HC Deb 17 April 1928 vol 216 cc97-113

"In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment), after the word 'person,' 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 shall be inserted the words 'upon production of his birth certificate.'"—[Mr. Dunnico.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Hope. There is much in common between the Clause standing in my name and the following Clause. Is tit possible to take the two together as far as discussion is concerned?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)

I think that, if there is general agreement, that will be a convenient course, it being understood that there is only one discussion.


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

The substance of the Clause, if not its actual terms, has been moved now for several years. Hitherto the Government have refused to concede the request contained in it, and if to-night there is nothing original in the Clause or in the speeches supporting it, I hope there will be something original in the Government's reply, and that it will be affirmative rather than negative. The request in the Clause is a very sane, sensible and reasonable one and, on grounds of principle or expediency, there is no real answer to the case. We are simply asking that the procedure governing entrance into the Army shall be brought into line with that governing entrance into any business house or bank, the teaching profession, the Civil Service, the Inns of Court and all professions. I have never been accused of being unduly biased on the side of the defence forces of the country, but I recognise that, under existing conditions, a defence force is necessary and, in view of that, I see no reason why the calling of a soldier should not be as honourable as any other professions. Yet, if the answer of the Minister last year to this request is to be taken seriously, he hardly accepts that view. He gave two reasons for refusing this request. The first was that it was necessary to take recruits under 18 to maintain the band. That is rather a paltry excuse for embarking on so serious a procedure. The other reason he gave was that, if a birth certificate were demanded from the new recruit, it would hinder recruiting. I admit there may be occasions where its production might give certain private domestic information which the applicant would prefer to keep private. That argument, if it be an argument at all, would apply not only to the Army but to every other calling and profession.

I ask the Minister of War whether he would be in favour of exempting applicants for the Civil Service, the teaching profession, the Inns of Court, or a business house from producing their birth certificates, because, if there be an argument against the production of birth certificates on enlistment, there is a far greater argument for exempting those entering the Civil Service from producing their birth certificates than there is for exempting those entering the Army under 18 from doing so. In the first place, the entrant to the Civil Service or a profession has a certain degree of freedom. If he dislikes it, he can retire from it, but the boy under 18 who joins the Army has mortgaged his liberty and freedom for many years ahead and has really affected his whole future life. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to accept either this Clause or the subsequent Clause. If the Army is to maintain its high position, if the profession of the soldier is to be an honourable one, he ought not to condone lying in the case of a man who gives a false age to enter the Army, but he ought to treat that with severity as in the case of an applicant for entrance to the Civil Service.

I have a large number of statistics dealing with recruiting in the last few years, but I shall not weary the House with them. Roughly speaking, there has been an average of about 2,000 recruits a year under 18 in the past two or three years. The average number of discharges in the last two or three years is, roughly, from 230 to 250. Think of the enormous waste of time and energy, and the anxiety connected with these cases. Although 230 gained their discharge, I wonder how many have been refused. In my own constituency, I had to make several applications to the right hon. Gentleman. What are the circumstances? A boy enlists under the age of 18. He can gain exemption only on compassionate grounds. These compassionate grounds involve frequently a written guarantee that, if the boy is released, he has a situation to which to go. Take my own constituency as an example. There you have widespread industrial depression, and a large number of youths unemployed and partially employed. These youths, living with their parents, have been struck off the unemployment payment registers. In a moment of despair and recklessness they enlist. I apply to the right hon. Gentleman for exemption or discharge, and he asks me to get what is humanly impossible to get, a written declaration that these boys, if they are returned, will be provided with a situation.

Some hon. Members may say that it is far better for a boy to be in the Army than to go back and be unemployed. My reply is that if the Army is to be a real Army, an Army of which we can be proud, and of which a man who enters it can be proud, that Army should not be recruited from boys under 18 who are driven to join by starvation, poverty and misery. If the Army is to maintain its high traditions, if the profession of a soldier is to be an honourable one—and I hope to live to see the day when armies as we know them will not be necessary—but so long as they are necessary, so long as we have the profession and calling of a soldier, let us see to it that only men are accepted of mature age and sound judgment, who of their own free will give themselves to a calling of which they will have no need to be ashamed in after life. For these reasons, I ask the Secretary of State for War sympathetically to consider the Amendment.


I hope the Minister will say something sympathetically of the two Amendments. I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) has just said, because all who have been in the Army know that some of the boys are band-boys, and it would be necessary to have an exception to the age of 18 in their case. I agree, however, that there is a strong case that, for normal, serving soldiers, the age of 18 laid clown in the Section ought to be the age, and if boys make a false attestation they ought not to be held to their term of service. I have had five cases of this kind from my own constituency. The right hon. Gentleman always treats these cases with the utmost consideration, care and sympathy. I was not fortunate enough to get all the five out, but I got one out, and, therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Consett that it is humanly impossible to get a guarantee of employment, because in thin case we did.


I was dealing with my own particular constituency.


I understood it to be a general argument. I apologise to the hon. Member. In numbers of cases, it is possible to get the guarantee. The, onus should be on the enlisting authorities to see that the birth certificate is produced, and to see that boys are not taken under the age of 18. This is a serious matter in time of war. It was my misfortune to serve in a platoon in the early days of the War with a boy who enlisted as 18, but was only 16. He was a fine, upstanding fellow and a perfect soldier so long as we were in England, but overseas he had a trip or two to the trenches and crocked up, and had to be sent home. It ought not to be possible for that kind of thing to occur. Very often these lads go off in a fit of temper; there is a dispute at home, and in a moment of temper they rush out and enlist, and as they know that they cannot get in under 18, they swear that they are 18, although they know that they are under a penalty for making a false attestation. It must be one of the most difficult tasks the Minister and his assistants have to face when they get letters from parents or Members of this House seeking the release of boys on compassionate grounds, and when, either because they cannot prove that they are the sole support of their parents, or because no guarantee can be given that employment is waiting for them, they have to be refused release. Since 18 is laid down as the age for the normal serving soldier, the production of a birth certificate should be necessary—some other arrangement should be made, but if that is technically impossible, the boy should be allowed to be taken out on demand by the parents, except when they enlist for the purpose of the band.


The case is a simple one. Is a boy of 16 mature enough in mind to make so momentous a choice as joining the Army? At 16 one is not mature enough, either physically or mentally. One's convictions are not formed at the age of 16. There are a great many friends of mine who, during the War, were conscientious objectors. There were very few who had these convictions at the age of 16. A boy may enlist in the Army, and a little later may find that his whole conscience is against the calling which he has undertaken. Again, a boy of 16 cannot judge whether he has the physical hardihood to qualify for a soldier. We spent the earlier part of this afternoon hearing that the death penalty for cowardice was necessary for the Army. The Committee has agreed that that penalty for failure in physical courage is necessary for the existence of the Army. How can a boy of 16 know whether he possesses that quality, which of all others is necessary for a. soldier? An immature choice may mean the unfortunate young man, who has mistaken his capability, having to suffer the penalty which the Committee has reaffirmed. Where a young man enlists with the consent and knowledge of his parents, it may be said that his parents are competent judges of his character, but I would remind the Committee that quite a considerable number of boys are sent into the Army from either Poor Law or industrial schools, sent in, that is, by people who cannot have the knowledge of the boy's character and capacity that the parents might have.

It is a very easy thing to get into the Army. What a desperately difficult thing it is to get out! I think the Committee does not realise how difficult it is. I am going to give a story of what happened in my constituency, a story of how we were successful in getting a boy out of the Army. There was a widow in my constituency who fell into very bad circumstances, and whose children were taken over by the guardians. She was later, however, able to make a good home for the children, and she got the young children back. The eldest boy had been sent to the Nautical School at Portishead, and, when she tried to get him back, she was told that he had been enlisted in the Army at the age of 16. She did all she could; she wrote to the captain, she wrote to the colonel, and she wrote to the War Office. She went herself to the War Office, protesting that she had never given her consent to the enlistment. One and all, the captain, the colonel, and the War Office, refused to allow the boy to go home. She came to me three days before the day fixed for the boy's sailing, and told me the story. I rang up and wrote to the War Office, and I received by telephone and by letter an answer that, unless I would guarantee £20, the boy would sail for India in three days. I have not £20 to throw away for every deserving case in my constituency, but in this case I backed my own judgment, and I told the War Office that I would pay the £20 if the enlistment proved legal. The War Office agreed to make inquiries, and about a month later I received a letter from the War Office saying that they had now looked into the matter and found that the enlistment was not legal, and that the boy could go home.

That is a perfectly true tale. If that widow lady had not gone to her Member at the eleventh hour, and if the Member had not taken the sporting chance, the boy would have gone out to India, and the family would have been left without him. But for the cutting-out expedition which I and the widow conducted against the War Office, he would quite illegally have been sent to India, That woman could not, in spite of all her letters and all her going to the War Office, have got the boy out if she had not had the judgment to go to somebody who is accustomed to deal with these matters. There are many cases where parents desire to get their boys out. I am afraid there are a good many cases of children in Poor Law and industrial schools who are sent into the Army in the ordinary course of events. Some boards of guardians refuse to do it; Stepney has refused, and they have refused rightly, because children of that age are too young to make such a choice. The Government ought to be ashamed of recruiting the Army from Poor Law and industrial schools. You do not want men in the Army who are unfitted for the Army, and neither boards of guardians not the Minister can tell whether a boy at 16 is of the stuff to make a soldier. I therefore hope that the Government will consider this question, and will at long last take these arguments into consideration.


There is an aspect of this matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. In Section 76 of the Army Act are the words: Provided that the Army Council in special cases or classes of ease may be order direct that where a boy has enlisted before attaining the age of 18 the period of 12 years shall be reckoned from the day on which he attains the age of 18. This raises another side of this issue which points, I think, to a great injustice. A person of mature years is entitled to his discharge after 12 years' service, but in the case, let us say, of a boy of 16½ who has enlisted in the Army, the 12 years' service does not start from the day of his enlistment. He may put in 1½ years—he does not necessarily do so—until his eighteenth birthday, and only then does his 12 years' service start. I think I observe the Secretary of State shake his head with reference to that statement, and I shall be glad if he will correct me if I am wrong.

Inasmuch as I am responsible, with other friends, for the next Clause, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two regarding that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has said, the point is a very simple one. It is: who ought to be responsible for determining, in the case of a boy of immature age, the career which he is to follow? I am sure hon. Members opposite would not dream of allowing their children to choose a career without reference to them, to determine the whole of their future upon the impulse of a moment, and I do not think we ought to allow even the children of the working class to make such decisions unless they have the consent of their parents. As everyone knows, occasions arise quite frequently where parental authority has to be exercised in regard to a boy's conduct, and in a moment of pique or of petulance the boy decides to join the Army. That is not a matured and deliberate decision. It is an impetuous decision. But, nevertheless, it determines the boy's life for the following 12 years, and, as I think, for the following 13½ years, if he happens to be only 16½ years when he joins. It may very well be that the boy's action may occasion a good deal of financial loss to the family. It is quite possible that the boy has been kept by his parents at a secondary school until he is 17 years of age, and he may have cost them a good deal of money, for his maintenance, at least, if not for school fees. Then, suddenly, he is attracted by the idea of going into the Army; possibly some older friend of his has already joined, and persuades him to enlist, and all the sacrifice which the parents have made is lost. I think the parents ought to have a determining voice as to his career until the bay reaches the age of his maturity, and it is because of our desire to reserve to the parents the final decision in this matter that I have put down the Clause which stands in my name. The object of it is this: where a boy has enlisted before the age of 18 the parent, if he or she thinks fit, can claim the discharge of the boy on the ground that he has made the decision contrary to the desire of the parents and at a time when he is not fit to make a final decision himself. For these reasons I propose to move presently the Clause which stands in my name, but I would be very glad meantime if the right hon. Gentleman would let me know the War Office reading of the Clause or portion of the Clause which I have read out.


There is one point with regard to the release of these boys which has not been touched upon and on which I would like to say a few words, because it makes it practically impossible to get any of these lads out of the Army if their commanding officers decide that they cannot be released. Not only has the application to be made upon compassionate grounds and accompanied by a guarantee that work has been found for the boy, with the wages which the boy will receive stated, but the commanding officer has to be satisfied that the boy will be better able to assist his parents in the job which they have found for him than he will be if he stays in the Army. Only if the commanding officer is satisfied on that point will he recommend the release of the boy, and in certain cases that makes it practically impossible for the boy to be released. Quite recently I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a case in which the release of a boy was refused on the ground that the commanding officer was not satisfied that the boy would be of more use to his parents if he were at home than if he were in the Army. To my mind it would be more honest if the authorities were to reduce the age of enlistment. As has been pointed out from these benches, it is not honest to enlist a boy at 17½f age and not start to count his pensionable service until he is 18 years of age. I passed when I was 16, and I had a cousin, killed in France before he was 18 years of age, who had joined up at the age of 16 years and eight months. It is quite possible for a boy to join up and fulfil all the requirements of the service before he is 17 years of age, and I think it would be more honest to reduce the age and give the boys all to which they are entitled than to penalise them in regard to the term of their pensionable service. My principal object, however, has been to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great disability which is occasioned by the right of veto which is vested in the commanding officer of the boy's regiment.


I will deal, if I may, with both Clauses at the same time, but first I will let the Committee know what is the existing practice, because quite obviously they are not quite familiar with it. If a boy enlists when he is under 17 it is the practice, if his parents desire him to be discharged, to give him his discharge without any inquiry except as to proof of age. There is no question of compas- sionate grounds or any other grounds. There is no question of holding a boy between 16 and 17, and so the questions which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) asked as to whether he was sufficiently matured to make up his mind to adopt the Army as a career or not really do not arise.


In the case I gave, in which I showed that it took such a long time to get a boy out, the boy was under 17.


Then his age could not have been known. That fact was not known to the War Office. The hon. Member was kind enough to remind me of the grounds upon which that case was decided. I had a vague recollection of it; I remember dealing with it. That was undoubtedly a mistake. It was a mistake in law, because it was thought at the time by the recruiting officer that the Board—it was not a board of guardians, but, I think, it was a Scottish local authority—it was thought that this particular Scottish local authority stood in loco parentis to the boy and could give a parent's consent. After the hon. Member had called attention to the facts, and after investigation, it was found that the supposition was wrong, and that the particular local authority had not the power which it was thought they had, and which boards of guardians have, of giving consent as if they were the boy's parents. That was a particular case, concerning a particular local authority, and a wrong view taken by a recruiting officer. As soon as the facts were made known, the mother had no difficulty in getting the boy out—[Interruption.] No, as soon as we knew what the facts were we did not attempt to hold the boy. If enlisted under 17 years of age, the recruit is allowed to go. If over 17 and under 18, the recruit is held, unless there are compassionate grounds upon which his release can be claimed. That is not unreasonable, as I think hon. Members will see if they consider the matter for a moment. The State goes to very considerable expense with a recruit, teaching him, training him, feeding him, clothing him and so on, for, perhaps, two or three months, and, if the boy says he is 18 and if he looks 18—


But what about the certificate?


I will deal with the certificate in a moment. If he looks 18 and has been taken into the Army, having mis-stated his age, it would not be right, after the State had been put to the expense of £20, £30, £40 or £50—well, £30 perhaps—that then the boy should leave. That might happen time after time if there were no deterrent. What is done is this. If the parents can show that their need is great, and that at home the boy could get employment and earn more money, which would be at their disposal, than the money he could allot to them out of his Army pay, then, upon compassionate grounds, the boy is not held. I am sure that every Member, or nearly every other Member in the House, has had some such case as that, and knows that that is how we deal with them. I should be willing to dispense with having to investigate these cases, but at the same time they are considered sympathetically and with a desire to do justice—


Your reply is dealing simply with the economic side. A much more important side of the question is as to the boy being put into a calling for which he is absolutely unsuitable and against the wishes of his parents. That is the main issue.


I cannot deal with the subject all at once. Let me work through the economic side to the side with which the hon. Member wishes me to deal. To start with, the boy comes to us because he wants to come. Nobody forces him to offer himself as a recruit, and even after he has first thought of coming he has plenty of opportunity before he has finished with his medical examination, and so on, of changing his mind. But, anyhow, he does come. To say that he ought to bring his parents' consent is only to say that we ought to do what we do now when we know the boy is under 18, as in the cases where we enlist boys as drummers and buglers and where we enlist boys—I think the number is 400 a year—to be trained in the engineering schools. There is a waiting list of these boys; they are keen to come, and they come with their parents' consent. Those are boys whom we know are under 18, and we do not knowingly take a boy under 18 without his parents' consent.

Take the case of a boy who is, in fact, under 18 years of age, although we do not know it, and who has of his own willing accord gone to the recruiting office to be enlisted. He is looked over, and if he is obviously under 18 years of age he is rejected. The hon. Member asks me why the War Office do not protect themselves by asking for a birth certificate. I have frequently heard protests made against the production of birth certificates in connection with National Health Insurance. In those cases objections have been raised, and I know why. I do not want to start an inquisition into the whole life of every recruit who applies for enlistment. If it were absolutely necessary, I should have to face the disadvantage of taking that course, but it is not absolutely necessary. The number of cases where hardship arises from boys joining the Army under 18 years of age is quite infinitesimal, and the system under which we now operate of letting those boys leave the Army where compassionate grounds exist meets the justice of the case. For these reasons, I cannot accept the new Clause. The proviso which has been referred to in Section 76 is intended for the purpose of enlisting the drummer boy, the bugler boy and the tradesmen, and it is not used far any other purpose. That Section does not give us any power to deal with boys who are under 18 years of age, and it is only used for those whom we know are under 18 years of age.


The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is only in cases where economic circumstances warrant it that the boy under 18 years of age is released. When the parent supplies the commanding officer or the War Office with definite proof that the boy was under 18 years of age when he enlisted, and when the parents state that they do not desire the boy to remain in the Army, I think the War Office should release him. If they do not do so, it undoubtedly means that the enlistment age is not 18, and a boy can enlist under 18 years of age, irrespective of his parents' consent. The War Office should allow a boy under 18 to be taken out of the Army quite irrespective of compassionate grounds. I have had to deal with several of these cases. I have always found that the Secretary of State for War has met my cases very fairly, and quite spontaneously. I give him every credit for doing that. At the same time, I think it should be laid down specifically that a boy under 18 years of age who has enlisted because of the glamour of Army life put before him by one of his churns should be released if his parents apply for his release. I do not blame the recruiting officer or the War Office, but I do not think the War Office ought to hold on to the boy if his parents desire his release. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will decide to release boys who have joined under 18 years of age when he is requested to do so by their parents, quite irrespective of the ground that the boy can bring more money to his home from employment in civil life than by continuing to serve in the Army.


Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that, if a parent applies for the release of a boy within three months of the boy's enlistment, he being under 18 years of age, they can get him out of the Army by paying £20. That is an average figure which does not more than compensate the State for the expense. The hon. Member for Govan seems to forget that there are a good many cases of parents who desire their boys to leave the Army, but the boys themselves do not wish to do so.


In ordinary circumstances, parents have control over their children until they reach the age of 21 years.


Is it not a fact that the commanding officer has to determine whether the boy is likely to contribute more to the family by employment in civil life than by continuing in the Army service? The commanding officer may very much desire to retain the services of a boy on account of some special qualification, and he may be of the opinion that the boy is likely to earn more for his parents in the Army than if he were allowed to go to the job specified upon his application form. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us an opinion upon that point.


Is there any Government service which a man can join without having to produce his birth certificate?

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 207.

Division No. 76.] AYES. [7.54 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hardie, George D. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Baker, Walter Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Scrymgeour, E.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hirst, G. H. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bondfield, Margaret Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shinwell, E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Broad, F. A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smillie, Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cape, Thomas Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Sullivan, Joseph
Connolly, M. Kirkwood, D. Sutton, J. E.
Cove, W. G. Lansbury, George Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh Lawrence, Susan Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Harry Lee, F. Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. Lowth, T. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dunnico, H. Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gibbins, Joseph Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wellock, Wilfred
Gillett, George M. March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Murnin, H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenall, T. Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wright, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A.
Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Fraser, Captain Ian
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Frece, Sir Walter de
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Chapman, Sir S. Galbraith, J. F. W.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Atkinson, C. Christie, J. A. Gates, Percy
Balniel, Lord Clarry, Reginald George Goff, Sir Park
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Clayton, G. C. Gower, Sir Robert
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Cobb, Sir Cyril Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cohen, Major J. Brunel Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bennett, A. J. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Bethel, A. Cooper, A. Duff Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Cope, Major William Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Couper, J. B. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) Hamilton, Sir George
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Briant, Frank Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hartington, Marquess of
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Curzon, Captain Viscount Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Briggs, J. Harold Dalkeith, Earl of Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Brown-Lindsay, Major H. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hills, Major John Waller
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Dawson, Sir Philip Hilton, Cecil
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Dixey, A. C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G.
Buckingham, Sir H. Drewe, C. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Eden, Captain Anthony Holt, Capt. H. P.
Burman, J. B. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Hume, Sir G. H.
Campbell, E. T. Fielden, E. B. Huntingfield, Lord
Carver, Major W. H. Ford, Sir P. J. Hurd, Percy A.
Cassels, J. D. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Hurst, Gerald B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Nuttall, Ellis Steel, Major Samuel Strang
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Oakley, T. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Jephcott, A. R. Pennefather, Sir John Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Penny, Frederick George Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Tasker, R Inigo.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Perring, Sir William George Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Kindersley, Major Guy M. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Pilcher, G. Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitcheli-
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Price, Major C. W. M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Knox, Sir Alfred Raine, Sir Walter Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Lamb, J. Q. Rawson, Sir Cooper Waddington, R.
Loder, J. de V. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Long, Major Eric Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Looker, Herbert William Rice, Sir Frederick Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Lougher, Lewis Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Warrender, Sir Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Ropner, Major L. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lynn, Sir R. J. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen Rye, F. G. Watts, Dr. T.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Salmon, Major I. Wells, S. R.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dairymple-
MacIntyre, Ian Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wiggins, William Martin
McLean, Major A. Sandeman, N. Stewart Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Macmillan, Captain H. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mac Robert, Alexander M. Sanderson, Sir Frank Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sandon, Lord Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Malone, Major P. B. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Savery, S. S. Withers, John James
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Wolmer, Viscount
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Womersley, W. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Shepperson, E. W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wragg, Herbert
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Smithers, Waldron Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Neville, Sir Reginald J. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm[...]eland) Captain Margesson and Major the
Marquess of Titchfield.