§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEI beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
in the opinion of this House, further steps should be taken to develop Cadet Corps and inquiry made as to the possibility of increasing the supply of Candidates for Commissions in the Army by making the conditions more attractive.I think there is satisfaction in all parts of the House at the statement of the Secretary of State for War regarding the grant of £15,000 for the Territorial Cadet Corps which the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to renew. There may also, however, be a feeling in this House and throughout the country, that £15,000 is not a generous contribu- 126 tion from the State to an organisation which is doing such valuable work for the youth of the country. I would remind the House that this sum represents only a small portion of the money required for this purpose, most of that money being in fact raised by the cadets and those who support the movement. The cadet organisation of 1914 numbered about 40,000 and I observe that in the War years that number was raised to about 100,000, showing that when there was war there was an immediate movement to increase the supply of these cadets. It will be in the recollection of seine hon. Members that in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 a grant was made by the Government of between £30,000 and £40,000 for the cadets.In 1923 the grant was removed altogether, but in 1925 it was restored in a reduced form. A few months later, however, a further statement emanated from the Government, to the effect that it was doubtful if even that smaller grant was to be relied upon. It is evident that it is almost impossible to carry on the work of these cadet corps as it ought to be carried on, if there is to he such uncertainty as to what is going to happen in the future. The grant at present, is a small one and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able not only to say that this £15,000 will be given in future, but also to indicate that the Government look with a favourable eye on the work of cadet corps and on the possibility of increasing the State support of the movement. I quite realise at a time like the present when we are dealing with the necessity for economy in all branches of the administration, even a sum of £15,000 is not to be ignored, but I ask the House to remember the comprehensive evidence which has been given from time to time by those most closely connected with cadet corps as to the value of the organisation, especially for the poorer sections of the community and in the training of youth. I am not prepared to argue the merits of cadet corps primarily from the military point of view and I do not think it necessary to do so. I do not think that is the point of view from which we might to look at the matter. The question is: What are the physical and moral advantages which accrue from this system of training? I noticed with great 127 interest that the late headmaster of Eton, speaking of officers training corps, said:
Leaving the question of militarism on one side, what has been the educational effect of the Officers Training Corps? Without any hesitation whatever, I assert that it has been good in proportion, as it has met with encouragement and co-operation from the authorities. It trains young fellows to think through doing, and it is only a small minority who can learn think in any other way … No boy, however bookishly inclined, can get anything but good from a field day or oven from the ordinary drill in the Sandhurst gymnasium. Observation, alertness, responsibility for quick decision and quick inference, and, above all, obedience, besides all the splendid physical effects—these are some of the desirable effect of our Officers Training Corps' work. … I am quite confident that the military training is entirely free from the taint of militarism, and that in its positive influence it is one of the best and most wholesome agencies in education that has yet been devised.That is the evidence in regard to the Officers Training Corps, and there is equal evidence in connection with cadet corps. From all parts of the country there were great expressions of regret when it was found that the Government were going to withdraw this grant in 1923, and equal expressions of satisfaction when it was found this year that it would be restored. I hope, apart from any question of military value, the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to give encouragement to these corps. I hope he will also make it clear that the association of the cadet corps with the War Office will continue, so that the boys may not look upon the work of these cadet corps simply as an extra series of lessons—to which it is natural for boyhood to object—but that it will be regarded as a definite and separate training of boys for their civil and patriotic duties, as citizens of the country who are preparing to take part in the country's defence if necessary.I also wish to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the position of another class of cadets, namely, those who earn commissions in the services by entrance to the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College. If, as appears to be the ease, our Army is to be a very small one then it is essential that it should be extremely efficient and at no time has it been more important than at the present that we should have men to lead the Army and to direct its 128 destinies drawn from the very best class of candidates we can find. I am led to believe that there is by no means a superfluity of candidates for admission to the Royal Military Academy or the Royal Military College at present. I do not know that there is actually a shortage, but I believe there is no surplus. The House should insist that the conditions for those candidates should be such as to bring about the entry of boys of the very best class. In that connection, the action of the War Office towards a certain section of Woolwich cadets is not likely to encourage the entry of boys of that class or to make them satisfied at the outset of their military careers. It has been brought to my notice that certain Woolwich cadets who passed the entrance examination in November, 1923, are today in a worse position than similar cadets who passed into Sandhurst at the same time and are suffering under disabilities as regards their future outlook which are not likely either to inspire confidence in the candidates themselves, or encourage other parents to enter their sons for the Army.
In October, 1925, a Royal Warrant was issued which reduced the pay and prevented these candidates from getting promotion for a further year. In effect, they were put back for a year. The position is best summed up in this way. The candidates for Sandhurst and Woolwich respectively, passed the examination at the same time in 1923 and certain of the Woolwich candidates who took the highest marks find themselves to-day, six months behind other candidates who passed into Sandhurst with a lower number of marks. That is a most extraordinary position. The period of training in Sandhurst was reduced to 18 months, but in the case of Woolwich it remains two years. The Royal Warrant which reduces this pay and delays their promotion operates before the Woolwich cadets have completed their training and the result is that after they leave Woolwich they find themselves in the position of being behind Sandhurst cadets who obtained fewer marks at the same examination, and they have lost six months' pay, six months' seniority and, in the end, most of them will lose six months' service towards pensions. I feel that this matter cannot have been thoroughly under- 129 stood in the War Office. It has been said that
the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office,and this certainly seems to be an illustration of the difficulty which even in the early stages of his career an officer experiences in getting a grievance of this sort dealt with adequately. The military authorities have made it clear in an Order issued by the Army Council that the ability to pass with high enough marks to enter Woolwich was of greater merit than in the case of Sandhurst. That Order run, as follows:A candidate succeeding to a vacancy at the Royal Military Academy, for which his order of merit does not entitle him, will forfeit any cadetship he may have obtained at the Royal Military College.Yet the extraordinary result is that candidates who in the examination in October, 1923, got, say, 5,000 marks are to-day six months better off in pay, seniority and eventual service for pensions than candidates who got 12,000 marks. I do not know what the reason for this may be. I am told it is possibly due to the fact that at the time the Royal Warrant was issued, there was a revisal of the period of training in view and that the period for Woolwich had not been settled, whereas at Sandhurst it had been settled. That may or may not be the case, but it is unfair that the candidate himself should suffer by any default or delay, inevitable or otherwise on the part of the War Office. I do not enter into the merits of the question of whether the training should be two years or 18 months. I do not intend to give any expression of opinion on that point, although very definite opinions have been expressed against the reduction of the period. But if it is, in fact, not advisable to reduce the period then we have this further extraordinary result that, in fact, the Sandhurst candidate, having done 18 months' training at the expense of his parents is now really getting a further six months' training with pay as a 1st Lieutenant at the expense of the State, whereas the Woolwich candidate who got better marks has to do that six months' training at the expense of his parents and also lose pay and seniority.I think it will be agreed that as there is a guarantee on the part of the parent when he enters his son as a candidate at 130 the Royal Military Academy or the Royal Military College that he will undertake to continue the payment for the cadet for such period as the State requires, there is also an implied guarantee on the part of the State that nothing shall be altered to the detriment of the candidate from the time he enters until he gains his commission. I think the House fully appreciates the position which I have tried to put before it and will agree that it is one which we are justified in pressing on the Secretary of State and asking that he will, without delay, have it put right, because once he clearly understands how this small number of candidates is suffering because of the application of the Royal Warrant, I am confident that the matter will be put right.
§ Major S. HARVEYIs it not also a fact that these candidates who have been to Woolwich now come under the new scale of pay, which, in fact, is less than the pay which the candidates who have been a shorter period at Sandhurst will draw under the Royal Warrant?
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEI think that is the case, and it, of course, strengthens the argument very much, indeed. At any rate, from the points of view of inequality of treatment, of losing seniority for six months' pay, and service for pension, there is sufficient, I think, to make the House feel justified in asking the Secretary of State to put these matters in order. The procedure for doing that seems to me to be perfectly simple and easy. The remedy is to antedate the commissions of the Woolwich cadets to the same date as those who passed into Sandhurst at, the same examination. If that were done, it would remove the inequality of treatment, it would remove a feeling of soreness, and it would remove what is really having a very bad effect, not only on the candidates themselves but on those who are responsible for recommending an Army career for them.
SOMERVILLEI beg to second the Amendment.
I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word on the question of the supply of officers, because I have for many years done what I could to increase that supply. It has been my experience that a considerable proportion of the candidates with the best brains has gone into the Cavalry. I mention 131 that because the Cavalry has been referred to sometimes as the "stupid arm," but the proof that a considerable proportion of the brains of the Army has been in the Cavalry arm is to be found in the fact that such a large proportion of the highest commands in the Army, beginning with the Commander-in-Chief, at the end of the War, were drawn from the Cavalry. The Haldane Committee in 1923 made several recommendations. They recommended the raising of the lower limit of age to 18, they recommended revision of the instruction at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and they recommended that the principle of selection should be introduced with regard to promotion. I was very glad to hear from the Secretary of State that that principle is now to be extensively introduced, and at the same time I was glad to hear him say that there would be no interference with the esprit de corps and the traditions of a regiment, because the effect of the esprit de corps and the traditions of a regiment has been to produce a constant supply of officers for that regiment, generation after generation, and anything that would interfere with those two great influences in the Army would tend to diminish the supply, instead of, as at present, increasing it.
There were other recommendations of the Haldane Committee, and those recommendations have been, to a large extent, adopted, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the effect of adopting them still continues to be favourable in the supply of officers. He told us last year that the conditions of supply were gradually improving and that the number of commissions from the ranks was 30, from the universities 34, and from Sandhurst and Woolwich 395. I would like to ask whether the supply of candidates from the universities is being maintained. The Haldane Committee recommended that commissions gained by candidates from the universities should be antedated, and it would be interesting to learn whether the effect of that antedating has been to maintain the supply of candidates from the universities. I am sure the House was gratified to hear that there are 45 cadetships kept at Sandhurst for candidates from the ranks, and that it was parti- 132 cularly gratified to hear of the recent brilliant success of one of those candidates.
My right hon. Friend told us that there was no shortage of officers at the present time except a seasonal shortage. The general impression at present is that there is a considerable shortage of candidates for Sandhurst, largely due to the fact that those candidates have to gain a school-leaving certificate before they can be accepted. It is true, I believe, that any candidate who has gained a school-leaving certificate ipso facto enters Sandhurst, but one would like some information on that point. With regard to inducements to maintain the supply of officers, the chief inducements, I think, are the feeling that the profession of a soldier is a profession equal to any other profession, that it is a real profession of a permanent character, that the instruction at Sandhurst and Woolwich is of the best kind, and that officers constitute a profession which is necessary and useful to the country.
§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTTI desire in a couple of sentences to enforce the appear which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) in regard to the relative disability which has been imposed upon those cadets who have respectively come out of Woolwich and Sandhurst last year. As far as I am able to understand the case, a very grievous and unintelligible disability has been placed upon those better candidates who obtained entrance to Woolwich in October. 1923, and I hope that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office comes to reply to this Amendment, he will give to the House an assurance that that matter will be carefully inquired into and that an apparent wrong will be set right.
§ Captain KINGI think it may be for the convenience of the House and for the expedition of business if I reply to this Amendment now, so that we may get later on to a general discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) has raised a point. first of all, with regard to the Territorial cadets. I am afraid that he has not given us full appreciation for the grant which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen his way to recommence both for last year and for the coming year. I would remind him that not only 133 is there this grant of £15,000, but we also give considerable advantages to these Territorial cadet units in assisting them to carry out their training. I will not go into details, but he is probably aware that there are various points such as the use of War Department lands, the loan of camp equipment under certain conditions, and also, when commands are able to spare qualified instructors, they are allowed to be loaned to the cadet units. I will not go into the actual details beyond pointing out to my hon. Friend that the War Office, as a Department, is doing a considerable amount for those very estimable units. He has drawn the attention of the House to their physical and moral advantages. I quite agree. The physical and moral advantages are really in excess of the military advantages, and, therefore, the War Department should hardly be called upon to defray the whole of the cost of such units.
When they were first started, and indeed after 1908, when the War Department first gave any recognition to these units, it was understood that the bulk of the expenses of organisation and administration should be defrayed by public subscription. There are many philanthropic people who take a great interest in the training of boys, and they provide the funds necessary for the training of these units. They still do so to a large extent. My hon. Friend was saying that the War Department had found some £30,000 to £40,000 per annum in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, but that was because, after the War, the philanthropic supply of funds had fallen off very considerably and was not nearly sufficient to meet the needs of the largely increased numbers of boy cadets who had joined during the war time. It was in 1923–24 found impossible to continue that support, and, therefore, they were deprived of the assistance from War Department funds, but I am very glad that it has been found possible to make the grant for last year and the present year, because it may interest the House to know that these Territorial cadet units are of very real assistance to the recruiting both of the Territorial Army and of the Regular Forces. I have here the details for the years 1921 and 1922. In 1921 the direct enlistment in the Territorial Force from Territorial cadet units amounted to 1,962 and in other branches of His Majesty's Forces to 1,535. In 1922 134 the figures were, for the Territorial Force, 1,425, and for other branches of His Majesty's Forces 1,288.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEDoes not my hon. and gallant Friend think, in view of those figures, which are extremely interesting and valuable, and considering that some 80 per cent., I am told, of those applying for enlistment last year were rejected as unfit, that a small grant of £15,000 is the very least that can be expected, and much too small an amount for the Government to give?
§ Captain KINGI am justifying the expenditure from War Department funds of such a sum as £15,000. In these hard times, when all other branches of His Majesty's Services have to be cut down, I think it is extraordinarily satisfactory that we can adduce such figures of direct enlistments in the forces as to justify the expenditure of £15,000 per year. The other point that my hon. Friend brought forward was with regard to certain cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, cadets who joined Woolwich at the same time as a certain batch of cadets joined Sandhurst. It may clear the matter a little if I point out that at Sandhurst they do a course of 18 months, and at Woolwich a course of two years. Therefore, previous to this time, it has always been the case that the cadets going to Woolwich would answer the description my hon. Friend has put, that they lose six months' seniority—they lose six months' time.
That has been the case throughout, because the term of the course at Woolwich is six months longer than the course at Sandhurst, but where the real hard ease which is put forward has occurred, is in the introduction of the new rates of pay for officers, which came into force as from the 26th October of last year. That was a definite date on which the pay of all newly commissioned officers was based. As so often happens in a case of any definite date, any actual line of demarcation usually leaves certain hard cases on either side of the line. Of these particular cadets, we find that the cadets just passed out from Sandhurst on the right side of the date line. The Woodwich cadets, having to complete another six months, unfortunately came on the wrong side, and come on the new rates of pay. That 135 regrettable position in which they found themselves has been carefully considered, and I am glad now to be able to inform my hon. Friend that a decision has been arrived at as follows: The Woolwich cadets are to be antedated, when they are commissioned, to the date on which the Sandhurst cadets (who entered at the same time) got their commissions for the purposes of Army seniority, and for eligibility for the pre-26th October, 1925, rates of pay, and promotion to lieutenant after two years instead of three years. It will affect them in two ways—on the question of pay and on the question of promotion. I think everybody will realise it is one of those cases where a hard dividing line would fall with harshness on a particular body of men.
§ Brigadier-General WARNERIs it intended to ante-date in future all the commissions of the Woodwich cadets?
§ Captain KINGI was careful in reading out these particular words to say it was for that particular batch of cadets only. This decision could not go further than that. Those are the ones largely affected in comparison with their brothers from Sandhurst, and that particular batch of cadets from Woolwich are the only ones to which I am referring. The only other point to which I need reply is that
§ raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) with regard to the effect of the Haldane Committee's Report on the entrants to commissioned rank. I will only say it is too early to be able to give a definite opinion on the effect of those proposals. I would point out that with regard to entrants from the Universities, the entrants are very considerably better in the summer term than in the winter term. It is not possible to give exact details, but I may tell my hon. Friend that in one particular summer term, under the terms of the Report., we obtained 70 entrants from the Universities. That, of course, is a very satisfactory figure, and we hope that those conditions may continue.
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEAt the end of the summer term the course is completed?
§ Captain KINGTwice a year they join. I do not think there are any further points raised, and I would ask my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to allow it to be negatived without the necessity of a Division.
§ Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes,85.
137| Division No. 92.] | AYES | [7.51 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Albery, Irving James | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Cope, Major William | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Couper, J. B. | Hanbury, C. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Balniel, Lord | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Berry, Sir George | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hennessy. Major J. R. G. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Hills Major John Waller |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Elveden, Viscount | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | England, Colonel A. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C,(Berks, Newb'y) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Holt, Capt. H. P. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Homan. C. W. J. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Burman, J. B. | Fermoy, Lord | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Forrest, W, | Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Casseis, J. D. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Gee, Captain R. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Jacob, A. E. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Peto, G. (Somerset. Fronie) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Phillpson, Mabel | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Radford. E. A. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Raine, W. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Ramsden, E. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Loder, J. de V. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Remer, J. R. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Lumley, L. R. | Rentoul, G. S. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Ward. Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Macintyre, Ian | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| McLean, Major A. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Ropner, Major L. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Rye, F. G. | Wells, S. R. |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Margesson, Capt. D. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexhem) |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Shepperson, E. W. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) | Withers, John James |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Smithers, Waldron | Womersley, W. J. |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Murchison, C. K. | Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F. (will'sden, E.) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westm'eland) | |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Storry-Deans, R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Oakley, T. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer. |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Strickland, Sir Gerald | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Renale (Penistone) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Snell, Harry |
| Batey, Joseph | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Broad, F. A | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Bromfield, William | Lansbury, George | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cape, Thomas | Lindley, F. W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Clowes, S. | Lowth, T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Clynes, Right Hon. John R. | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Compton, Joseph | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Connolly, M. | Mackinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Cove, W. G. | Montague, Frederick | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Dennison, R | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Duncan, C. | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gillett, George M. | Potts, John S. | Windsor, Walter |
| Gosling, Harry | Purcell, A. A. | Wright, W. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ritson, J. | |
| Groves, T. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. | |
| Hardie, George D. | Scurr, John |
Bill read a Second time.
§ Supply considered in Committee.
§ [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]