§ In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment) after the word "persons," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "of not less than eighteen years of age," and after the word "may," where that word first occurs, there 6hall be inserted the words "upon production of his birth certificate."—[Mr. Beckett.]
I was appealing to the sympathy of the Committee on the grounds that the new Clause was merely designed to put into practical effect a decision which has been repeatedly affirmed by members of all parties and governments of all kinds in this House. It has been objected for a long time that it was not a fit and proper thing for young boys to he accepted in the ordinary way for Army engagements below the age of 18 years. Therefore, I am hoping that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee because not only is it putting into practical effect what the House has already decided, but it is also calculated to save the country some considerable expense and to help the responsible Minister in that task in which so far he has not been any too successful, of reducing the amount of the estimates 1202 which he presents to the House every year. It is also calculated to relieve to a very great extent the difficulties which commanding officers of units find themselves in and the difficulties and troubles caused in many homes through the present very peculiar way of enforcing this rule at recruiting stations. The fact that the Amendment is needed and is not dealing with too insignificant a matter is proved by a very incomplete set of figures I have been able to accumulate from various reports presented to us by the Secretary of State for War. In the last three years for which I have been able to obtain official figures I find that of boys, not under 18, but under 17 —and I think there are more cases between 17 and 18 than there are under 17—the actual discharges in 1922 were 711, in 1923 T93, and in 1924 503, making a total in three years of something over 2,000. From the most material point of view it is a waste of public funds and putting the expressed desire of the House to an absurdity when 2,000 boys under 17 are recruited, although it would be a very simple matter, by making them produce their birth certificates, to see if they were not under age. Two thousand boys are taken from their homes, presumably medically examined, there is all the cost to the State of their recruitment, the issue of uniform and equipment and if they are in a specialised unit, many other expensive articles of apparatus. Before any possible return can be made to the State for the money that is expended on them, 2,000 of them returned to civil life simply because Parliament has expressed the view that boys under IS should not be in the Army, but has not laid down any effective measures to prevent them getting in.
I was very much surprised in a Debate on a somewhat similar Amendment last year to read the speech of the Financial 1203 Secretary to the War Office, who put forward the argument that many of these boys come of families with warlike traditions, deceive the State and take the State's money by false pretences with the full consent of their parents, and it would be very annoying to those parents if they were to return to their homes, and therefore he must reject the Amendment, which would make it impossible for this form of fraud to be perpetrated on the State. That is a very surprising argument to be put forward by a responsible Member of the Government. There is hardly any other Act of Parliament in which Members would not regard with strong disapproval a suggestion put forward from the Front Bench that the Government must by all means encourage lying false sworn statements and a wilful deception of His Majesty's recruiting office, and an absolutely fraudulent expenditure from the Exchequer. I hope whoever replies will not put forward a highly immoral argument of that sort. In previous debates we have been told that if the parents are in difficulties they can go to the commanding officer and if it is a necessitous case the commanding officer will see what can be done. I have served under several commanding officers and have been before them on various charges and have received from them both good and bad treatment. The very fact that a commanding officer is removed from ordinary contact with the industrial, social and business world makes him a very poor judge in an issue of this kind. In many eases you do not apply to the commanding officer. If you are lucky the case gets to the adjutant, but in most cases it rests with the sergeant-major. That is the kind of safeguard which this House-proposes for these unfortunate boys. It means waste of expenditure upon recruits, and trouble and consternation in thousands of homes. I have made inquiries and have asked hon. Members of all parties and they tell me that they have had cases brought to their notice of boys who have gone into the Army against their parents' will, by making a false statement. I have the details of five cases, but only in one case was I able to get the boy returned. In one case there was a great deal of worry and trouble. The mother, a widow, was 1204 almost off her head because her boy was ordered abroad, and, unfortunately, he went abroad before I was able to call the attention of the Department to the case.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member now appears to be arguing the next Clause. Perhaps it is not desired to move the next Clause, but as it is germane, the arguments may be taken on this one.
If I am going outside this Clause I am sorry. It seems to me such an unfair thing that while we safeguard almost every kind and section of the community by Acts of Parliament and give them adequate safeguards against Acts of Parliament, we chose boys not old enough to know their own mind, who are very often at the most irresponsible period of their lives as exceptions. If these boys entered into any contract with a moneylender they would not be held responsible for their actions, but because such a boy commits himself to a most serious thing, with the possibility of death either from rifles of enemies of this country or at the hands of a firing squad of his own countrymen, as was done in the last war, and we still allow these boys to commit themselves without making any safeguards. Even where no active and official opposition is offered to the release of these boys great difficulties are experienced by poor parents who do not know how to approach the matter. The trouble is due to the fact that they are told, quite unofficially, that if they take legal steps to get their boy out of the Army—
§ The CHAIRMAN
If it is proposed to move the subsequent Amendment I suggest that the argument on both should proceed now, and if that be accepted we might have the two Divisions afterwards.
I have no authority to speak for the promoters of the second Amendment, and I submit that when I am moving an Amendment which asks that boys should not be admitted under 18 years of age that I am within the limits of that subject in dealing with the expenditure of time and money caused by the present state of affairs.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am trying to assist the hon. Member. I think it is difficult to discuss the two Amendments apart, and my suggestion is that they should be 1205 discussed together, and, if it is desired, the two divisions can be taken afterwards.
The parents of these boys are told that if they take legal steps to get their sons' discharge, then steps will be taken to punish the boys for the wrong statements they have made. The parents are not sufficiently aware of the law and its procedure to know that that is an absurd suggestion, but a fear of that kind does weight largely with many of them. Having said quite definitely that 18 years of age is quite early enough for boys to go into the Army, this House foolishly allows this law to be broken, putting the State to great and unproductive expenditure and the parents to much worry and misery.
§ Mr. SCURR
I only want to say that I think the Secretary of State should accept the Amendment which stands in my name. I commend it to him as good sound Tory philosophy. We ask that family life should be maintained, and that, I understand, is good Tory philosophy. We shall know whether it is by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with it. At the same time it is common sense as well. If a lad under 18 has joined the Army by deceiving the recruiting officer, and his parents disclose the fact that he is under that age and want him back, the mere fact that they make the application should be quite sufficient. We ought to get rid of all the trouble and annoyance which is caused at present.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I cannot accept either of these Amendments and I will say why. The first Amendment would prevent us from enlisting boys as musicians or for the technical training classes in which they are now legally qualified to obtain a very good technical education. The position at the moment is that, if a boy gives his age wrongly on enlistment, and it is found out afterwards that he is under 17, he can get and does get his discharge immediately. If he is over 17 and under 18 he does not get his discharge, except upon some compassionate grounds. If 1206 there is a case made out on compassionate grounds, he is released. It has been shown that 500 were released in 1924 and TOO in the previous year. That shows, surely, that in proper cases no serious difficulty is put in the way of release from the Army.
§ Mr. R. MORRISON
Could not all that trouble be avoided by asking for production of the birth certificate?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The proposal of the Amendment is that the birth certificate should be called for. There are many reasons why I do not want to insist upon a birth certificate. I do not want to make it difficult for young fellows to join the Army. I do not wish to say to them, "Who are you? Go away and bring your birth certificate." Suspicion would immediately arise that for some ulterior motive we are wanting to know whether his parents were married or when they were married, or something of that sort. I do not want to interfere in the least with the parents or their circumstances. When a boy presents himself for enlistment, provided he is over 18 and he looks as if he were— there is a check in that—quite clearly if he is suitable physically and so forth, there is no reason why he should not be accepted. I have told the Committee how, if there is a real reason on compassionate grounds, he gets out. When the hon. Member talks about obstacles being put in the way, of the boy being threatened or the parents threatened with legal proceedings because of the boy having mis-stated his age, I challenge him to put to the Committee, or to me, a single case in which anything of the sort has taken place. It is not true.
What I said is within the knowledge of the Committee. I said that I did not suspect hon. Gentlemen opposite or any responsible people. My statement was that the parents were given the impression, and many of the ignorant ones were under the impression, that they were liable to charges being brought against them on account of the boy having made a false statement.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I accept the correction, of course. I understood the hon. Member to say that threats were made either to the lad or to the parents. No one has any authority 1207 to make any such charge. I do not believe that any such threat has been made, and if the hon. Member will give me any single case in which he says that a threat has been made, I will have it-investigated and see that it does not occur again. This proposal was made last year. It is a hardy annual and I hope the Committee will shortly come to decision upon it. I cannot accept it and I do not suppose the Mover expected that I would.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
The reply of the right hon. Gentleman ignores the essential feature of this proposition. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view and that he would not desire to put any obstacle in the way of the enlistment of a boy. It is a question, however, as to who should have the over-riding decision in determining the career of a youth between the ages of 16 and 18. That is the vital point The right hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest that the boy is the person to decide. If the boy desires to join the Army the right hon. Gentleman, from the War Office point of view, will be satisfied. But, surely, the parent has a right in this matter. Let us assume the case of a boy who has been trained for a trade, or whose education has cost money; who has passed from the primarily to the secondary school and has arrived at the age of 17. He may be a head-strong boy and may be corrected by his parent for some conduct of which the parent disapproves. That boy in a fit of pique or of irresponsibility suddenly decides to join the Army. That may be all right from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite but if one of them objected to his own son doing it he ought to have an over-riding decision in the matter. Quite often a boy because of some little domestic difficulty takes the bit in his teeth and it is an injustice to a parent if his boy is to be allowed to choose a career in that irresponsible way. It is too big a choice for a boy to make and a parent has the right to demand that a son who is not of mature age should be withdrawn from a calling to which the parent objects.
There is another objection. In the course of the last few years there has been great controversy on the fundamental principle of the rightness or 1208 wrongness of military service. I am not going to raise that issue except in a secondary way. I am prepared to grant that there is an age at which a person ought to have perfect freedom to make the decision whether he can or cannot join the Army. I honour the decision of the person who decides for himself to join the Army. It is not for me to interfere with him or sit in judgment on him, but it is a decision which, sooner or later, may involve the further difficult decision as to taking life or not taking life. For a person over the age of 18 we have nothing to say except to leave to him that decision, but I submit that for a boy of 17 to take the very grave decision as to whether he can or cannot at some future time take another fellow creature's life is handing over to a child—for what else is he?—a very grave and serious responsibility indeed. I think, therefore, that on those two grounds, the gravity of the decision the child makes and the overriding right of the parent over a child's decision at that age, the right hon. Gentleman might give a much more favourable consideration to our submission. The third point was this. He said he does not want boys prevented from joining the musicians' side of the Army. Very well. There is no objection to their joining, provided they can get their parents' consent, but suppose a parent objects? It seems to me that the parent should have the final right of deciding till the boy is 1S. After that age, personally, I would be prepared to leave it to the individual, though I still think that age is rather too low, but under 18 I think no boy ought to have the right to take so grave a decision in regard to his future life.
§ Mr. GARDNER
It is very nice for the Minister to say that no parents are threatened, but when parents approach the recruiting office and the officer tells them they have rendered themselves liable to prosecution, it is open to that construction. I am certain the Minister cannot deny it, because I have had personal experience of it in cases in which I have been interested. One of the theories taken in regard to this position is that the recruiting officers are deceived. It is very hard to deceive an old soldier, and I venture to say that any recruiting officer getting an application from a boy under 18 to join the 1209 Army has got his mind made up at once as to exactly what his age is. Every boy joining the Army has to give two references, and the authorities have to take up those references before the boy is approved. Why cannot the War Office at the same time as they are taking up those references as to his character, get on the telephone to the Registrar-General's office and find out the boy's age? There is no need to see his birth certificate, so far as they are concerned. The fact is that the War Office look at this question from the point of view of getting the boy in. The previous speaker referred to the question of a boy whose education may have been continued to a mature age for the ordinary boy, but there is a still more serious consideration. Some parents make sacrifices and place their boys in the way of making a comfortable livelihood in their after years, but the War Office, in taking up this attitude, are in the position of ruining the chances of those boys, who may be turned down at the age of 25 or 26 and put upon the labour market to join the large number of people who have no suitable employment.
I hope the Minister will give us some promise that he will do something to meet us on these points, and so prevent
§ the worry and anxiety many parents now suffer, and relieve himself of a considerable amount of correspondence which he has to deal with in cases of this kind.
§ Mr. PALING
I was not altogether disappointed, from one point of view, to hear the Minister's reply. He said it was not altogether desirable that we should ask a young lad joining the Army to produce a birth certificate. Sometimes it was difficult to obtain, involving a lot of inquiries, and at times inquiries which were not altogether desirable. If that be a good argument in the case of young recruits for the Army, I hope he will communicate his views to other Departments which are so keen on demanding the production of birth certificates in connection with claims for widows' pensions or old age pensions. These certificates are asked for in cases where it is almost impossible to secure them, and people who are in urgent need of the money are kept waiting for months; but when it is a question of a young man joining the Army no certificate is necessary.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 214.1211
|Division No. 62.]||AYES.||[11.47 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Potts, John S.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardle, George D.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Rlley, Ben|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayes, John Henry||Ritson, J.|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Scurr. John|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Batey. Joseph||Hirst W. (Bradford, South)||Shleis, Or. Drummond|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snell, Harry|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, H6nry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Sullivan, J.|
|Cape. Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clowes, S.||Kelly, W. T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Compton, Joseph||Kirkwood, D.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lawrence, Susan||Townend, A. E.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawson, John James||Vlant, S. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lee, F.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lindley, F. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)|
|Dennison, R.||Lunn, William||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||Mackinder, W.||Westwood, J.|
|Dunnico. H.||MacLaren, Andrew||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Whiteley, W.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Maxton, James||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Gardner, J. P.||Montague, Frederick||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.||Morris, R. H.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Glbbins, Joseph||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Gillett, George M.||Naylor, T. E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Oilver, George Harold||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenall, T.||Owen, Major G.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Palin, John Henry|
|Groves, T.||Paling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grundy, T. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Edwards.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Agg-Gardner, Ht. Hon. Sir James T.||Ganzonl, Sir John||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Alnsworth, Major Charles||Gates, Percy||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Albery, Irving James||Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Pennelather, Sir John|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Goft, Sir Park||Penny, Frederick George|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Gower, Sir Robert||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Grace, John||Perkins, Coionel E. K.|
|Atkinson, C.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Ballour, George (Hampstead)||Greene, W. p. Crawford||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Balniel, Lord||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Philipson, Mabel|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Radford, E A.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Raine, W.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ramsden, E.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Harland, A.||Remor, J. R.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Blundell. F. N.||Hawke, John Anthony||Ropner, Major L.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hermessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Sanders, Sir Robert A,|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Burman, J. B.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cayzer, Ma). Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Huntingfield, Lord||Smithers, Waidron|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Jacob, A. E.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jephcott, A. B.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Kindersley, Major Guv M-||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Cope. Major William||Knox, Sir Alfred||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Couper, J. B.||Lamb, J. Q.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Templeton, W. p.|
|Colt, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leigh, Sir John (Ctapham)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Tinne, J. A.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Locker- Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Looker, Herbert William||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lougher, Lewis||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Watts, Or. T.|
|Davies. Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Lumley, L. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Duckworth John||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Elliot. Major Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|England, Colonel A.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Wise. Sir Fredric|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Falls. Sir Bertram G.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Merrlman, F. B.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Meyer, Sir Frank.||Woodcock. Colonel H. C.|
|Finburgh, S.||Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ford. Sir P. J.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Forestler-Walker, sir L.||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Forrest, W.||Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Bowyer.|
|Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|