§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to 1147 make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th day of February last.This is an Address which is necessary under the Military Manœuvres Acts.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)This is exempted business.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSBefore an Order can be presented to His Majesty in Council, it has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament for 30 days. This Order has been laid before Parliament for the necessary time, and I am now asking that an Address to His Majesty in Council be presented, so that an Order can be made bringing into operation the Military Manœuvres Acts, providing for manœuvres in Cambridgeshire and North Oxfordshire.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI have no objection to the Order itself, but I want to protest about the way in which it has been circulated to hon. Members. I went to the Vote Office thinking copies of the Order would be available, but I found that not a single copy was to be obtained. I was referred to the Library, and there I found one copy, which the Librarian absolutely refused to allow to be taken away. I do not offer any great opposition to the Motion, but I do protest against an Order of this kind which may or may not contain important matters not being available in the Vote Office for Members. In courtesy to the House, the Secretary for War ought to have seen that copies were provided for Members. I hear an hon. Member remark that copies were provided but that they have all been stolen. I would not make that suggestion, but I think a Government which spends large sums of money in foolish ways, ought to spend a little in seeing that documents of this kind are properly circulated among the Members of the House. As I say, I have no great objection, personally, to this Order, but I understand that certain other Members have objections to it. My own belief is that if the Secretary of State for War knew his business, as he is paid for knowing it, he would have had this document properly circulated and he would thus probably have avoided any objection being raised. [HON. MEMBERS: 1148 "Divide !"] If hon. Members are going to shout "Divide !" I would remind them that, while I have no wish to delay the House, I am probably the one man here who, has read this Order and there are points in it affecting the taking over of land which could be very usefully discussed by this House. It particularly affects rural areas, and if the Members for such areas were doing their duty, there are several important points which they could raise in connection with it. I do not represent a rural area, but I am entitled to make this protest, and to point out that the Secretary for War would probably have saved a Division on this question if he had taken proper steps to circulate this Order beforehand.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am not surprised that my hon. Friend does not object to this draft Order, because it relates to the counties of Oxford, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Kent, and it is not proposed to hold these manœuvres in Scotland. I am going to ask the House to divide on this Order for a different reason from that urged by my hon. Friend. I agree that it ought to have been available for Members. The copy which I have here is the only copy in the House of Commons and I only got it under strong protest from the Library, and on the undertaking that I would return it. I am sorry, therefore, I cannot trust any other hon. Member with it. I object, however, to a matter of this kind being taken now, on the ground of the lateness of the hour. This is not a time for the Government to bring forward this Motion or any other Motion. They have introduced a very drastic guillotine Motion in order, so they said, that they should not have to ask us to sit late at nights. Under cover of that Motion, they now try to force through this draft Order. We object to this expenditure on manœuvres for a number of reasons.
In the first place, there have been no naval manœuvres since the War. The First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place and he knows that on the ground of economy no grand scale manœuvres of the Navy have taken place since the War, and therefore I object to this expenditure on Territorial manœuvres on dry land. [Laughter.] Well, some of these counties are very muddy at times. Secondly, I am not sure that the military manœuvres that we carry out now serve any useful purpose for training troops. I believe 1149 that the days of infantry are over, and that there will be no more going into action of naked infantrymen—naked, in the sense of men who are not armoured. The place of the infantry will be taken in future by what is now known as the one-man tank, and if you are going to have manœuvres with these, you will do immense damage to the crops. Our countryside is suffering severely from other causes already, and this is no time to present humble Addresses to His Majesty authorising these manœuvres. The county of Kent is either very enclosed and unsuitable for military manœuvres, or else it is on the coast, and it not a county where coastal combined operations should take place. Before the German War, there might have been some reason for using Kent for manœuvres, but there is no reason now, especially at a time when the French President is in the, Capital of this country. Our principal objection to this Address—and I think it is most reasonable—is that after a guillotine Motion has been put in operation, the Government have no right to bring forward so-called exempted business in this way.
§ Mr. HARRISI think the House is entitled to know what expenditure is involved in this Address. These manœuvres must involve a very considerable sum in compensation for damage done, and at a time of great financial stringency, when our expenditure is excessive, when even hon. Members opposite are inquiring into our expenditure and pressing on the Government the need of economy, we should not blindly pass a Prayer of this character without knowing what expenditure is involved.
Mr. BECKETTI want to oppose this Motion, because I think it is an entirely wrong practice into which the House has got of putting down these Motions and Addresses as a matter of course, and leaving them without discussion. The Minister in charge just gets up at a late hour of the evening and gives us a perfunctory explanation, which is no explanation at all, and the House automatically passes what may be a Motion imposing considerable hardship on a section of the community, which may be an act of coercion in any number of different ways. I think that at least an important Address of this sort should be brought forward in the normal time of 1150 the House. If the ordinary work of the House is so unimportant that it can be perfunctorily closured at half-past ten, I suggest that an important matter of this sort might be taken at a more reasonable time.
I hope that, before the House is called upon to register its decision, we shall have a much more detailed account of what is proposed to be done under this Order in Council. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that this only refers to four of the home counties, but those counties should be of very great use in solving our rural and food problems, if the Government were considering them as closely as they would have us believe. At present we have a population of nearly 50,000,000 people to support on a very small island, and we are only growing food for 12,000,000 or 14,000,000. With an overseas trade which is largely decreasing through the obstinate and malicious policy of the present Government it is surely time for the House to consider whether four of our most fertile counties should be used as a playground for brass-hats and the unfortunate troops they march about the country. If there were the slightest use in these manœuvres, if there were any possible enemy in the world, it would be a different matter. Some say it is China, but I do not think that even the present Government would be so foolish as to think of policing that vast country with a British Army, although they may intend to saddle the taxpayer with a needless and prolonged expenditure at Shanghai. The Chinese situation is certainly no adequate reason for this Order.
We are often told that we on this side of the House know very little about military matters. It is true that we only supply the cannon-fodder for the ill-educated generals on the other side. Perhaps one of the military experts on the other side would say what possible use we could make of this Order. What possible use can there be in interfering with four of our best counties and inflicting upon our troops a vast amount of marching under the ridiculous burden which the Secretary for War still insists that they should carry? Our troops are practically the only troops in Europe that carry a load under which a donkey might well stagger. Our brass-hats know nothing about the possibilities of 1151 mechanical transport. In nearly every European country the soldiers are being relieved of their kit while marching. Apart from the human side, it stands to reason that an army whose infantry marches light must be on the spot long before our tired and exhausted troops. Yet the Secretary for War, who seems to be even less interested in these matters than the big-wigs at the War Office who, presumably, advise him, comes to the House and thinks he is going to sneak through at midnight an Order which is going to perpetuate this foolish waste.
This is not a question of whether we believe in having an Army or not. There is a big division in the House upon that. I think it is a waste of time and money, and that we should do better to build houses. Some hon. Members think otherwise. But that is not the problem we are now discussing. The problem is not at this moment whether you are to spend money and time, and worry the King, who has enough to do with all the trouble the Government are giving him, in order to have an efficient Army, but to be able to read in the newspapers how the Pink Army chased the Blue Army over Blank-shire. Anyone who has ever had any experience at all of military matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I was learning about military matters from the bottom end when many hon. Members on the other side were wondering whether it was their job to go into the War or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you volunteer?"] Yes, on the 4th August, 1914, but I should like to know what particular merit there is in volunteering. It merely meant that I was a bigger mug than my friends who did not go.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis is rather far away from the question of military manœuvres.
§ 12.0 m.
Mr. BECKETTI am very sorry, but I was answering a question which was addressed to me. I was saying when I was interrupted by a quite unnecessary question, that anyone who has any experience of military matters knows that these manœuvres do not bear any resemblance to real warfare, and are not of the slightest use in working out the problems with which we should be faced in war. If we present this humble Address to His Majesty—and I should like to know why the Address is humble; 1152 the House is not humble when interfering with the rights of hundreds of thousands of his subjects—if we present this Address to His Majesty, and His Majesty makes the Order in Council, and the Secretary of State uses all the powers given to him in the Order in Council, will there be a single line of useful information added to the War Book, which, we understand, the right hon. Gentleman keeps in his Department, that is, if the War Book is still here, and has not gone to Russia. As a friend of Russia, I hope it has not gone there, because if it is as foolish as the one we had before the last War, it may cost a lot of lives and money before it is finished with. I would like to enter an emphatic protest against this Motion being brought forward now after a most unscrupulous and cowardly evasion of debate during the day; against it being sneaked in by the back door, without any explanation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed it with that extraordinary air of self-sufficiency which Ministers representing the fighting Services always display in the House, indicating "The Army says we want it, and therefore we must have it." If the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the corner seat below the Gangway were here he would agree that that is the attitude of the Ministers of the fighting Services; he found it to be so, especially during the War, when one of the Ministries had a pugnacious Minister in charge. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has very swiftly absorbed the traditions of his Department. He comes to the House and says: "The people in Whitehall want this, we are going to ask the Government to give it, but as a matter of courtesy we come to you. The Army is a sacred matter. You are not supposed to know anything about it except that it is there." Many civilians got to know something of the Army and Navy during the late War, and the sooner some of the lay people begin to take a closer interest in the fighting services, instead of leaving themselves to be governed in these matters by the people who make a job of looking after the affairs of the Army—and a very bad job of it—the better it will be. In legal affairs we are governed by the lawyers; but when the House is discussing railwaymen's wages or miners' wages, hon. Members 1153 object to being governed by the wishes of the railwaymen or the miners, and I suggest that in Army affairs the House should go a little beyond the view that we ought always to be governed by our professional and technical advisers.
I hope the Secretary of State for War will tell us more about this matter. We realise that he is very busy making a war of his own on the trade unions, and probably has not much time for the dull routine duties of Whitehall, but we should like to see him as stern in the War Office as he is on the subject of trade unions. Let him ask the military authorities Why they want the manœuvres and how much they will cost; how much inconvenience will be caused to farmers and whether the growing of food will be restricted. If the State get these powers over the land it would be better to use them to grow food communally for the people. We know that the War Office and the Admiralty beat every Minister who is at the head of them if he opposes their wishes, but we want the right hon. Gentleman to show his superiority complex, and we want him to find out all about this proposal and then inform the House, so that we may have a better Debate. It is far too important a matter to be discussed to-night. Hon. Members opposite are usually standing in the House in dozens when anything arises which concerns the Army or Navy. I do not see why it should be left to the rank and file to look into the matter, and I hope the lieutenants, the captains, the colonels and the generals who decorate this assembly will get up and give us the benefit of their views on these manœuvres.
§ Mr. PALINGIs the right hon. Gentleman not going to answer some of these questions? [HON MEMBERS: "No !"] I want to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a full explanation at the commencement, the necessity for all these speeches would not have arisen. It is because he is trying to hide the facts that those speeches have been made. I want the right hon. Gentleman to have the courtesy to answer the questions or get up and say that he cannot answer them.
§ Mr. MAXTONSurely the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"]—is going to respond to our very reasonable speeches. There is no 1154 sense in adopting the attitude of the silent, strong man at this hour of the night, when the offensive part of our business is over. That was limited to 10.30 by the Guillotine, and why carry it on now? Why not try to be a decent, humane being for 10 minutes, and let us all go to bed in a reasonable frame of mind? I know less about military manœuvres. than my hon. Friends, but I have some measure of common sense. I understand that these manœuvres do not commence for another month or two, and, therefore, this question might be brought up again when the Guillotine business is over, or else the right hon. Gentleman should explain clearly why this business has been brought forward to-night. If the manœuvres were starting to-morrow and it was a question of urgency, I could understand it. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 15th June !"] If that be so, then there is any amount of time. I ask the Secretary of State for War to be reasonable and let us know to what we are committing ourselves, and how much the agriculturists are likely to suffer in those particular counties which are affected. We want to know what expense is involved. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us a complete statement, we shall be delighted to allow this business to go through.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI can only state again what I said before. I will answer two points. The hon. Member who opened the Debate seemed to think that there was some discourtesy to hon. Members because this particular document was not to be found at the Vote Office. The Paper was laid on the Table in the ordinary way, and it is to be found in the Library. Therefore, hon. Members must not blame me in this matter, and, obviously, there is no discourtesy. The other question put to me is, why has this business been brought forward to-night and what is the urgency of it? It is that three months' notice has to be given by advertisements in local newspapers that the Order in Council is made. The manœuvres do not start until September, and I have to give notice to those whose land will be passed over during the manœuvres. This is the proper procedure in regard to military manœuvres, and it safeguards the interests of those concerned in the land and of the taxpayers. I cannot go 1155 into the question of cost; we have gone into that already on the Estimates, and I hope hon. Members will realise that there is not the slightest discourtesy intended.
Mr. BECKETTMay I put a further question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should allow me to be shouted down before I have asked the question.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has already answered questions, and he answered only by leave of the House.
Mr. BECKETTI only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, while accepting his explanation that there was no discourtesy intended because of this document not being placed in the Vote
§ Office, whether he could say if, in the event of his being in the same official position next year, copies will be available in the Vote Office?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is not a question for me. I could only do so by departing from the Rules of the House.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESWill the right hon. Gentleman make sure that next year the Address is presented to His Majesty at a more convenient hour than a quarter-past twelve?
§
Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th day of February last.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 82.
1157| Division No. 134.] | AYES. | [12.13 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Daikeith, Earl of | Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L.(Bootle) |
| Albery, Irving James | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Drewe, C. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Duckworth, John | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hopkins. J. W. W. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Ellis, R. G. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | England, Colonel A. | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Jacob, A. E. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton) | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Fenby, T. D. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fielden, E. B. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Finburgh, S. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Ford, Sir P. J. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Forrest, W. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Fraser, Captain Ian | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lamb, J. O. |
| Burman, J. B. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Cassels, J. D. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Loder. J. de V. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Looker, Herbert William |
| Cayzer, MaJ.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Goff, Sir Park | Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gower, Sir Robert | Lumley, L. R. |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Grace, John | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Grattan-Doyie, Sir N. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Grotrian, H. Brent | McLean, Major A. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol,N.) | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Cope, Major William | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecen & Rad.) | McNelil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Couper, J. B. | Hammersley, S. S. | Macqulsten, F. A. |
| Courthope Colonel Sir G. L. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Harland, A. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Harrison, G. J. C. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hasiam, Henry C. | Meller R. J. |
| Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) | Hawke, John Anthony | Merriman. F. B. |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Waddington, R. |
| Morden, Col. W. Grant | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew,W.) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Neville, R. J. | Shepperson, E. W. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Skelton, A. N. | Wells, S. R |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Oakley, T. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Pennefather, Sir John | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Storry-Deans, R. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Pilcher, G. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Withers, John James |
| Preston, William | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Radford, E. A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Raine, W. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Rees, Sir Beddoe | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Remer, J. R. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Ropner, Major L. | Tinne, J. A. | Captain Bowyer. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayday, Arthur | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Potts, John S. |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Riley, Ben |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bromley, J. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Scurr, John |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Kennedy, T. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood. D. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lansbury, George | Taylor, R. A. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gardner, J. P. | Lee. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Lindley, F. W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gillett, George M. | Livingstone, A. M. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lunn, William | Welsh, J. C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Whiteley, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Maxton, James | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R, Normanton) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hardie, George D. | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Harney, E. A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |
§ To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
1158§ It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock a.m.