§ Special constables enrolled under this Act shall not be employed outside their own police district.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 P.M.
The object of this Clause is to insure that special constables employed under this Bill shall be employed only in their own district. If the Home Secretary is going to accept this Cause, I will content myself with moving it formally, but as he makes no sign, I take it that he is going to attempt to oppose it, in which case I hope to convert either him or his faithful followers, like the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), who are open to conversion on such a subject. This Bill is to be used for enrolling an auxiliary body of policemen, and in the Second Reading Debate I pressed the Home Secretary to declare whether he intended to use these auxiliaries in trade disputes, or whether they were going to be used simply in putting down riots, and in combatting the aliens in our midst, which one hon. Gentleman on the opposite 1956 side said was his principal reason for supporting the Bill. I did not get any definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman. What was done in Committee I do not know, as I was not on the Committee. The proceedings were not reported, and I was relying on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I did obtain an account of what went on through the courtesy of an hon. Member, who was present. I could never gather from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended so to frame the rules, which are what matters, so as to preclude the employment of these police in industrial disputes. There is an Amendment further down on the Paper which will raise that matter definitely, but I only mention it now because I think that the consideration of that Amendment will strengthen the position of those who are in favour of this Amendment. It is most essential that these auxiliaries should be employed only in their own district. I will give the reason very briefly. If you are going to send strangers into a district and they do not know the conditions and the people, the local inhabitants, especially in a trade dispute, will object to their importation from another part of the country. They will naturally object. Imagine a dispute in Lancashire, and Yorkshiremen being brought in to deal with it, or imagine a dispute in North Wales and men from South Wales being brought in to deal with it. Local prejudice will be aroused. Any self-respecting locality would object very much to its neighbouring town, possibly its rival, sending auxiliary police to keep order in their district. The law of the land is that the civil power may call upon all well-disposed citizens to assist in preserving order, and it is an insult to the law-abiding people of any district to bring in outsiders to keep order. In the case of the Metropolitan Police being drafted into a district where their services are needed, as, for example, when they were sent to Tonypandy, you are dealing with a special body of men who have been trained for a very long time for their peculiar, important, and delicate duties. On the whole, they do their work well and sympathetically. I say "on the whole," because there are always bound to be regrettable exceptions, but, speaking broadly, the Metropolitan Police and the regular police all over the 1957 country, when sent to some danger centre, do carry out their duties very well indeed.
But that is totally different from calling in these untrained auxiliaries, who, in some cases, may be ill-chosen men, because, if you are not going to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), not to use these auxiliaries in trade disputes, you are not going to get trade unionists for one thing. I do not want to deal with that Amendment now, but, unless that Amendment be accepted, I am afraid you will have these auxiliaries drawn from only one or two classes of the population. The danger of a specially picked body of people, not drawn from the whole body politic of law-abiding citizens, will be intensified when you bring strangers into a district to do that which the local inhabitants ought to be called upon to do by the ancient common law of the land. They will not know the local conditions, and they will not be in sympathy with the local people, because they will be strangers and not trained police. They will not, therefore, I am afraid, take the careful attitude that we expect of the trained police in all cases of civil disorder. Those are my reasons—at any rate, my first reasons—for moving this new Clause, and I hope that they are sufficient to show that it is absolutely necessary. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think that they will put me off my argument. After all, I had a good training in keeping the trend of my argument in the last Parliament.
This Clause is a very reasonable one, and I hope that it is going to be accepted. It is not framed with any sinister idea of making this force useless, or anything of that sort. I still say that these auxiliary police will be of value only in their own districts where they know the people. To send a strange man into a strange town, where he may get lost, is ridiculous. If you send strangers into towns which they do not know, and send them, perhaps, into the outlying parts, where there are narrow streets, they will probably get lost, and it will put a strain upon them which is not fair. For these reasons I hope that this very reasonable Clause will be accepted, and, if I have not convinced the Home Secretary of its 1958 necessity before, I hope that my very temperate speech will have effected his conversion.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to second the Motion.
I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Clause. It seems to me, if this Clause be accepted, no harm need be done to the efficiency or the value of the force on the basis of the ostensible object for which it has been formed. The case made for the continuance of this force by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill was a desire to maintain in existence the force of special constabulary which proved of great value during the War. I have no desire to offer any criticism of that force. I believe that it has been a very valuable force. I believe also that large numbers of the men who were members of it during the War are anxious to continue under the new régime, but I think it is useful, when we are making statutory provision for its permanence, that we should take precaution against its possible abuse. I believe that the great majority of those who have hitherto been in this force believe that they will be employed in the future on duties in connection with the locality in which they themselves live and in which, indeed, they will be most competent to give assistance in preserving the peace. That is all that this new Clause suggests. If they were used in their own locality, it would be a relief to the ordinary constabulary there, and, consequently, all the ostensible objects of the Measure would be substantially achieved.
Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this new Clause it may give ground for some of the suspicions which are entertained regarding this Bill, as to the ulterior object which the promoters have in view. I do not wish to suggest that there is any substance in these suspicions, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts this Clause he will do a great deal to dissipate these suspicions and to create public confidence in the force. I do not wish to make any special reference to what was said on the Second Reading of the Bill about the possibility of a Fascisti movement in this country. If it were possible to shift these men from one part of the country to another and to have a kind of mobilisation of 1959 them in some particular area whereby men were drafted into an area with which they were not acquainted, then, I think, there would be some justification for a belief that that was the object of the force. During the Second Reading it was only from hon. Members above the Gangway that any suggestion of such danger was made, but since then there has been a speech made by the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) at Manchester, in which he alluded to this Fascisti danger. This danger, therefore, is now entertained as a reasonable hypothesis by responsible people in this country. It is admitted by the followers of the ex-Prime Minister that it is a substantial danger. The force which is provided for in this Bill has been linked in large sections of the public mind with this danger. I suggest, therefore, that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disabuse people's minds of this erroneous idea, all he has to do is to accept this new Clause and also the Amendment which will be subsequently proposed, I believe, by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle. These are perfectly reasonable requests to make, and I suggest that by accepting this new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would do a great deal to facilitate the further progress of his Bill.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman)The hon. and gallant Member who moved this new Clause relied less on its intrinsic merits than on another Amendment standing on the Paper, and certain suspicions which he attached to the possible use of this force. I missed in his speech any particular reference to his own Clause which was likely to convince me and make me change my mind. Probably there is some misapprehension on this point. The special constables are enrolled for, and usefully employed in, their own police district. They have to be resident either in or in the neighbourhood of the place for which they are appointed special constables, and the only exception to their employment there is if in some adjoining district—merely an adjoining district—the special constables demand assistance they can by arrangement obtain it from an adjoining police area where there are special constables. That is under Section 6 of the Special Constables Act, 1831, and I am merely 1960 following an old and very good precedent.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI want to get the point clearly. Do we understand that the Act precludes bodies of special constables being taken, for example, from Leeds to Liverpool, or long distances by train?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANYes. Section 6 empowers the justices of any county adjoining where special constables have been appointed and are serving, by agreement with the justices who appoint them, to order special constables to act in the adjoining county if any extraordinary circumstances exist which render it expedient to do so. The same provision exists for an exchange between the Metropolitan area and the City of London. I think, therefore, that the danger which the hon. Gentlemen have foreseen is rather imaginary, and I do not see any reason for departing from the practice which has hitherto prevailed. If they are required and it is the wish of that district that they should come in, then they may come to the assistance of the police in that district immediately adjoining their own.
§ Mr. HAYESThe point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was not so much in reference to an adjoining police area, but rather that is was unwise for special constables to carry out constabulary duties in any area other than that in which they are resident. It will help us with subsequent Amendments if the Home Secretary could tell us whether the present Regulations, made under the Special Constables Act, 1914, are to be continued under this Bill, or whether we are to have a completely new set of Regulations. We hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind the spirit of this new Clause, so that even in adjoining counties to which he may send special constables the Regulations will not be put in force. The reason is this: We may get a large number of special constables, say, in the South of Yorkshire, and they may be sent to an adjoining county, in which they would be strangers just as much as they would be if sent to the other end of the Kingdom. I would emphasise the point that it is a positive danger for special constables to perform constabulary duties in such adjoining areas. The special constables would be sent elsewhere to perform their duties only in connection with emergencies. When there 1961 are emergencies there is always a good deal of strong local feeling. We cannot do better than bear in mind some of the rather tragic circumstances that have arisen at different times from the importation into other areas of even the regular police.
In 1911, during the time of the transport workers' strike, when the transportation of goods and merchandise was held up, we had what was unfortunately known, and what will continue to be known, as "Red Sunday" in Liverpool, when the dockers came into conflict with the police and large numbers of the Birmingham police were severely injured, as also were large numbers of the dockers. There are Members on the Labour benches who will confirm my statement that the attitude of the dockers in connection with that conflict was not so much one of indignation towards the police of Liverpool as of indignation that might be summed up in a colloquial phrase, "We do not mind being knocked about by our own coppers, but we are not going to be knocked about by the Brummagem men." It may be rather a crude way of expressing it, but I want the House to get the atmosphere in these industrial disputes. We have to cater for a situation which may arise if the Home Secretary does not see fit to accept certain Amendments which appear later on the Paper. There is a possibility that under the Regulations to be made special constables may not always act under the constabulary authority. I know that on the Second Reading of the Bill we had a semi-assurance from the Government that special constables would act under the constabulary authority. But I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Regulations which were made by the Home Office under the Special Constables Act, 1914. The right hon. Gentleman will there find that the Government very carefully preserved to themselves the right to put special constables under the direction and control of "such other authority as the Secretary of State may designate." That is full of importance.
I realise the soundness of the argument that, where there is trouble and disorder, it is necessary that order should be restored at the earliest possible moment. But there is a bounden and inherent duty by common law and statute law, upon all citizens to maintain order amongst them- 1962 selves. I cannot see the necessity for importing special constables into a locality to preserve order among people whose duty it is, by the common law and statute law, to preserve order themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not referring now to the area of Kensington. If we were dealing with that particular area, there are, I believe, Noble Lords and even Members of the present Government who, if it had been a question of looking after law and order, would have been put into the Tower of London for certain acts of rebellion in 1913. I want to make provision for the atmosphere which we think would be created when we called out the special constabulary. If the Home Secretary is to call out numbers of special constables, and is to exercise the power contained in an existing Regulation by placing the special constables under the authority of a military officer, or under the commanding officer of the unit that is sent for duty into an industrial area, or to take them out of the control of the police authorities altogether, he will create a very dangerous position. It is not so much the present Home Secretary of whom we are afraid. We believe that the present Home Secretary—I am not saying this in the hope that he will concede us the point in this particular Clause—has a mentality that is very much in favour of peaceful persuasion. But, we have had Home Secretaries who have been Napoleons when it came to a question of law and order. I remember the Sidney Street disturbance; I recollect that I was called out for duty in connection with that disturbance, and I think I was rather more afraid of handling firearms than were the people against whom we had to direct our activities.
I want to make provision, not for the present Government only, but for succeeding Governments and Home Secretaries who will deal with this matter according to their points of view. We have made out a very reasonable case for the principle that no special constable shall perform constabulary duties in any area other than that in which he is resident. If this new Clause is accepted by the Home Secretary, we shall help him to maintain order in a way that, I am sure, will be very acceptable to him. We cannot legislate the resentment of people who consider that they are suffering under a grievance into channels of peacefulness 1963 by employing outside people. The principle of the Bill, unfortunately, is not likely to help the tranquillity of the community. What it will do is to assist—I do not say that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but I know how the Bill will operate in practice—the bad employer in bringing about wage reduction movements—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I said "the bad employer." I hope I shall not get too many protests from hon. Members opposite. In the event of wage reduction movements, and also in the event of conflict with trade unions, this Bill, together with the other Acts of Parliament that have recently been placed on the Statute Book—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe must not discuss the Bill as a whole until we get to the Third Reading. We must deal only with the particular Amendment, which refers to special constables going outside a given district.
§ Mr. HAYESWith more experience of the House I shall, perhaps, be able to avoid these pitfalls. The question that we are arguing is really designed to help the Government in maintaining order without having recourse to sterner measures. We are very anxious that the House should benefit from the experience alike of the industrial representatives in this House, who on the one hand have had charge of what at times have been riotous elements, and on the other hand from the experience—it may be a peculiar coalition, but it is a good one—of a representative who knows what constabulary work is and has actually been in conflict with the people whom the industrialists represent. From our combined experience we say that the House would be well advised to take these points into consideration if they are really honest and sincere in desiring that there shall be no difficulties.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI listened carefully to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I agree with the Home Secretary that the House did not hear from them a single argument in favour of the Amendment. It was not until we came to the last speaker that we had any real arguments in favour of this change in the Bill. There have been three arguments. The first was that if the Amendment was accepted, the hon. Member 1964 would be able to guarantee the preservation of order. The second was that a "copper" in Liverpool could knock about the Liverpool people without their objecting, but that they objected to—
§ Mr. HAYESI would not like to be, misquoted. I did not say that a "copper" could knock about Liverpool people, but that the industrial worker in Liverpool held a point of view that was equivalent to his saying, "We do not mind so much being knocked about by our own constables, but we do object to being knocked about by outsiders."
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHThey object to someone coming in from outside. The third argument was that each town and each part of a town should look after the preservation of order in its own district without any help from outside. Taking the question as a whole, there are very few arguments against the Bill. The Amendment would mean that if there were a disturbance in Liverpool and the rioters got the better of the local police, the Government would be unable to send police to Liverpool from any other part of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If Liverpool were an entirely self-supporting city and had no connection with any other town, and if it did not matter in the least to us in London or to anybody else in England whether Liverpool was in insurrection or not, I would, perhaps, agree that it did not make much difference. But if Liverpool were in insurrection it would affect London and every other district in the country, because if the ships coming into and going out of Liverpool were stopped the result would be a dislocation of the commerce between ourselves and the rest of the world. That is a very pertinent fact to be borne in mind. We could not for one moment allow a city like Liverpool so to get out of hand, whatever the cause, that it would dislocate the whole commercial prosperity of the country. I cannot see anything in the argument that there is an ulterior motive behind the formation of this force, and that it might be turned into a sort of fascisti, which might, in the case of disturbance, be used to put down turbulent elements. I am perfectly certain that if this country ever came to the point where a fascisti movement was needed we should not have to wait long before such a body was formed to put down disturbances. But at the present 1965 time there is no question of anything happening here that would call for such a body. Why, then, should we raise the question?
We do not look forward to any such state of affairs as came to pass in Italy, when communications were cut and the ordinary life of the community could not go on as before. We do not look forward to any such state of affairs in this country, and therefore why should hon. Members object to the special constables being kept on, and to their being used in parts of the country other than the area to which they happen to belong? I do not suppose we shall ever see them used in that way; I certainly hope we shall not, but if the occasion should arise, and if some particular district should get so much out of hand that it became necessary to use these forces in order to maintain communications, I am perfectly certain that, whatever Government was in power—even if it were composed of hon. Members opposite—they would see the necessity of keeping order, and they would use the same methods in keeping order as those now proposed. They would do so, not only because it was necessary to deal with that particular town or district where the disorder arose, but because it is a matter affecting every person in every part of the country, and as a Government acting for the whole country, it would be for them to do the best they could to deal with the situation as a whole.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe hon. Member who has just sat down, and I dare say other hon. Members opposite, misunderstand the attitude of the Labour party and the Liberal party towards this Measure. When we urge that special constables should not be used outside their own areas, we do not object to the use of troops or of ordinary constables in different parts of the country should the necessity arise. We object to the use of special constables in that way, and the reason for our objection is perfectly simple. It must be obvious to every Member of the House—and, if not, it will be very soon after the formation of this body—that nine out every ten, nay almost 99 out of every hundred, who join the special constabulary will be men who are opposed to Labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That really must be understood before hon. Members can under- 1966 our opposition to the Bill. You are selecting from the community those people who will be hostile to Labour, and you are ruling out absolutely all trade unionists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Unless certain Amendments which have been put down are accepted, this force will be used in trade disputes to blackleg, to act as strike-breakers, and that is the whole point of the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is now covering an Amendment which is on the Paper and which I have ruled is to be taken afterwards, and it is not in order to discuss it now.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI was endeavouring to make clear to hon. Members why we want to prevent the special constables being used outside their own localities. We object to any additional facilities being given to special constables. We do not wish to have them employed at all in trade disputes. We do not wish to have strike breaking, and because we do not want a force of that sort set up we object to their being used in Lancashire if they come from Yorkshire. It is true the explanation of the Home Secretary makes the position less dangerous than some of us thought it was. It is obvious that they cannot bring in special constables say from London to Liverpool, and that is something to the good. I do not know whether some hon. Members opposite will not suggest that we should alter the Bill in this respect and widen its powers. As it is, they could send special constables from Cleveland to Derby, or from Chester to Birkenhead, for these are in adjoining counties, and that is going quite far enough. Not only that, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent fresh Regulations being drafted and laid before the House without the House having a very full opportunity of criticising them, under which the limitation as to adjoining counties might be wiped out. For all these reasons we urge this Amendment upon the Government, and we propose to divide upon it to show the Government we will do everything in our power to prevent this proposal coming into force and to prevent the special constables being an efficient body. The work they have to do should be done by the ordinary paid elements in the police force or the Army, 1967 and it should not be handed over to a partisan body.
§ Sir JAMES REMNANTThe hon. and gallant Member who spoke last does not really understand the Bill and cannot have read it. It is merely continuing and making permanent what has already been proved in practice to be a very useful arm of the police force in this country. I should like very much if the hon. Gentleman who represents the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hayes) had been sitting on this side of the House, and I am sure he would not have made the speech he did make on this Measure. Knowing, as he does, the real working of the police farce, I think he would have advocated as strongly as anyone here the desirability of being able to move the police forces of this country wherever they are wanted and whenever they are wanted.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWe have had a great deal of difficulty in past years, in connection with the employment of different police forces in different parts of the country where they were wanted, and even to-day we cannot do it properly. When I say "we," I mean the country generally. We wish we could make the police a more movable body, and make it easier to employ particular forces where they are wanted. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Liverpool people did net mind being knocked about by their own police, but strongly objected to outsiders doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think it would be a case of "defend us from our friends." The chances are they would object to being knocked about by anybody as law-breakers generally do. It is only in the case of bad riots and disturbances and where the police force happens to be unequal to the emergency that these powers would be exercised, and it is not at all a matter of taking sides. One of the features of our police force is that it does not take sides. Its object is to be impartial, to keep contending sides apart, and I think it does this admirably. The special constables have proved a useful help to the regular police force, and the hon. Member for Edge Hill knows they have. If we make them a permanent body the chances are they will be able to gain the necessary experience and be of greater help in the future than in the past. I hope I shall not be out of 1968 order in referring to another matter in this connection which should obviate some of the points raised against the Bill. There are throughout the country many police pensioners—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member is now entering upon a matter which does not arise under this new Clause.
§ Sir J. REMNANTI will not proceed further with the point, but I hope we shall have an opportunity later on of dealing with it. I hope the House will not be lead away by any extraneous matter which has been brought into this Debate, but will allow the Government to have their way and will reject this new Clause, which is obviously intended as a political move to embarrass the Government.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI have listened to every speech both in favour of and against this Amendment, and it appears to me the real value of the Amendment has been lost sight of. We start on common ground. In the first place we do not desire disorder whether we speak from the trade union side or the opposing side. We agree at once that disorder does neither party any good. It is the worst possible thing that can happen from the point of view of one who is leading a strike, and anyone who assumes for a moment that those in charge of disputes will seek any encouragement of disorder, is living in a fool's paradise. Secondly, let me say that I would prefer constables in any trade dispute to troops. I give absolutely no countenance to the suggestion about the use of troops. I know what have been the effects of using troops and the last thing that should be done in connection with a trade dispute, is to think of sending in troops. I also discountenance the suggestion as to Fascisti. I do not suppose that there is any danger of Bolshevism on the one side or Fascism on the other. While the people of this country have the opportunity of choosing their own representatives, they are more likely to adopt that course than either of those two extremes. Thirdly, there should be agreement that when temper and feeling and passion are aroused the right people to deal with the situation are people of tact. I was in the Liverpool riots to which the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) referred, and I know they 1969 were provoked mainly by tactless people. At Wembley the tact of the police in handling the situation, in knowing the crowd and knowing the psychology of the people saved real trouble as anyone who was there will admit. Is not that exactly the purpose of the Amendment? If serious disturbances arise, and there is a necessity to strengthen the police, the Home Secretary at this moment has the power to draft an Order for that purpose. Does not common sense say at once that the people who should be used on an occasion of that kind are the ordinary constables—the regular police. Special constables in the very nature of things can know nothing of the local circumstances if they are sent into a particular area.
§ Sir J. REMNANTThe specials would not be called in if there were a sufficient police force otherwise.
§ Mr. THOMASDo not let us argue against the Amendment under a misapprehension. I am trying to follow out the real purpose of the Amendment. We agree we want to avoid disorder. We do not want anybody in a crowd to throw a brick and start a riot, nor do we want special constables to do some silly act
§ which will provoke an outburst. Surely the best people to handle these situations are the local people themselves, and the real object of the Amendment is to ensure that this is done, and not to say that disorder must go on. No one says that, and it would be madness to say so. But local people, knowing the vicinity, knowing all the local circumstances, having personal knowledge of the people involved, would handle such a situation with far more tact and success than it could be handled by importation of strangers. Because we do not think it necessary that these powers should be given to the Home Secretary, and because we believe he has all the powers necessary, we hope he will accept the Amendment. In any case, I rose primarily to say, in order that there should be no misunderstanding so far as the Labour side is concerned, that the last people we desire to see drafted into any industrial dispute are the military, because we believe that they would do more harm than good.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 227.
1971| Division No. 135.] | AYES. | 4.47 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hinds, John | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Riley, Ben |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hogge, James Myles | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Irving, Dan | Rose, Frank H. |
| Barnes, A. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Salter, Dr. A. |
| Batey, Joseph | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Bonwick, A. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Briant, Frank | Lansbury, George | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Broad, F. A. | Lawson, John James | Snowden, Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Leach, W. | Spoor, B. G. |
| Buxton, Charles (Accrington) | Lee, F. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Chapple, W. A. | Linfield, F. C. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | M'Entee, V. L. | Thornton, M. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Duncan, C. | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Maxton, James | Webb, Sidney |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Middleton, G. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Falconer, J. | Millar, J. D. | Wheatley, J. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Morel, E. D. | White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Mosley, Oswald | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Groves, T. | Muir, John W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Hamilton, Sir B. (Orkney & Shetland) | Nichol, Robert | |
| Harris, Percy A. | O'Connor, Thomas P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hastings, Patrick | Phillipps, Vivian | Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Mr. Hayes. |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Potts, John S. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Furness, G. J. | Paget, T. G. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Garland, C. S. | Pease, William Edwin |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Gates, Percy | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Goff, Sir R. Park | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Peto, Basil E. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Plelou, D. P. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Preston, Sir W. R. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Becker, Harry | Halstead, Major D. | Privett, F. J. |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Harrison, F. C. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Harvey, Major S. E. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Berry, Sir George | Hawke, John Anthony | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. |
| Briggs, Harold | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Houfton, John Plowright | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Hudson, Capt. A. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Bruford, R. | Hughes, Collingwood | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew | Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Skelton, A. N. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Stanley, Lord |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Clayton, G. C. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lorden, John William | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lorimer, H. D. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lumley, L. R. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cope, Major William | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Tubbs, S. W. |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Margesson, H. D. R. | Ward, Cot. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford) | Wells, S. R. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Mercer, Colonel H. | Whitla, Sir William |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Molloy, Major L. G. S. | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Winterton, Earl |
| Ednam, Viscount | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Wise, Frederick |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Murchison, C. K. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak) |
| Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Nield, Sir Herbert | |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel |
| Gibbs. |