HC Deb 01 April 1925 vol 182 cc1398-413

At the end of Sub-section one, Section eighty, of the Army Act the following Sub-section shall be added. "The general conditions of the contract to be catered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists."—[Mr. Mackinder.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Perhaps the Committee will know that this is very different to any proposal that has hitherto been brought before the Committee by Members of this Parliament. We believe that the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, was passed in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether or not troops shall be used in trade disputes. I will read one part of the Act, which in Section 1 states: Where a proclamation of emergency has been made the occasion thereof shall be forthwith communicated to Parliament. Perhaps I had better read part of the Act which provides for the Proclamation being issued. It reads: If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken, or is immediately threatened, by any person or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light … His Majesty may by proclamation declare that a state of emergency exists. The same Act states specifically that troops shall not be used to perform acts ordinarily performed by civilians; that is to say, troops shall not be used to do work on which civilians who are on strike are engaged. I believe that it is in the best interests of industry and in the best interests of Parliament—I speak as an old trade union official of many years—that before troops are used in trade disputes the question as to whether they should or should not be used should be brought before the House of Commons. I have been reading very interestedly the White Paper issued by the Inter-Departmental Committee. The Report says, on page 9, paragraph 30, that Soldiers in their capacity as citizens, like all other citizens, are liable under the common law to be called upon by the civil power. Troops may be citizens, but I have yet to find out, with the exception of having a vote in Parliamentary Elections, exactly what kind of citizens soldiers are. It may be that they are citizens for the purposes of this Act, but I really cannot understand how by any stretch of the imagination soldiers can be called citizens within the strict meaning of citizenship. They are entitled to vote if they are in the country, and a voting paper is sent to them when they are out of the country; but, with that exception, I fail to see where they come in as citizens. The White Paper goes on to say that they do not see how any Government could so far divest itself of the legal powers which it now possesses for carrying out that duty. We agree with that entirely. We believe that no Government should divest itself of any authority which it holds, and it is for these reasons that we propose that the Emergency Powers Act, which is an Act on the Statute Book, shall be put into operation before any of those troops are used.

I do not want to traverse the ground which has been covered in many Debates as to whether or not officers are entitled to do differently from civilians. For the purposes of stating my case, it is necessary to refer to the famous incident of the Curragh Camp in 1914. Members on that side of the House have stated very definitely that an officer can refuse to perform a certain duty which it has been instructed he should perform if it be against his conscience. That may be true or untrue, but there certainly is a difference of opinion upon which neither this White Paper nor the Committee which issued it has definitely satisfied us. They state that one alleged incident is frequently quoted, viz., the so-called Curragh Camp incident of March, 1914, and that Chapter 3, paragraph 12, of the edition of 1914 lays it down specifically that officers shall carry out any orders issued to them I have been curious enough to go through the Manual of Military Law, and that manual lays it down that religious scruples, however bona fide they may be, afford no justification for neglect or refusal to obey orders. An officer cannot, for example, plead conscientious scruples as justifying a refusal to go into the trenches on a Sunday, or to pay marks of respect enjoined by a superior authority to religions different from his own. I fail to se how the White Paper could compare the two instances. On the Curragh incident of 1914 it is undoubtedly a fact, as laid down in the White Paper, that certain officers of the Regular Army, supposed to be under discipline and supposed to be under all the pains and penalties which discipline enjoins upon them, did consult as to what they would do should a certain set of circumstances arise. Those certain set of circumstances we all know, and it is undoubtedly a fact that they had made up their mind to revolt if Parliament adopted a certain course.


Not to revolt, but to resign.


Oh no, we were very interested in the speeches which were made at the time. It is undoubtedly a fact—hon. Members may camouflage it as much as they like—that these officers had decided not to perform any duty allocated to them. The mere fact of the soldier refusing is, in effect, in times of difficulty, revolt against the instructions of his superior officer. I cannot see how the two cases are analogous. The White Paper tells us that according to the Army Manual they cannot refuse with regard to religious scruples. The late Lord Roberts laid it down that if an officer had certain scruples he could refuse to do these things, and we say, if officers are allowed to have scruples as to what they shall or shall not do where these things affect their opinions, that a private soldier at least should have it laid down by law that he shall not be called upon to shoot his industrial friend, his brother, his relation, unless at all events permission has been got from Parliament and given by Parliament that soldiers shall be used in these trade disputes. Again, it is interesting to read the Army Manual, which says that a superior officer has a right at any time to give a command for the purpose of the maintenance of good order or the suppression of disturbance. That is in the Manual issued by the War Office in 1914. What I am anxious to know is where was that permission given to the Army officer. What Act is it in? If it be necessary to put into operation an Act of Parliament to give an Army officer certain rights to instruct his troops what to do, why was it necessary to pass an Emergency Powers Act which give those rights to His Majesty and to Parliament?

I believe that the times of 1914 and the times of 1925 are as different as they possibly could be. I have been in the Trade Union movement for nearer 30 years than 20, and I have been through a fair proportion of disputes. I want to say, very sincerely, that an authority who brings troops into a trade dispute without very careful consideration is running such a great risk of a big conflagration in this country that he ought to think twice before he does so. I have had my share of disputes, and I have always found that the police of the country are fairly level-headed and, as a general rule, are prepared to carry out the law to protect life and property. I have had the pleasure of being escorted round when meeting a number of workers. We have had policemen at the front of us clearing away the traffic, so that we should have a complete and full procession and that our plans should not be interfered with when we came to an important juncture. I want to say that my experience of Trade Union disputes has led me to this opinion, that, provided we carry on our dispute in a perfectly legal way, there is no necessity whatever for any show of force. If a specially armed force is shown, there is very naturally the incitement to revolt which springs up inside all of us when things of that sort are going along.

I remember in the 1901 coal lock-out I was doing my work as a trade union official in South Yorkshire. I was passing through Cudworth one day and saw troops being discharged on Cudworth Station, waiting to go into Cudworth, I would not say to intimidate the colliers on lock-out, but the net effect was to leave an ugly feeling in the minds of colliers who were locked out. Hon. Members may think of the necessity of having troops on the spot in case a conflagration breaks out. I am trying to look at the effect on a citizen who is peaceful. When these young men, some of them merely boys of 18, were unloaded on the platform at Cudworth Station, with their rifles and bayonets and plenty of rounds of ammunition, I thought well, I would not like to see one of those young soldiers say a wrong word to one of the colliers or vice versa, because a conflagration could break out from either side, with a careless or ill-chosen word. I saw something worse in the streets of Barnsley. I saw armoured cars parading up and down the main streets of Barnsley for no object whatever but for terrifying the miners, who were quiet enough. It is no use disguising the fact that it was an attempt to terrify them. If they were not there to terrify them, why were not those armoured cars kept in a place where the colliers could not see them, kept there to be used if the authorities thought they ought to be used? There is no doubt about it., these parades of force take place with the deliberate intention of letting the strikers and disputants know what will happen if they attempt to interfere with private property. I am told by the hon. Member for Rhondda Valley that after the dispute of 1921 he put a question to the Secretary of State for War asking the cost of the dispute in Wales alone to the military authorities. He was told that the cost of the use of troops and two squadrons of aeroplanes—do not forget the aeroplanes, I do not know how they could use aeroplanes in a miners' dispute—in Wales alone imposed a charge of £800,000 on the British nation. I put it to hon. Members that that is a serious matter from the financial point of view alone. If one could get the figures of the cost of the use of troops and aeroplanes in that dispute for the whole of Great Britain, the Committee would be considerably startled by the magnitude of the sum.

There is another serious objection to the use of troops in trade disputes. It is a fact, which no one will deny, that the private soldiers are the relations, the kith and kin, of the people whom it is proposed to use them against. May I say with all the sincerity I possess, that when the British Government, or any other Government, use troops in trade disputes they are running the biggest risk they possibly can of the revolution so many people are afraid of? It needs a very few men to refuse to obey an order to fire on men alongside whom they work when they are in industrial employment, and a fire may be lighted which some of us would be sorry for. I hope the Government will consider very seriously the psychological effect of asking a soldier to shoot men whom he may have worked with at one time, and the possible conflagration that may ensue. I hope the Secretary of State for War will consider very carefully our proposal before he decides to turn it down. I want to assure him and the Government that Members on this side desire to refrain from doing anything which may cause too much trouble to the Government in times of dispute. I think these parades of troops in affected areas do not act as a deterrent to insubordination and violence, rather, human nature being what it is, the parade of force is inclined to create anger in the minds of the people. It only needs a stone to be thrown or a jeering word from either a striker or a soldier, and awful consequences may ensue. It is for this reason that I move this Clause, and I hope the Secretary of State for War will accept it, and I hope confidently that it will be carried.


I have no intention of delaying the Committee, but I want to add a word, almost of appeal, in the hope that the Committee will pass the Clause. I would ask hon. Members opposite to note the wording of the Clause, and would ask them, if they can, to try to visualise what a serious thing blacklegging is in the minds of the organised workers of this country. In all walks of life people who, rightly or wrongly, but believing they are justified, are taking a stand against what they believe to be an injustice, regard with a feeling of revulsion any of their class who would sell them, as it were, to the enemy by hampering their effort for what they believe to be justice. That is the sentiment of the trade unionist who is fighting for what he believes to be his rights when someone steps in to do his work, either willingly as a civilian, or, possibly, unwillingly as a soldier, by this means giving weight to the side of the employer in the dispute. The new Clause is aimed at preventing that stigma from applying to the soldier by his being compelled to act as a blackleg against the men of his own class who are struggling for what they believe to be right.

My hon. Friend who moved the new Clause has drawn attention to things which have happened as the result of soldiers being brought into industrial disputes. Serious things have happened, and so long as this takes place serious things will happen. I heard murmurs of dissent from hon. Members opposite when my hon. Friend said this display of force was for the purpose of terrorising the strikers, but we all know that it is true. As a trade union servant I have taken part in some industrial disputes, and unless we get some measure of justice hope to do so again, and I have also seen many disputes in other trades. To go back as far as 1897, when there was a mining dispute in the Aberdare Valley of South Wales, where all was perfectly peaceful, I have seen troops of cavalry, lancers amongst them, gallop as hard as it was possible through the narrow streets of a little mining town of Glamorganshire, called Aberdare. Women and children scattered like sheep in front of a motor car, and I know of at least one fatal accident to a child scurrying out of the way. I say, without the slightest hesitation, with my personal knowledge of the peace in that little town, that those troops could only have been galloped through the streets for the purpose of terrorising the miners who were fighting for a living wage and humane conditions of service.

I remember in our own railway strike of 1919, when there was little feeling amongst the men, how, against the wish of the Lord Mayor of Manchester, troops were sent to Manchester by a right hon. Gentleman who sits on the-Front Bench in the present Government. I was at that time an organiser for my union in the Manchester area, and I know that it at once caused a feeling of resentment that had not been prevalent before. Then there was a dispute in South Wales in which troops were brought in at Llanelly, and their interference with otherwise peaceful strikers resulted, all in a few minutes, in people being shot who had nothing whatever to do with the dispute, who had merely come out of their houses and clambered on to their garden walls to see what was going on. That occurred because the troops had endeavoured to force the strikers to do something which was against their code of honour.

Strikes in this country, however regrettable they have been, and may be in future, have been singularly free from sabotage on the part; of the workers. I could, if I were unwise enough, explain to the Committee some of the things which might be done by wild men during a railway strike. I could explain how serious damage could be done in a few moments in a very quiet and unobstrusive manner. Never has such a thing happened, but if the employing classes, assisted by the Government of the day, bring in troops either to terrorise strikers or for the purpose of blacklegging them, I ask the Committee to realise the danger there is of retaliation of the part of men who have merely entered into a trial of strength on the industrial field. We know how prevalent sabotage is in many disputes on the Continent, and that it has not crept into trade disputes in this country speaks exceedingly well for the organised trade unions of this country. There is a feeling of resentment against any such interference in a struggle for the merest measure of comfort in life. If the working people asked for what they were entitled to, they would ask for a good deal more than they do, and I have often marvelled at the moderation of the demands for reasonable wages that have caused disputes. When such a moderate demand brings about a dispute, the working people feel that it is not a fair fight if the military authorities are brought in on the side of the employers to terrorise the trade unionists on strike or to take their places. It engenders a feeling of resentment that, to say the least of it, has a great measure of danger in it.

Again I would refer to the wording of our Clause. It asks, first of all, that as far as it is humanly possible there should be a fair field and no favour in the strike. I know that hon. Members opposite object to the strike weapon. So do we. It is sometimes suggested that we trade union servants can only get our living by agitating for trouble. As one who has been a trade union official for many years, I would much prefer to be able to go to my office and work peacefully in my office with my staff, and quit when they quit, than be up 24 hours a day engaged in a struggle. Like most people, I would rather get my wages easily than be hard worked, but there are times when it is necessary for the workers to take a reasonable stand, and what is the feeling that must be created when, instead of having a fair field and no favour, men under military discipline are brought in to do their work? I have seen quite peaceful strikes with good feeling. That may sound strange, but I have known strikes where there was good feeling, and representatives of the men could meet representatives of the masters and talk quite courteously across the table, almost with friendship, in a desire to get the dispute ended. Immediately the men feel that some other super authority is trying to get blacklegs from organised military forces, you have a new feeling engendered. May I give one other reason. Some time ago we had an important statement from the Prime Minister with regard to peace. I know there are suggestions in regard to Motions in this House to bring about a kind of sitting down together and talking matters over rather than fighting them out. Most of us are willing to do that if the employers will only lay all their cards on the table.

I have never seen that done, but I am something of an optimist and I think it might possibly happen some day. Until that time comes, I think the best way to engender in the minds of trade unionists a feeling that they will get a square deal is to remove the idea of being blacklegged by organised forces. If the men we try to lead, either by our bad leadership or through their heat, break out and use force, we are not asking to be left alone. When you come to try that, we are quite prepared to take our medicine. I recognise that hon. Members opposite would be quite willing to hang myself and other trade union leaders under such circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

We are not asking for freedom to use force and cause disorder. If hon. Members opposite will believe me I assert that British trade unionist leaders are not very likely to cause a revolution. We are the most mild men imaginable, but even trade unionists of this country are still touched with the bull-dog breed; they are still British, and do not like to sit down under unkind and unfair treatment. I wish to state that while I serve organised trade unionists they never shall, while I can fight against it, sit down under such treatment without a protest. We are not asking for freedom to fight with unfair methods. As long as the system of the capitalist lasts, where there is an unholy struggle and an inhuman state of civilisation, while that lasts and whilst there is a struggle between the employer or the shareholders of a company and the workmen employed, you are bound to have trade disputes. What we are asking is that while it is a fair fight you should not attempt to arouse bad blood and the danger of sabotage and cause the feelings of the men to run high by threatening them with organised military forces to blackleg.

We do not like blacklegging or the taking the food out of the mouths of our fellow-workers any more than any hon. Member of this House or any other class of society. There are stronger trade unions than those to which the workers belong amongst the professional classes. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the organisations of the doctors and the lawyers. We form our own organisations, and we are not asking for protection if we take any undue measures. We are not asking for licence or freedom to do anything but fair fighting, but what our Amendment asks for, and what I feel sure that if hon. Members follow their own natural humane instinct they will give us, is the removal of this threat which is held over the heads of trade unionists of bringing in blacklegs in the guise of organised military forces.

The Army does not like to be used in this way, and it is very obnoxious to them. It breeds bad blood and tends to continue the fight. If the House will pass this Amendment, and let it be known to the organised workers that the Government is prepared to give an earnest of their intention to bring forward something to carry out their suggestion about sitting down and talking things over, and undertake not to introduce organised military forces, you will be much nearer to that round-table conference, at which we can talk things over calmly and coolly, than you are when the spirit remains deep in the hearts of trade unionists that they are not only fighting the employers, but that there is always the danger of the British Government coming down upon the side of the employer.


I think the hon. Member who has just spoken puts his claim very low indeed when he says he is only asking for freedom to fight fairly. If that was what the new Clause really meant there would be no need to discuss it. The new Clause, however, is something quite different. It is one intended to prohibit the soldier being used in aid of the civil power. May I point out that it is the common duty of every one of us to come to the aid of the civil power if it needs assistance on any occasion.


I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the amended Clause we are now discussing.


Yes, I think I am. I think the Clause which has been moved does what I have suggested, because it speaks of "the general conditions of the contract to be entered into" by the soldier.


The new Clause we are now discussing is the amended form of the Clause on the Paper.


May we have the new Clause read out to the Committee?


It is quite a long Clause, and I will read the first part of it. It says: The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful, to call upon such recruit to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Of course that is not the full Clause. There is no provision in it relating to the Emergency Act, which is not necessary for the purpose of my argument. If this were inserted there would be a condition under which the soldier would not be called upon to take duty in aid of the civil power. That is the intention of the new Clause. The whole speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was directed to the iniquity of ever calling upon a soldier to act in aid of the civil power because he might be called a blackleg. No Government could exempt the disciplined soldier from a liability which under the common law applies to every civilian.


Surely we are mixing the two things up. We are all liable to be called upon to support a policeman if he is being attacked, but we are not called upon under the civil law to go and do work on the railways when there is a strike, and that is what my hon. Friend was alluding to.


I do not think I have misunderstood the intention of tins Amendment. One object of the Amendment is that you should not use a soldier to do a civilian's work, and that is the particular object of the Clause. Another object is that you shall not ask him to act in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute.


In connection with blacklegging.


I do not understand this proposal in that way. The Committee has not had the opportunity of reading the Amendment, and we are being asked to accept something which we do not quite understand. But even if the hon. Member is right, I must refuse to accept this proposal. I understand the hon. Member argues that troops should not be used in aid of the civil power, and I cannot agree with that as a fundamental proposition. Supposing the civil power has to be supported, any Government, whether it is a Labour Government or a Liberal Government, if ever there is one again, or a Conservative Government, would be bound to reserve the right to use the troops as a last emergency in aid of the civil power, and it is better that they should so use them in such cases than use an undisciplined mob. It is much better for the people of the country, because then the right people are protected, and more than necessary damage is not done, in connection with a trade dispute. I do not believe it will be possible to draw a line between aiding the civil power in some cases where there are other reasons outside a strike. You can imagine the police being overwhelmed, and they ought to be aided, and a case where there is a riot and a strike going on in the neighbourhood.

Why does a riot arise? It might arise out of a trade dispute or something else, and are you going to say that if the civil power calls for assistance you are not going to give it because it is in connection with a trade dispute? As far as the troops are concerned there is no duty they dislike so much as having anything whatever to do, even with supporting the civil power in connection with a trade dispute. I am quite sure of this, that whoever is at the War Office they will hesitate long before consenting to put troops in the sort of conflict which the hon. Gentleman has depicted just now. That is the last thing they would be willing to do. While I say that, I cannot accept this proposed new Clause. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to proceed with the other new Clauses on the Paper, but, if so, perhaps they would come to a Division, if they decide to divide on this one now.


Will not the right hon. Gentleman read the proviso?


I do not want not to read the proviso. It is as follows: Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation"— that is to say, the previous stipulation, which I have already read— shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists. That means that, after an emergency, the troops could be used notwithstanding the first part of the Clause; but that is not really of any great value to the hon. Members themselves, because Parliament is not going to be shut up. Supposing that troops were used, supposing that the hon. Member's fears were realised, and that the troops were used in the way he was depicting; Parliament is sitting, the attention of Parliament can be called to it, and, unless Parliament gave its support, the troops, of course, would have to be withdrawn at once.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 281.

Division No. 69.] AYES. [7.48 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hirst, G. H. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Ammon, Charles George Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sitch, Charles H.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smillie, Robert
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snell, Harry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Broad, F. A. Kelly, W. T. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Bromfield, William Kennedy, T. Stamford, T. W.
Bromley, J. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lansbury, George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buchanan, G. Lawson, John James Sutton, J. E.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Lee, F. Taylor, R. A.
Cape, Thomas Lindley, F. W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Charleton, H. C. Livingstone, A. M. Thurtle, E.
Cluse, W. S. Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Mackinder, W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Connolly, M. MacLaren, Andrew Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W. G. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Viant, S. P.
Crawfurd, H. E. March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Warne, G. H.
Dennison, R. Montague, Frederick Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Duncan, C. Murnin, H. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H. Naylor, T. E. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Fenby, T. D. Oliver, George Harold Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Gibbins, Joseph Palin, John Henry Welsh, J. C.
Gillett, George M. Paling, W. Westwood, J,
Gosling, Harry Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Pethick, Lawrence, F. W. Whiteley, W.
Greenall, T. Ponsonby, Arthur Wignall, James
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Riley, Ben Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, T. Ritson, J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grundy, T. W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Windsor, Walter
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Wright, W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur Sexton, James Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brass, Captain W. Cooper, A. Duff
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Briscoe, Richard George Cope, Major William
Albery, Irving James Brocklebank, C. E. R. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham) Crook, C. W.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Buckingham, Sir H. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Atholl, Duchess of Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Atkinson, C. Bullock, Captain M. Curzon, Captain Viscount
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Burman, J. B. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Balniel, Lord Burton, Colonel H. W. Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Butler, Sir Geoffrey Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Barnett, Major Richard W. Butt, Sir Alfred Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Campbell, E. T. Drewe, C.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cassels, J. D. Eden, Captain Anthony
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Berry, Sir George Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Bethell, A. Chapman, Sir S. Ellis, R. G.
Betterton, Henry B. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Elveden, Viscount
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Christle, J. A. England, Colonel A.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Clarry, Reginald George Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Blundell, F. N. Clayton, G. C. Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Boothby, R. J. G. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Everard, W. Lindsay
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Fermoy, Lord Knox, Sir Alfred Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Finburgh, S. Lamb, J. Q. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Fleming, D. P. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Forestier-Walker, L. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Ropner, Major L.
Forrest, W. Loder, J. de V. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Lord, Walter Greaves- Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lougher, L. Salmon, Major I.
Fraser, Captain Ian Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Frece, Sir Walter de Lumley, L. R. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Galbraith, J. F. W. MacAndrew, Charles Glen Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ganzoni, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sandon, Lord
Gates, Percy McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macintyre, Ian Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Gee, Captain R. McLean, Major A. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John Macmillan, Captain H. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Goff, Sir Park Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Grace, John McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Shepperson, E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) MacRobert, Alexander M. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Grotrian, H. Brent Makins, Brigadier-General E. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Margesson, Captain D. Smithers, Waldron
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Hanbury, C. Meller, R. J. Sprot, Sir Alexander
Harland, A. Merriman, F. B. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Harrison, G. J. C. Meyer, Sir Frank Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Haslam, Henry C. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hawke, John Anthony Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Moreing, Captain A. H. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Templeton, W. P.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Murchison, C. K. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Herbert, s. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Neville, R. J. Turton, Edmund Russborough
Hilton, Cecil Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Waddington, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Holt, Captain H. P. Nuttall, Ellis Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Oakley, T. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wells, S. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Owen, Major G. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Pennefather, Sir John Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. B., Richm'd)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Perring, William George Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Winby, Colonel L. P.
Hume, Sir G. H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Huntingfield, Lord Philipson, Mabel Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hurst, Gerald B. Pielou, D. P. Wise, sir Fredric
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Pilcher, G. Womersley, W. J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Preston, William Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Jacob, A. E. Price, Major C. W. M. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Jephcott, A. R. Radford, E. A. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Raine, W. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Ramsden, E. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Kenyon, Barnet Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Rawson, Alfred Cooper TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kindersley, Major Guy M. Rees, Sir Beddoe Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry
King, Captain Henry Douglas Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Barnston,
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rice, Sir Frederick