  1429
  Then there is the uncertainty which undoubtedly would affect the men, as to whether or not they would get constant employment. I can imagine a great deal of difficulty and trouble arising if it became necessary to discharge large numbers of men who had been employed for a considerable time previously. Then there is the question of headquarters charges—charges for the supervision of work, for the measurement of work, for the preparation of accounts, and for the hundred and one items connected with big building contracts. Without going further into details, I may say quite frankly we do not think that it would lead to efficiency or economy if the Government were to embark further than they have already done in the employment of direct labour. I wish to deal with some of the other points raised. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the Debate, I do not think I need say much, except that he seemed to take it for granted that we are in for a labour dispute. I hope we are not, and I am certainly not going to proceed on the basis that on that account we should refrain from putting before the House the Estimates for my Department, which employs a large number of men. I hope a dispute will not take place. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) asked a question with regard to the Threadneedle Street Post Office improvements. That is the post office which deals with Stock Exchange work, and the amount of work done there is very large indeed. In 1914 no less than 2,343,000 telegrams were sent from that office alone, and in 1921–22 that number had been increased by over 100,000. That one figure shows the immense volume of work which is dealt with. If I may be allowed to explain this case in some detail, I think it will be found to answer a great many of the other questions which have been put as regards the need for works of this kind. I quote from the report in regard to this post office:
  " The office is very insanitary. Great trouble is experienced with the rats which frequently gnaw through the cables. The drains are affected and the staircases have to be shored up."
  Does anybody suggest that these are proper conditions under which to expect people to work? Is it suggested that you are going to get efficiency under such
  1430
  conditions Is it suggested that there is anything improper in spending money in putting into order a building which is in the condition I have described?
  Mr. G. SPENCER: That was not the point which I raised. My point was that in 1920–21 you estimated for £50,000 and did not spend a penny. Are you estimating again for what you are not going to spend?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I quite agree that the hon. Member raised that point, but he must allow me to tell the story in my own way. I wish to make as good a case as I can, and I think I will be able to satisfy the hon. Member and to relieve his mind on that point also. The question of the cost of these works is a legitimate one to raise. If hon. Members will turn to page 39 of the Estimates they will find there the full story. The amount of the Vote for Threadneedle Street Post Office in 1922–23 was 260,000. The same Vote this year is £28,000, and the further amount required to complete the work is £21,500. All that is voted this year is not £51,000, but £28,000, which we hope to spend in this year, but whether we shall spend it or not I cannot say, for the reasons I have given. If hon. Members will next turn to page 46 they will see an item:
  " Deduct for works which may not be carried out during the year, £.50,000."
  We deduct that lump sum to meet the contingency that we may not be able to carry out all the works necessary, and all I can say is, having regard to the circumstances I have narrated, these Estimates are as close as we have been able to make them. We first estimate as closely as possible, and we then proceed to take off a lump sum so as to be on the safe side, and not to take more than we can help out of the pockets of the taxpayer. Apart from certain detailed questions, I think I have dealt with the main points raised so far. I hope that hon. Members will believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary was saying nothing except the naked truth when he suggested that we wanted these Votes at the earliest possible moment. Obviously, hon. Members are entitled to know all about expenditure, but when they have satisfied themselves on these points I would draw their attention to the fact that it takes us some time to make contracts. Some hon. Members

  1431
  desire us not to make any contracts at all, but I hope they will recognise that that is the system, and we have to work according to the system. If we get these contracts made, it means employment, and that is a good thing. Further, if we can get on with the business now, early in the year, we can make better contracts than at the end of the year, and we shall get the work in hand at a time when progress will be more rapid and more satisfactory than if we have to wait until later in the season. From every point of view it is very desirable to get these Votes through. There are four main Votes in which the greatest amount of money is involved and what I am saying applies to them all. I trust that the House will recognise that there is no intention on our part to seek to avoid discussion, but I put this point of view before the House, because it will enormously help the efficiency of my Department if we can get these Votes through quickly, and it will enable us to put in hand a great deal of work which will afford employment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The First Commissioner of Works has dealt with the question of the Threadneedle Street Post Office, but I think he is not thoroughly conversant with the facts of the case. I understood him to say it was necessary to spend this money because the drains were out of order and the office was dirty.
  Sir J. BAIRD: May I be allowed to intervene. I did not suggest for a moment that £28,000 was to be spent because the place was dirty. Obviously there is a great deal more. My right hon. Friend is perfectly well aware of the conditions in the Threadneedle Street Post Office, because he was Chairman of the Committee which investigated the details. I understand the Public Accounts Committee after going into the question were dissatisfied with the former proposals and suggested that other steps should be taken to deal with the congestion and other difficulties. We have gone into that matter very carefully, and have come back to the conclusion that the only satisfactory way is to carry out the improvements which we propose.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that I was the Chairman of the Committee and we
  1432
  went into this whole question last year, and made recommendations. The real facts of the case are these. It was originally intended to spend £80,000 upon this post office, but I am glad to see that as a result of our intervention, the £80,000 has been decreased to £21,500. While on that subject I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) upon the sudden conversion to economy of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. As a rule they are only too anxious to spend money. However desirable it may be to undertake expenditure, you cannot do it if you have not got the money. To go back to the Threadneedle Street Post Office, the original proposal on the part of the Office of Works or of the Post Office was to spend £80,000. The site of this post office is limited by the fact that on either side are large and important building which cannot be acquired, and therefore the only way in which the post office can be extended is by adding to its height. It was proposed to add three stories, at a cost of £80,000, and when they had done that it was proposed to let two stories to the adjacent insurance company, which apparently wanted further extensions. The view taken by the Estimates Committee was that, in these hard times, it was not worth while to spend the taxpayers' money in order to let what was erected by the taxpayers' money to an insurance company, and we therefore went down ourselves and examined this particular post office.
  It was extremely dirty and had a very uninviting appearance, and I should not think there had been any paint or whitewash put on it for a considerable number of years, but everybody knows very well that with a little paint and whitewash you can improve the appearance of almost any building. It then appeared that the postal servants were in the habit of having their meals in the middle of the day at this particular post office. We inspected the kitchen facilities and also the rooms in which they had their meals, and there is no doubt that they were not at all suitable for such a purpose. The Committee was unanimous upon that point, but in my experience in the City, extending over a considerable number of years, I do not remember any office or any firm where space is restricted giving their employés their meals in the office.

  1433
  They had to go out to get them. There are two solutions to this situation, either that they should go out and get their meals, as every other clerk or official does in the City, or that there should be a smaller extension, say, of one story, instead of three stories, that the kitchen should be put on the third story, the new story, and that the story which is now used for kitchens and refreshment rooms should be devoted entirely to refreshment rooms.
  I did not myself measure the frontage of the building, which is a very fine building of stone, and very substantial, but I should say I am not wrong in thinking that the frontage is not more than 50 feet, and it seemed to me to be a most extraordinary amount of money to spend on a building with such a frontage, even if you were going to put three stories on, which I hope the Government are not going to do. I should like to know how many stories they are going to put on, and whether they intend to let them off after they have erected them, not to use for Post Office purposes, but for private individuals. I should like an assurance from the Government that they do not propose to do that. It, is possible that there might be a certain amount of alterations required in the interior of the building, although I do not think there was any great necessity for any considerable alterations in the interior. I admit that if the meals are to be given in the office, there must be new accommodation for that purpose. Then comes the question of the drains. If they are bad, they must be put right, but to talk about spending £50,000 on a building with a frontage of not more than 60 feet, if as much, is rather a tall order, and I imagine that any private individuals could put their drains right for a very much smaller sum than that.
  The result of all this was that the Select Committee on Estimates recommended that £25,000, I think it was, should be spent. They made that recommendation with one dissentient. Naturally the architects and the people who are going to he employed do not want to spend less than £50,000, if they can avoid it. It is not their money, and no doubt it is very pleasant to have a very fine building. I remember the official who showed me over the building when I went with the other Members of
  1434
  the Committee. He seemed to be very efficient and very anxious to do the best he could for the service, but one of the arguments he advanced seemed to me to be an extremely foolish argument. He said, "Look at this hall, in which the messengers have to bring their telegrams. Many cable companies have marble halls, and it would be very much better for our business if the, office boys could bring their telegrams to a much finer building than this." My answer was that the heads of the offices in the City or the managers of banks who send office boys or messengers with telegrams do not care whether they are delivered in a marble hall or in an ordinary building, and really do not mind if the building is dirty, their only concern being that the telegrams should be sent off as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Select Committee on Estimates have succeeded in reducing the Estimate for this particular post office from £80,000 to £51,500, but if you are going to set up a Committee on Estimates, surely the Government ought to pay some attention to their recommendations, and if the Government found that their recommendation was a wrong one, or that there were reasons against it, surely the proper course would have been for the Government to have sent to me or to the secretary of the Committee stating that they found on the whole that they could not agree with our recommendation, whereas all that has been done is that an amount has been put down on the Estimate, which apparently the House is expected to pass.
  There are many other items on which I myself have not had the experience that I had in this particular case, but which, I think, demand a certain amount of explanation. I see that the total cost of the Brighton new sorting office and telephone exchange is put at £34,228, whereas the amount voted last year was £25,000. I do not know whether I am right in thinking that that means instead of decreasing the Estimates this year they have increased them by something like £9,000. The total estimate for works and service at the Brighton new sorting office and telegraph exchange is £34,228. Am I right in thinking that another £9,200 is going to be spent? If that be so, is it because the works have been extended? I cannot conceive it can be for any other reason. The same thing occurs in Coventry, where the works are

  1435
  put down as a total estimate of £26,763, against £15,000 voted. Again, something of the same sort occurs at Crewe and at Halifax. There is a very large vote of £144,700, for Mount Pleasant. That is only for the first section—
  Mr. G. SPENCER: Dundee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will leave that to the hon. Member. At Mount Pleasant, for the new letter sorting office (first section) erection of superstructure, the amount is £144,700. That seems an enormous sum for the first section, and merely the superstructure. Am I right in supposing that when that is erected, at a cost of £144,700, there will be a considerable amount of money spent in filling up the interstices of the superstructure? Even then you will only have got the first section. I should like to know how many sections there are going to be, and what will be the total cost of that building?
  I hope I have not wearied the Committee by going into all these small details, but we must remember we have got to cut our coat according to our cloth. I should like to have a very much nicer house than I have got, and to spend an amount of money on doing it up. I do not do so because my right hon. Friend takes all I have got in taxes. I looked forward, with very great pleasure, to seeing the new Government on that Bench, because I thought they were going to be economical. I know the difficulties they are in. [HON. MEMBERS: "They realise it too! "] Hon. Gentlemen on the other side immediately get. up and clamour for more money. Though it is unpopular, I feel that it is so necessary, if we are ever to get back to our old prosperity, that we should be economical at the present moment, that I venture to draw the attention of the Committee to these few items.
  Mr. AMMON: We heard, with a good deal of pleasure and interest, a speech which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London delivered on a similar Vote last year. Almost word for word, he has reiterated the same arguments and has made the same references to Threadneedle Street and other buildings. I gather that the main thread of his complaint is that his friends the private contractors are getting far too much money for the work they are doing
  1436
  for the public. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the marble halls, which seemed to excite some hilarity among his supporters around him, the natural retort is, why, if the Eastern Telegraph Company think it good enough to carry on their business under such circumstances, is it not right for the Post Office, carrying on a similar business, to have equal or somewhat similar methods?
  Sir F. BANBURY: If one particular private company, which happens to be the bête noire of hon. Gentlemen opposite, happens to be foolish, there is no reason why the Government should be foolish.
  Mr. AMMON: We never say that the companies are foolish. They are only too wise, and we want the Government to follow them, at any rate so far as the housing of their staff is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that anything would do for the staff to have their meals in—[HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]—and that they could do with anything, so long as they happened to be public servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Exactly the opposite! "] The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that other employés are able to go outside and get their meals in eating-houses. He evidently is not aware that servants of the Post Office do not have the same meal release as servants in private houses; that they are very much shorter; and that it is arranged for the convenience of the Department, as much as of the people, that they should have their meals inside the building themselves. These servants are always on duty. The reconstruction of Threadneedle Street was due long even before the War broke out. It was then felt to be necessary, and was admitted by the Department long ago. It has been delayed ever since then, with the result that business is cramped, and that the staff have to work under conditions which ought not to be expected of them. Over and above that, the War itself brought a tremendous amount of additional Business to the Post Office. Almost every increase in public facilities, whether in regard to Unemployment, Health Insurance, and so forth, has been worked through the Post Office. That calls for a greater demand, both for the staff to deal with it and for the necessary administrative expenditure. These sort of things must be taken into account. The First

  1437
  Commissioner of Works is not quite so simple as to wish us to think that it is absolutely necessary to have this Vote to-night. He has had a Vote on Account that would enable him to carry on, even if he did not get this Vote to-night. I imagine he will not be in any difficulty through finding himself held up because be has no supplies—
  Sir J. BAIRD: I have only got a Vote on Account for certain definite works. This is all for new works.
  Mr. AMMON: We will not hinder anything the right hon. Gentleman has got in hand. I am sure he will get his money for new works to-night. I am bound be say I had hoped there was going to ha more money, in order that new work might be carried on. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticised some of the Votes, and mentioned Brighton sorting office. I know he was not making any adverse criticism of the staff, but that he wanted information. I had the misfortune, some years ago, to be employed in the Brighton office, and I know the wretched, insanitary, beastly hole it was; so much so that it was then a cause of complaint among the inhabitants of Brighton. If that same office be still in existence, I think the Post Office ought to be prosecuted for permitting a nuisance in that town. No money could be more wisely spent than in removing that office and in supplying that watering place with a post office suitable to its needs and able to cope with the increased work there.
  I want to turn to some of the Votes in the Estimates. I note, on page 43, among the amounts to be expended, a reference to a large sum of money for the Mount Pleasant New Letter Sorting Office. The work of that Office was put in hand before the War broke out. It was found necessary to carry it out, owing to the new policy which the Post Office had adopted of largely centralising the work. I think this is the largest Post Office in the world at the present time. Certainly it will be the largest in Europe when it is completed. It is the chief Transit Office of mails in this country, and also of foreign mails. The lack of accommodation at that particular office has seriously handicapped the work of the Post Office, and no doubt accounts for some of the
  1438
  complaints raised in questions in this House from time to time. Had that work not been obstructed, it could have been done at very much less cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) on 21st March asked a question of the Office of Works as to the amount of money advanced for an additional storey to the Central Telegraph Office, and it was admitted that the sum of £10,000, which had been voted, had been surrendered. If it were thought advisable to give sanction to this payment, on what ground is it now found necessary to surrender it? Is not the demand equally as great?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot identify this item. Where is it to be found?
  Mr. AMMON: It is in the Estimate for the offices of the London district. I am suggesting it should now be included, but if that be not in order, I will rest content with having raised the point. I find on another page that there is a reference to the Cardiff office, but there is no money placed opposite it. As the Postmaster-General himself admitted on the 19th March that there was great need for post office accommodation, why is this to be deferred, as I understand, till 1924–25? I hope I am wrong, but if I am, the Postmaster-General must he more wrong.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): This is a question affecting a Vote which is to come on next year. It is quite possible that on another Vote for my salary, the hon. Member may be entitled to discuss the fact that the work is not being done this year. But the answer I gave the other day was that there is no Vote put down for this year, and it would be impossible for me to answer the point now, if it were raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is only in order to refer to matters raised in this Vote. When the salary of the right hon. Gentleman comes before the House, that will be the time to deal with the question of omissions.
  Mr. AMMON: There is a reference to this, but no money against it, and that is the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. If the office be actually mentioned in the

  1439
  Vote, although there is no money against it, I suggest that it is permissible to raise the question.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be entitled to ask why that amount has not been spent.
  Mr. AMMON: On page 44 there is an item, "Cardiff: Post Office Alterations," the sum required for which is £2,400. In reply to a question on the 19th March, the Postmaster-General admitted that the Post Office facilities and the building there are inadequate for the work that is being done. I want to suggest that the sum of £2,400 is totally inadequate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is entitled to ask why that sum, which was voted, was not spent, but I do not think he can go further than that.
  Sir J. BAIRD: It was voted and spent last year, but in order to compare last year's expenditure with next year's Estimates, it has to appear on the Paper.
  Mr. AMMON: I am obliged for the information. Evidently the Vote of last year was wholly inadequate to meet the circumstances, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to find the funds necessary to give the required facilities. I might also ask whether it is for plant or for structural alterations. I am sorry that, within the limits of order. I cannot raise the question of new Sub-Post Offices and so on, but I hope that Post Office facilities will be increased to an extent commensurate with the growth of business, and that the buldings will in some way approach to the dignity of those of private enterprise which have received the commendation of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I want to call attention to two or three items on page 47, under the head of "Removals," about which I think the Committee would be interested in having further details. I see for the year 1923–24 it is proposed to spend a sum of £4,700 for removals, and, under the sub-head of "General Post Offices and Branch Offices, London District," the total is £2,375. Do we gather that it is the practice of the General Post Office to have removals often in various districts? Is it the practice to remove a Post Office from one corner of the street
  1440
  to another when the Department thinks fit? In any case, before voting such a large sum for removals, I think we are entitled to ask where those removals are taking place, and why they are taking place.
  Mr. R. MURRAY: I desire to express agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) with regard to the amount of money being expended as a whole on the post offices in the country. I do not suppose any hon. Member can question the immense importance of the Post Office system to the country. My objection is not that money is being spent, but that it is not being spent fairly and equitably in relation to different parts of the country. I represent one of the constituencies belonging to that neglected and down-trodden country Scotland. Our willingness to meet the expenditure of English and Welsh Members of this House results perpetually in Scotland sending across the Border sums of money for which she receives no equivalent. So far as these accounts are concerned, I find that we are suffering, and I think the Postmaster-General ought to take very seriously into consideration what can he done in regard to removing some of these Scottish disabilities. On page 46, under the head of "Maintenance and Repairs," we find that in the London district £117,050 is being asked for, but, so far as offices in Scotland are concerned, the total to be expended is £19,000. I know, of course, that London is immensely the more important place, so far as Post Office work is concerned, but, while that may be true, and although the population to be served in London may be greater, I suppose even hon. Members opposite will know that the Scottish area is larger than the London area. The number of offices and districts to be served is immensely larger, and I think it will be seen that, so far as proportion is concerned, that if £117,000 is necessary for maintenance and repairs for offices in the London district, that the Scottish offices are not being maintained or repaired in the condition which they ought to he when £19,000 is regarded as sufficient. I know many Scottish offices, and many districts, and I know that the post offices are in a disgraceful condition. I know postmasters who have been clamouring for years for work to be done—
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am not prepared at the present moment to go into the matter of repairs and maintenance which are not on my Vote. I submit to you, Mr. Hope, that if it can be shown that I have acted inefficiently or improperly, or have not given sufficient attention to the Scottish offices, that that is a question which cannot be raised on this Vote. My hon. Friend the First Commissioner has undertaken certain work on behalf of the Post Office, but he should not be required to answer for, it may be, defaults on my part. The hon. Gentleman opposite will have to attack me when my Vote is put clown at the request of the front Opposition Bench. The complaint that has been made as to, it may be, acts of omission on my part, are acts that I am quite prepared to deal with at the proper time and to give an answer to.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already mentioned that sins of commission or omission on the part of the Post Office can be dealt with upon the Vote of the salary of the Postmaster-General. But in the matter of buildings put up at the request of the Postmaster-General criticism must be directed to the Office of Works, which has authorised or constructed those offices, and not to the Postmaster-General for not authorising the construction or maintenance of other offices.
  Mr. MURRAY: I think, Sir, I am entitled to follow with my explanation. I am not suggesting criticism as to anything that is not in these accounts. We are asked to authorise, the spending of £19,000 for Scotland and of £117,000 for the London district. I think, therefore, I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that. either too much generosity has been given a on the one hand or too much niggardliness is being observed on the other. May I point out further that if you look further at the same page you will, in the item (" Works costing between £1,000 and £2,000), find the same thing repeated. London district is credited with £2,000, England and Wales with £15,000, and Scotland with not a single penny. Am I not entitled to ask why Scotland is being neglected in a matter of this kind? If we go further down this page 46 of the Estimates, and take, "Minor works not exceeding £1,000," we will see that the London district has
  1442
  £12,600 placed to its credit, there is £19,250 for England and Wales, and for Scotland the total of £2,260!
  The CHAIRMAN: I presume the hon. Member will ask a question as to why this is so, and doubtless the reply will be that the Scottish post offices are much better repaired.
  Sir J. BAIRD: When the hon. Member has been here a little longer he will doubtless recognise the great superiority of the Scottish offices.
  Mr. HARDIE: The Glasgow Post Office is a disgrace to your Department!
  Sir J. BAIRD: The offices in Scotland are maintained in better condition and repair, with less work and less expenditure than is required for upkeep and maintenance in this country.
  Mr. MURRAY: That is a very funny argument, but we are not here to listen to funny arguments. I am here with a very serious mission. My country is suffering, and I am going to try to find out why. Turn back in the Estimate to the "Works in Progress," and you will find a long list of new offices for England and Wales and London. There are 30 in progress. So far as Scotland is concerned there are only four.
  Sir J. BAIRD: On a point of Order. I submit that this Vote is concerned only with the offices which the Postmaster-General has asked the Office of Works to put up, and to which the Postmaster-General has got Treasury assent. I submit, therefore, that it is not in Order on this Vote to discuss the absence of post office accommodation which I have not been asked o construct.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may object to the construction of too many post offices in England, and the inference that he will not be able to develop, must be left, to the intelligence of the Committee.
  Mr. MURRAY: Shall I be in order if I quote Robert Burns? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes" and "No."]. The national Bard, in an address which he wrote to the Scottish representatives at St. Stephen's, urged that they should seek to have injustices against his country removed, and he said:
  Paint Scotland greetin' ower her thrissle,
  Her mutchkin stoup as toom's a whistle.

  1443
  The present representatives from Scotland are not so much concerned about the mutchkin stoup, but they are just as concerned as the poet to see that Scotland is fairly treated.
  Let me give one more illustration of what I am complaining about. It is suggested that the climate has something to do with the necessity for repairs, but that has nothing to do with proposed new works—not works in progress, but new works. There are 23 proposed in these other areas, and only one for Scotland. It is proposed to spend £3,500 on the head post office in Glasgow. Does any individual suggest that so far as Glasgow is concerned its necessities are covered in the matter of postal facilities and accommodation by this sum of £3,200?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes!
  Mr. MURRAY: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City or some other Member spoke of expenditure at Dundee. I venture to submit, in spite of the interruption which is taking place, a good deal of it with the possible object of trying to throw Scotsmen off the trail of some money—not always an easy task, for once we get our noses there, we can follow it up—but I suggest to the Postmaster-General and others who have submitted these accounts that they have been carrying out the time-honoured and long-established custom of taking from a Scotsman all the money he has and giving him nothing in return. If we are going to pass this Vote I hope the warning which I have given will be taken notice of in the future.
  Mr. FOOT: I have listened with interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the representative of a distressed and inarticulate country. I also listened with interest to the speech made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and there is nobody in this House whom we listen to with more pleasure. But as the right hon. Gentleman spoke this evening I happened to remember a speech very much on the same lines made 12 months ago by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have refreshed my memory in regard to it by looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is quite true that the right hon. Baronet does not say one thing to-day and another
  1444
  thing to-morrow. I note that in that speech he made a reference to "cutting your coat according to your cloth" and his argument was, "We cannot afford to do this sort of thing at this moment." He gave us a pathetic account of his visit to the Threadneedle Street Post Office, and I believe that if we go on for another five or ten years the right hon. Baronet upon the Post Office Vote will be ready to give us an account of his visit to Threadneedle Street.
  I notice on the previous occasion to which I have referred he referred to Brighton and he has done so again to-day. He has also referred to Coventry, and 12 months ago he did the same thing. He has also referred to Crewe to-night and 12 months ago he referred to that town. He seems to have faith in the old saying that if a British jury is to be convinced the same thing is to be said 12 times, and no doubt in the end he will be able to convince those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Really on all these matters the difference between us is the way in which we ought to spend our money. Some months ago in the last Parliament the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was urging a larger expenditure on the Army, and he suggested that we could provide more money for the Army by cutting down our expenditure on education.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And I have not changed my view.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. FOOT: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon that. It is quite true that he does not change, and, as I was pointing out, the only difference between us is as to whether the money can be better spent upon the building up of great armies, or upon giving the children of this country a better opportunity of being educated. The reason I am going to support this Vote on this occasion is because there is some provision in it for the county of Cornwall. There is an item down in this Estimate for a new post office at Bodmin, and I mention this as being an illustration of the wisdom of the Postmaster-General in spending money in order to wipe out old dilapidated buildings which in many cases are a discredit to the Post Office. The expenditure here is one which we have pressed for time after time because, for a good many years, in the capital town of Cornwall, there has

  1445
  been a post office which has been a discredit to the country. Surely it is a wise plan that public money should be spent at a time when there is a great need for employment. I think we ought to so regulate things that public money might be, pent on public works at a time when unemployment is greatest. I think there ought to be some better control in order to see that such a result is secured. For these reasons I intend to support this Vote, and I congratulate the Post Office upon the enterprise it has shown.
  Sir J. BAIRD: I appeal to the Committee to allow this Vote to pass, because it provides a large sum of money to be spent on new works which cannot be put in hand until this Vote is agreed to. I would point out that a large amount of this money will go in wages, and I ask hon. Members if they cannot see their way to let me have this Vote before 11 o'clock, because that would enable me to do a great deal towards relieving unemployment. In reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) about Brighton, the £25,000 asked for is in respect of a telephone exchange and the amount for the post office remains at £34,000. As regards Mount Pleasant, I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not received any information on that subject, but the reason is that it comes under another Department and I will look into that matter. I understand that the Postmaster-General has already given reasons why he found it impossible to agree to the recommendation which the right hon. Gentleman submitted. As far as I am concerned, I can only carry out the plans for completing the requirements of the Post Office.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have no desire to retard the development of the work which the hon. Gentleman contemplates, but, on the other hand, we are entitled to criticise the expenditure of public money and particularly to direct attention to expenditure which, in our judgment, is of a kind that demands criticism. I would be grateful for the opportunity to direct the attention of the Committee to the inadequate postal facilities in Bathgate, which is in my constituency, but I understand I am precluded.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): This question can be more suitably discussed on the Estimates.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I understand I was precluded from raising so important a question from the point of view of my constituents because of the ruling of the Chair, but I would remind the Committee that, although we are precluded from directing attention to the sins of omission of the Postmaster-General with regard to the construction of new buildings not mentioned in this Vote, we are entitled to refer by comparison to such items. I direct attention to the item on page, 45 relating to fittings to be provided for the Glasgow head office. The hon. Gentleman said these were necessary because of the importance of the department in that city. We thank him for what he proposed to do in this connection, but would remind him at the same time that for a long time the conditions in the Glasgow head office were anything but desirable and. were a subject of much adverse comment on the part of the trading community in that city. It is pertinent to enquire why £3,500 should be spent on fittings, when other adjacent districts are enquiring anxiously about facilities which they believe are necessary to the trading community in their own centres. I would submit the hon. Gentleman is bound to furnish a satis factory explanation to this House as to why £3,500 should be spent on the fittings of Glasgow head office having regard to the refusal of the Postmaster-General to spend minor sums elsewhere which are much needed.
  I would direct attention to what is by no means a parochial affair, but affects the world itself. On page 34 I find a reference to the Imperial Wireless Chain, and I observe that during this evening no reference was made, to this matter by hon. Members or by the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote. I do not profess to be well versed in the subject itself, but there has been much comment in the public Press with regard to the whole subject of wireless telegraphy, and the question I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman is, whether the reduction in the sum for the next financial year is due to the intention of the Postmaster-General to limit the facilities provided, or is it because of any private firm undertaking

  1447
  to some extent, even in a limited manner, the provision of wireless telegraphy?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the question of wireless telegraphy, which has nothing to do with new buildings.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I submit with very great respect that to ask a question with regard to the reduction of the amount to be expended in the next financial year on the Imperial Wireless Chain—an item mentioned in the Vote—is surely relevant to the subject under discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Since the Chair has ruled otherwise, I accept the ruling with due humility. I would direct attention to other items which I think are of vital importance. On page 34 reference is made to expenditure on fuel and household article. I observe the reduction contemplated is £37,000 approximately. In 1922–23 the expenditure was £197,000 approximately. Next year it is proposed to expend £160,000. In my judgment, this is not a reduction which can be contemplated with equanimity, having regard to the drastic reduction in the cost of fuel, lighting and cognate articles. We all know that the cost of coal has undergone a very great reduction, similarly with electricity, gas, and so on, and in view of that, surely the reduction contemplated is hardly consistent with the very great reductions which have taken place in the price of those necessary articles.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Gas is dear.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull may believe himself competent to discuss the question of gas—I speak of illuminating gas—but, knowing something about production of illuminating gas, certainly in the city of Glasgow I know that the price of gas for lighting and also for heating has undergone a great reduction, and that applies to all parts of the country, and there can be no doubt that the price of fuel has been reduced. I respectfully submit to the First Commissioner that the reduction in the Estimate for the next financial year is not so great as it ought to be, consistent with these circumstances, and I think we are entitled to an explanation. Are we to assume—I put the question without any levity—that there is to be a greater consumption of fuel and light in the next financial year than during the last financial year. There appears to be no reason why that should take place, and I am rather inclined to suggest that the First. Commissioner is somewhat out in his estimate as regards this item. There are several other items which, I think, call for criticism, but I agree that the contemplated expenditure on relief work, which will provide employment for many men, is expenditure with which we are in full sympathy, and, therefore, I forbear from any further criticism.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £827,400, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 147: Noes, 247.

  Division No. 80.]

  AYES.

  [10.17 p.m.

  Adams, D.

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  Hancock, John George

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Darblshire, C. W.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Hardie, George O.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hastings, Patrick

  Barnes, A.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Batey, Joseph

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Duncan, C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Bonwick, A.

  Dunnico, H.

  Herriotts, J.

  Bowdler, W, A.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Briant, Frank

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)

  Broad, F. A.

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Brotherton, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Buckle, J.

  Greenall, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Burgess, S.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Greniell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Cairns, John

  Groves, T.

  Jowitt. W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Cape, Thomas

  Grundy, T. W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Lansbury, George

  Charleton, H. C

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Lawson, John James

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Leach, W.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Lee, F.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thornton, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Tout, W. J.

  Lunn, William

  Ritson, J.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Turner, Ben

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  McLaren, Andrew

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Warne, G. H.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  March, S.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Webb, Sidney

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Weir, L. M.

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Maxton, James

  Sexton, James

  Westwood, J.

  Middleton, G.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Wheatley, J.

  Millar, J. D.

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Morel, E. D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Whiteley, W.

  Muir, John W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Murray, B, (Renfrew, Western)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)

  Nichol, Robert

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  O'Grady. Captain James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wright, W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sullivan, J.

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Phillipps, Vlvian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy and

  Potts, John S.

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

  Mr. Shinwell.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Herry page

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  DavidsonJ.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Massley)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Bialrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Hume, G. H.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Ednam, Viscount

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Becker, Harry

  Ellis, R. G.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Berry, Sir George

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Blades, sir George Rowland

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Blundell, F. N.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Brass, Captain W,

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lorden, John William

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lorlmer, H. D-

  Briggs, Harold

  Foot, Isaac

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Forettler-Walker, L.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Bruford, R.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Bruton, sir James

  Garland, C. S.

  Maddocks, Henry

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Goff, Sir R- Park

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Hosdew

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Button, H. S.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Cains, Gordon Hall

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l. W.D'by)

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Molson, Major John Elsdate

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Honnessy, Major J. R G.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Clayton, G. C.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nesbitt, Robert C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Seals

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Cope, Major William

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  1450

  1451

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Paget, T. G.

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Pease, William Edwin

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Penny, Frederick George

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Waring, Major Waiter

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withlngton)

  Perring, William George

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Philipson, Hilton

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Pielou, D. p.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Sandon, Lord

  White, Lt.-Col. G. O. (Southport)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Willey, Arthur

  Preston, Sir W. R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Winterton, Earl

  Privett, F. J,

  Shipwright, Captain O.

  Wise, Frederick

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Raine, W.

  Skelton, A. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Smith. Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Stanley, Lord

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Renter, J. R.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gibbs.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Question, "That the Question lie now put," put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £1,281,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."—[Note: £865,000 has been voted on account.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  In putting a few points in connection with this Vote, I must apologise for my temporary absence on the last Vote. I shared that absence with nearly every single representative of his Majesty's Treasury except for the Patronage Secretary, who does not claim to have any knowledge of these matters. I was also in company with the Postmaster-General, who was absent. I should like to know why the taxpayer has been mulcted in £5,500 in respect of Brompton Cemetery. I understand that the funerals at. Brompton are paid for, that the ordinary charges are made, and that the paupers who are buried there are paid for by the Poor Law authority in whose parish they die. Why is it necessary to pay this amount in respect of this cemetery? There is also an item under Subhead E for the maintenance and repair of ancient monuments amounting to £40,750, compared with £35,000 odd last year. What are these ancient monuments? I could
  1452
  understand ancient castles and historic buildings being preserved, but they come under Subhead D. I hope that no money is being spent on the hideous monuments which disfigure London, of by-gone monarchs, statesmen, poets, and others, which are an eyesore, and have lost their significance. A great many of them might very well be removed. Is this extra taxation due to a change in the circumstances of so many of the owners of historical buildings, who are not able to keep them up owing to the iniquitous taxation imposed on them by the present Government? I hope for sympathetic support. from the historical party opposite, who have long been defenders of the landed classes of this country. This sum of £2,100,000 is a substantial sum. The country is poor. There was complaint to-day about the low payment of a very deserving class of the community, the ex-service Civil Service. If we can only afford to pay them very small salaries, we must look very carefully into this heavy expenditure of over £2,000,000 on public buildings, and these thousands of pounds on ancient monuments. If you cannot, afford to give more than £6 a year towards workmen's houses and can give nothing towards parlour houses, I am very much opposed to the expenditure of £2,000,000 on public buildings without some justification. The amount has decreased from last year by £500,000, but that is not a great amount in view of the serious financial state of the country and the taxation which is penalising all classes.
  Sir J. BAIRD: One of the most important items in this Vote, in which everybody is interested, is the fourth item, on page 57, £74,700 for unemployment relief. If the money is not voted, the money cannot be spent. In almost every other case there is a substantial reduction. The total reduction is almost £500,000 on a Vote of £2,500,000. If the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) had pursued his examination more carefully he would have been in no anxiety about Brompton Cemetery. It is true that. we are to spend £5,500, hut if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had turned to page 65 he would have seen that under Appropriations-in-Aid we get £7,000 from Brompton Cemetery. That is not altogether bad business.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite saw my point. Why do we not charge to the relatives of those who are buried such fees as will cover the upkeep of the cemetery?
  Sir J. BAIRD: We do. Whereas we propose to spend £5,500 for upkeep, we anticipate receiving £7,000. That As a saving to the taxpayer of £1,500. I was asked a question about ancient monuments. These are monuments which are handed over to my Department under the Ancient Monuments Acts of 1913. I do not think we are yet so poor that we can afford to neglect ancient monuments which have played a large part. in the history of our country. The monuments in London are mostly not very ancient, and they are not under the charge of my Department. Among the important ruins which have been taken over recently are Norham Castle; White Castle, Monmouthshire; Spofforth Castle, Yorkshire; Ewloe Castle, Flintshire; Warkworth Castle, Northumberland; Huntley Castle, Aberdeenshire; Incholm Priory, Fife; Netley Abbey, Hampshire; Furness Abbey, Lancashire; and Grosmont Castle, Monmouthshire. There are others, no doubt equally interesting. This Vote covers a large number of buildings and works of importance. There are the Admiralty Chart factories, the two anthrax disinfecting stations at Liverpool, the Mercantile Marine Office in Liverpool, the completion of offices at Acton for the Ministry of Pensions, alterations and adaptations at the Royal
  1454
  Mint, works at the Tower of London, work at Swansea, at the Stationery Office, the Patent Office, and so forth. These are the main items in the Vote. There is a reduction all round with the exception of a very few cases. There is the unemployment relief work; there is the repair of ancient monuments, with which I have dealt, and there are disposal expenses. These arise because we have certain plant which was in the hands of the Disposal Board and which was given over to us to be disposed of. The Disposal Board, unfortunately, did not dispose of all the plant and we had to undertake the disposal of a certain amount. There is also a small increase in the matter of removals, but that is a fluctuating sum and obviously one cannot be sure of the amount required each year. I am prepared to answer any question on details, but I hope hon. Members will see their way to give me the Vote for the reasons I have mentioned.
  Captain A. EVANS: I wish to draw attention to the item on page 66 under the heading "Services Arising Out of the War," which is described as follows "Expenses of disposal of equipment, etc., surplus to requirements," and the amount is £12,400. In this connection it is interesting to note that at an auction held by the Disposal Board a short time ago, a serviceable aeroplane was disposed of for the sum of £2 10s. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two aeroplanes! "] No, my information is that only one was sold for that amount, but I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion that there were two. In view of the state of the national finances at this period it is an extraordinary unhusinesslike procedure to ask the House for £12,000 for expenses incurred in selling serviceable aeroplanes at this absurd and ridiculous price. I submit that these aeroplanes should be withdrawn from sale if a reasonable reserve price is not reached.
  Sir J. BAIRD: No aeroplanes are dealt with in this Vote.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was looking for a reference to the matter in the Estimate, but. I cannot find any mention of aeroplanes.
  Captain EVANS: I took it we were dealing with the matter under this Vote.
  Mr. G. SPENCER: I wish to ask some questions with reference to the Anthrax

  1455
  Disinfecting Station at Liverpool. If I am correctly informed, the original contractor for this building would not bind himself to erect all the apparatus by a certain date. The firm which had the original contract, being either unable or unwilling to erect a particular press which was required, by a certain date, the Department, without consulting the Treasury or any other competent authority, entered into a second contract. They had to pay a certain compensation, I believe, to the first contractor, because the contract more or less was broken, so far as he was concerned. When this was brought to the notice of the Treasury, they refused to give sanction to the spending of the money for the second contract., the Auditor-General stating:
  " The Treasury furnished me with further correspondence on the subject, which shows that their Lordships have declined to give covering sanction to the expenditure incurred under the second contract, on the ground that their previous approval was not asked for—a variation involving the taxpayer in additional expenditure."
  Does this particular Vote include the amount which is owing to the second contractor, and have the Treasury now given sanction to something which they objected to in the first instance? If so, why have they changed their mind?
  Sir W. DAVISON: I should like to ask a question in connection with Brompton Cemetery, which has already been alluded to, and which is in my constituency. I should be glad to know whether the cemetery fees have been increased to produce this large revenue of £7,000, and, secondly, if that is so, for what reason these fees have been increased. Finally, I should like to know whether, if economies have been made in connection with the burials in Brompton Cemetery, the people of Kensington are not. entitled to receive the benefit of economies made in connection with their own funerals.
  Mr. LINFIELD: I wish again to protest against the manner in which large sums of money are being voted. We have £2,500,000 being voted now, and the only reasons that have been advanced up to now are, in the first place, that the sum is less than last year, which is not a very sound reason for voting £2,500,000—and I hope the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)
  1456
  will again join me in this protest, although it might endanger my seat in the next General Election—and secondly, that we must obtain the Vote by 11o'clock.
  Mr. J. JONES: Oh, no. We are going on all night.
  Sir J. BAIRD: We cannot go on with this Vote after 11 o'clock. Unless we get this Vote by 11 o'clock. it falls for this occasion.
  Mr. LINFIELD: Some of us are reluctant to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of the Vote, but I think hon. Members will feel that, in the interests of the general taxpayer, we ought to have more information than we have had. I shall protest on every occasion when money is voted in this way.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As so much has been said about Brompton Cemetery, I should like to say that I hope no objection will be taken to the amount spent there, and I appeal especially to the Welsh Members opposite, as George Borrow was buried there, and the least we can do is to look after the grave of a great man like that. I would also mention that my own grandfather was buried there. I wish to draw attention—last year. on this same Vote, I drew attention to it—to the Furniture Vote, on page 64. I see that £65,000 is now going to be spent for the general supply of new furniture and fittings (tables, chairs, presses, racks, etc.). I cannot think why, in the world, the Government want to spend money, year after year, on this matter. I happen to have worked in a Government office during the War. I saw stacks of furniture being taken into Government offices, and saw furniture being taken out. We have luckily shut up some Government offices, and there ought to be plenty of chairs, presses, racks and bottles, for which we have paid. Now we find "baskets, glasses and china" in the Vote to the amount of £2,150. I raised this point last year, and I shall never be satisfied until the Office of Works appoint a Committee to look into the stores of furniture and other equipment. they have in hand. The Government Departments ought to be made to do with what they have got, and ought not to spend money every year. Though I shall vote for this Vote, I think it is thoroughly bad management that we should have, year after

  1457
  .year, to put down more money for furniture and other things of which, I am perfectly certain, we have an ample store.
  Mr. J. JONES: As a large amount of this Vote is in connection with the building industry, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is going to happen in the case of the building trade dispute, which has a direct bearing upon the amount of the money to be voted? A large number of contractors are interested in cemeteries, because their grandfathers were buried there. I wish they themselves were buried at the same time as their grandfathers. The quantity of furniture that may be in Government offices has evidently provided profit for the people who have sold furniture. They-were very anxious, during the War, to make money at the expense of the nation. They made money, and they unloaded the stuff off on to the Government. Now they are grumbling about the expense. They are the people who provided the furniture, who caused all the extra expense, and who made excess profits. Now they are grumbling about having to pay for it.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Not at all. This is fresh expenditure.
  Mr. JONES: Yes. With all due deference, you are the people who made the excess profits.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish I had.
  Mr. JONES: You object to paying out, now.
  Mr. SAMUEL: This is fresh expenditure, next year.
  Mr. JONES: I know. Next year, any year, will do. So far as I am concerned, I want to know how much of this £2,000,000, that is to be paid out in this Department, will go to building contractors who are going to throw their men on to the streets? Are the Government going to support them? Are the contracts going to be kept on, in spite of the breach of the agreement? An agreement was entered into, but the Government themselves, who are the principal parties to the concern, in connection with this Vote will not give us an interpretation of the agreement., which is supposed to be a document. The Kaiser has been denounced with regard to "a scrap of
  1458
  paper." Is not a trade union agreement, between workmen and employers, just as much a legal document as any Treaty made between nations?
  Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. I submit that this is entirely irrelevant.
  Mr. JONES: I quite admit that there are lawyers in the House, and that they are always on the job—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) if he is connecting his argument in regard to the building trade contractors with this particular Vote?
  Mr. JONES: Certainly, Sir; I thank you for the correction. I am trying, if I can, on this Vote to ask what the Gevernment are prepared to do in the event of a lock-out in the building trade. Some of the greatest contractors in the building trade in Great Britain are involved in this Vote—Government contractors because the hon. Gentleman himself has mentioned the fact that they are now carrying out certain contracts on behalf of the Government. Am I allowed to ask this question—whether these contractors will be kept to their contract? Are they going to be permitted to lock out their men, in spite of an agreement which some of the greatest lawyers in the country have said stands for law, and are the Government going to back them up, or are they going to see that the work is carried out in spite of the decision of the employers? I am asking that question with all due deference, because we are not going to sit down quietly and see legal enactments, which have been entered into by reasonable people on all sides, broken. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds involved in Government work now going on, and if on Saturday these men are to be locked out, we say that the Government are taking sides against the men. Is the Government going to take any steps to protect a legal agreement entered into between the workers end employers in an industry in which I happen to be interested?
  Mr. HOGGE: It is obvious that, when a, question of this sort is put, the Minister must have something to say, and as there are only two minutes, and the point is of extreme importance, unless he is able to give us some satisfactory reply, we cannot get this Vote to-night.
  Sir J. BAIRD: The works in progress are under contract, and there is no strike clause in those contracts.
  Mr. J. JONES: It is no strike; it is a lock-out.
  Sir J. BAIRD: There is no strike clause in the contract, and certainly it is a very open question whether or not we could hold contractors to that contract. They are not posting the notices in our contract, and if they can carry on by the existing wages, we hope they will do so
  Mr. G. SPENCER: May I ask whether a certain contract has been paid for which the Treasury refuse?
  Sir J. BAIRD: No contracts can be paid for which the Treasury refuse. It is quite impossible.
  Mr. J. JONES: May I ask a question?
  Sir J. BAIRD rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,281,000, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his-Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE(ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 (Short title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times), 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), 4 (Amendment of,section 57), 5 (Amendment of Sections 76 and 82), 6 (Amendment of Section 122), 7 (Amendment of Section 179), 8 (Re-numbering of Section 46A), 9 (Amendment of Section 57), 10 (Amendment of Section 89), 11 (Amendment of Section. 122), and 12 (Amendments of Sections 46, 47, 138, and 182, with reference to warrant officers),ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  [For Remainder of Proceedings. see Continuation of Official Report. Thursday, 12th April.]