Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £140,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Dr. SHIELS
The amount which the Committee is asked to vote £140,000, of which £16,000 is in respect of Iraq and £124,000 in respect of Palestine and Transjordan. The additional sum of £16,000 required for Iraq is in respect of the maintenance of Iraq levies, a force which is under the orders of the High Commissioner and must not be confused with the Iraq Army, which is controlled by the Government of Iraq. This additional sum is required owing to the original Estimate having been under-estimated in two ways. In the first place, the movements of the levies which have been more than was anticipated, and this involved an additional expenditure on transport. Then there was an underestimate on the provision for the reengagement of levies, and for these an Estimate is required in respect of clothing, equipment, etc. I do not think there is anything contentious about these matters.
In regard to Palestine and Transjordan, the additional sum of £124,000 is made up of two items, £114,000 for defence and £10,000 for the Transjordan frontier force. In regard to defence, provision is made in the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote for repayment to the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry of the excess cost of the British Force in Palestine over what they would cost if stationed in this country. In the original Estimate a sum of £30,500 was included for that service for repayment to the Air Ministry. Owing, however, to the recent disturbances in Palestine, the following amounts, as representing the excess cost of additional forces, are repayable—to the Admiralty £1,000; to the War Office £35,000; and to the Air Ministry £63,000; a total of £99,000.
The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government, which itself has borne charges for provisional transport, billets, water, electric light, engineering, postal and telephone services amounting to approximately £60,000 in this financial year, and which that Government seeks to recover, will be considered later. A further sum of £15,000 is repayable to the Air Ministry in respect of the actual cost of works at Transjordan forming part of the excess cost of the British forces stationed there which it is not possible 1983 for the Transjordan Government at present to pay. The last item is a further sum of £10,000 as a Grant-in-Aid to the Transjordan frontier force. This is necessitated partly by the recent disturbances in Palestine and partly by the reorganisation of the force. This sum represents one-sixth of the additional cost which fall" on His Majesty's Government, as it cannot be met by the Transjordan Government, the remaining five-sixths being borne by Palestine. Let me repeat what I said on the last Vote. I hope hon. Members will agree that the position in Palestine at present is such that this is not a suitable occasion to discuss questions of policy. That opportunity will come later on when we are reinforced by the results of the work of the Commission.
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I must protest against the assumption that we are not to be entitled to discuss the merits of this £124,000 which is being spent in Palestine for the provision of additional troops. I object to spending this large amount of money to put an alien race into an alien land.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Is not the hon. and gallant Member entitled to discuss the reasons why this £124,000 is being spent?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to ask questions as regards this expenditure, but he cannot go into questions of policy.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
When you are spending £124,000, is not the policy which makes that expenditure necessary a legitimate subject for review?
§ Mr. STEPHEN
This is a new development on which £124,000 is being expended. Is not that a proper subject for review There may be more suitable opportunities for discussing questions of policy, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants to exercise his right is he not able to do so now?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to discuss whether it is right to spend this money, but to deal with matters of general policy is out of order.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
In that case would you also permit a discussion of the incitements to those who rose in rebellion in Palestine?
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
Surely I am entitled, when we are called upon to spend £124,000 on additional troops in Palestine, to protest against the expenditure. We ought not to be called upon to spend this money fox purposes with which we disagree. This is but the beginning of the expenditure. If we are called upon to spend tins amount of money in Palestine to-day, where the conditions are bad, we may be called upon in the next year for a still further expenditure. In Lord Plumer's time we were able to reduce our expenditure, perhaps we reduced it too much, but it is wrong to call upon the British Exchequer to spend this sum of money for purposes with which we do not agree. Has the Under-Secretary of State considered the repercussions of our policy in Iraq and Transjordan? If we are not careful instead of finding them as our allies we shall have to look upon them as potential enemies. Is it more important to protect a foreign minority in Palestine than it is in Iraq, in Egypt or in India? The positions are similar. We have given these countries independence, but here we are called upon to spend this extra sum of money in order to protect a minority. Arid it is not always the minority that has to be protected. When His Majesty's Ship "Barham" went to Haifa it was to protect the Arabs; but in the other case aeroplanes and troops had to be used in order to protect the Jews against the Arabs.
After 12 years of British Government it is necessary to spend this extra money. There must be something wrong somewhere. If the Colonial Office had known the state of affairs, if they had known the true position, this country would not have been taken by surprise as it was last August. But no one knew what was happening. We were told that everything was going on perfectly well. I am not blaming one party or the other, but the state of affairs in Palestine in the summer was so bad that riots occurred and troops had to be rushed from Egypt 1985 to protect the lives of the general public. As long as these conditions exist we shall have to keep a powerful garrison in that country. I urge the Under-Secretary to take steps so that we shall not be called upon to pay large sums of money, which may or may not be recovered from the Palestine Government. It is a poor country and heavily taxed, and you will have to take this £124,000 from the heavily taxed peasantry in Palestine or from this country, against the wishes of many people, for a policy with which many of us disagree. They want to follow on the same lines as Iraq, which was a mandated territory. In Iraq our garrison has been gradually reduced, and surely we should be able to arrange matters in such a way that in course of time Palestine will be in the same position as Iraq and will not entail a large military expenditure. I do not think we ought to vote this money for a purpose with which many of us do not agree. It ought not to have happened, and we desire to see it prevented in the future at all costs.
§ Mr. MARCUS
I desire, briefly, to reply to what I regard as the amazing speech which has just been delivered. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that the money proposed to be voted is being utilised for purposes with which the House disagrees. That, obviously, is totally inaccurate.
§ Mr. MARCUS
If we take the figures of the last election we are entitled to say that some 13,000,000 people voted for the policy embodied in the Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. I am reminded, too, that many hon. Members opposite have supported that policy. We know what the policy means. The Balfour Declaration was issued for the purpose of—
§ Mr. MARCUS
The money that is asked for by His Majesty's Government is to enable the Palestine Government to carry out the policy to which we are legally committed in the Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. If we look at the details of the Vote we find that the expenditure arises out of the recent dis- 1986 turbances in Palestine. In August last the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were subjected to one of the most brutal attacks in the history of all atrocities. Defenceless Jewish men, women and children were attacked in brutal fashion by non-Jewish inhabitants of that country. [Interruption.] I cannot understand how any hon. Member here can possibly look upon a problem of this kind as jocular in character. This Vote is related to one of the most vital aspects of our public work in this country.
It may be that some hon. Members here, and some people in the country, do not fully appreciate exactly what underlies this Vote, but we who do understand want to emphasise that it would have been the proper thing this evening, if, instead of the Committee being called upon to listen to a speech of the type just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member, we had had instead the first apology yet uttered to the Jewish people for the brutal onslaught made on those who were defenceless in Palestine. As far as I am aware not a single word has been said on the Arab side which would amount to an apology for the atrocities of August last. Because of that fact, and because of the fear that there may be a repetition of those atrocities, steps must be taken to make sure that defenceless people are thoroughly protected against hooligans, whether they are Arabs or belong to any other category.
Dr. VERNON DAVIES
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not now pre-judging the report of the Commission which was sent out to inquire into the disturbances in Palestine?
A Commission was sent out to Palestine to inquire into these disturbances and to report. I submit that the hon. Member is pre-judging the report.
§ Mr. MARCUS
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke before me referred to the Jewish people in Palestine as aliens who, according to his view, were entitled to no protection at all. This House has on many occasions, under the auspices of Conservative, Liberal, Coalition and Labour Governments, overwhelmingly approved of the policy 1987 embodied in the Palestine Mandate. Because of that fact we are entitled to say without the slightest hesitation that this Vote is worthy of the greatest support, and that it should never have been opposed. I should be the last person to deny to any hon. Member the right to discuss any Vote, but in common fairness, when a crime has been committed against the Jewish people in Palestine, I, as a Jew and as one who is proud of being a Jew, am certainly not going to remain silent after listening to a speech of the kind delivered by the hon. and gallant Member. This money will, I hope, go a long way towards restoring confidence in Palestine. Any weakness at this moment would be a calamity not merely for the Jewish people but for the British Empire. We are pledged heart and soul to support the policy of the Mandate, and the step suggested by this Vote is a genuine step in. the right direction, for which reason I heartily support it.
§ Captain AUSTIN HUDSON
I rise to support the Vote. I respect the earnestness of the last speaker. I am not a Jew, but am a supporter of the Zionist organisation and of the Balfour Declaration. Although I realise that the last speaker spoke with considerable feeling, I must say that I was a little disappointed at his making a declaration which amounted to taking sides in a matter which is at present being examined by a Commission. The Commission was set up by this House, and all of us who are interested in the question are awaiting with great interest the Commission's Report. When that report is issued—the Under-Secretary says that it will be issued soon—we shall be able to draw our own conclusions, and I am certain that the Government will give us facilities to discuss it. This Vote is not a Vote which need bring up any antagonism between those who support the Balfour Declaration and those who do not. As an interrupter said just now, this is not a party matter by any means. There are common feelings on both sides of the House on all aspects of the question.
This Vote is a Vote for a certain sum of money which is to be spent because of the recent disturbances in Palestine. I think it will be agreed on all sides that 1988 those disturbances are to be deprecated. Moreover, we are all agreed that law and order must be maintained. Whatever happens, force will decide nothing. Whether the Arabs were in the wrong, or whether, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) tried to infer, the Jewish people were in the wrong, force will decide nothing. All that the Vote means is that law and order shall be maintained and that the government of the country must be carried on properly. It would be disastrous if anything like the disturbances of last year caused us to go back one jot on the Balfour Declaration. I am certain that no Government would do it. I have studied this question as much, as I could, and in my opinion it is perfectly easy for Arabs and Jews to live together in peace in Palestine. All that is wanted is a little give and take on both sides. In the meantime I hope that the Committee will pass this Vote, will show that it deprecates any force being used, and will back up His Majesty's Government in keeping its word and in governing the country over which it has jurisdiction with the best means at its disposal.
§ Major ROSS
Let me assure the Committee that I shall never attempt to take any side in the controversy as to who was in the wrong in Palestine. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Marcus) spoke with feeling which one must appreciate, but I am sure that in this Debate he would find it hard to take up an attitude which was judicial with regard to a question upon which his feelings must naturally be so deep. But I would ask him and other Members who have felt moved, as is quite natural on this question, that they should at all events reserve judgment until we have the authoritative report of the Commission which is at present considering what form that report should take. Until then I, at all events—and I think I speak for many on both sides of the House—shall do my best not to pre-judge the issue or to come to any conclusion as to who are the villains of the piece until we have something on which we can base our views with more certainty than one can, at present, on the sometimes prejudiced and propagandist reports, which have emanated from many quarters in regard to this question.
1989 When one comes to a sum as large as this—£140,000—however much one may support law and order and the forces necessary to maintain them, it is naturally one's duty here to look into the various items with some little care to see how they are made up. The first item is a sum of £16,000 for the maintenance of Iraq levies. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote a few questions about that. As I understand it, there are two armed forces, apart from the Air Force in Iraq. There are the Iraq levies for which we are responsible and for which we pay. They are no doubt, as I have every reason to believe, a most efficient force, but there is also another force which is maintained by the Iraq Government, and with which we have less to do. The question which I feel inclined to put regarding this is, why this additional charge should fall on the British Exchequer in maintaining these Iraq levies, and are they not having rather more than their share of the rough frontier police work, which must naturally exist in such a country as Iraq is at present, instead of that work being delegated to a greater extent to the forces raised by the Government of that country out of those who live in the country? We all feel that it is not only an opportunity, but a privilege for people to take part in the defence of their country, and the more the defence of places like Iraq can be maintained by the people of Iraq under their own organisation, the better it is for everyone, We owe a duty under our mandate to Iraq, but it is a duty in which surely we should try to avoid any unnecessary expense as the money has to come from other resources which are hard put to it to find enough money for this country itself at present.
I do not want to take any hostile line on this, but I would like to ask why it was that the levies require this additional Supplementary Estimate, and how it is that such a large sum of money is to be spent on Iraq levies when there is this considerable body of troops which are maintained by the Government of Iraq almost entirely, I believe, in the hearts of the country and not in the districts where troops are supposed to be required.
A little farther on there is another item in this Vote as regards Palestine and Transjordan. I would heartily support 1990 any sum required to maintain the elementary decencies of life and law and order, and, as far as I am concerned, I would certainly vote any supplies necessary for that in the opinion of those who are responsible, but I would like to raise a question as regards the details. Out of a total of £99,000, there is payable £1,000 to the Admiralty, £35,000 to the War Office and £63,000 to the Air Ministry. As regards this last item, it is perfectly clear that in this new arm there are great possibilities, and there are many spheres in which it can carry out work at a cheaper cost and probably more effectively than any other arm. For instance, Transjordan is no doubt an area peculiar to the Air Force, in which they have opportunities of doing work more economically and, no doubt, better than almost any other type of arm, but, when you come to a substantial sum spent on the Air Force inside Palestine, the situation is surely different. How can an aerodrome have any material effect upon a disturbed and confused crowd which is rioting in the streets of a city?
As I have understood it, the disturbances which took place in Palestine recently were very largely urban or semi-urban and consisted of confused rioting in towns and villages in Palestine; that is, of all kinds of controversy and disturbance, one of those least suitable for air action. An aeroplane cannot approach and drop a bomb upon a mass of combatants in the streets, because that would cause an unnecessary loss of life and would injure the unoffending and the sheep as well as the wolves. It seems, in my submission to be about the most inappropriate force for policing a place like Palestine that you could well have. It is notorious to all of us that the force of ground troops—which is presumably the force covered by the £35,000 as opposed to the £63,000—did unfortunately turn out to be quite insufficient when trouble broke out in Palestine. Had we at that time had more troops on the ground, even at the expense of the Air Force, I suggest that would have saved many lives and have protected much property which were lost in the disturbance. Therefore. I would ask the hon. Member when he comes to reply, if he can possibly enlighten roe as to why it is that the largest of these three items in the Supplementary Vote for the de- 1991 fence of Palestine as apart from the desert areas, should fall on the Air Force and not upon the War Office?
§ Mr. J. de ROTHSCHILD
I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but I would like to say a few words in support of this Estimate. I feel it has been very unjustly and unduly attacked by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). I think, if this Estimate is before the House to-day, there is certainly one person who is in some measure guilty for this, and that is the hon. and gallant Member himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because all through his career in this House he has always defended the imaginary claims of one of the sections of the population in Palestine. He has listened to every wind that has been wafted to him from the desert, and he has not tried to sift the true from the untrue, but has helped to incite the feelings of vengeance and discontent which have given rise to these disturbances which we all deplore so deeply.
I remember reading a Debate in this House only a year ago in which the same hon. and gallant Gentleman deplored that in the South of Ireland the police force had been disbanded, and it is because the gendarmerie was disbanded and an inadequate and inefficient police force set up in Palestine that these disturbances occurred, and because of that to-day we are called upon to find this extra suim. I want to support this Estimate, and I will say more. I speak on behalf of a large Jewish population in Palestine, as I myself happen to be the chairman of an organisation which has put upwards of 15,000 Jewish people on the land as cultivators. On behalf of this society, and on behalf of these people, I wish to thank the British Government for the rapidity and the decision with which they have dealt with this emergency. I think that in sending these troops to Palestine they saved a great many lives, and I am sure that, not only the people of Palestine, but also the people of Great Britain, are thankful for the action which was taken.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I do not wish to take any part in the dispute which has arisen between my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelms- 1992 (Colonel Howard-Bury) and my hon. Friend the Member for the ford Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). I have a great admiration for the qualities possessed by both races. Both have great qualities, and in their turn and in their different ways they have contributed very greatly to the grandeur of the British Empire. But I do not think that on an occasion such as this we ought to take one side or the other. As an ordinary Englishman, I am perfectly content to await the Report of the Commission, and I feel sure that, as time goes on, these difficulties will be eliminated and these two great races will yet live peacefully alongside each other. I believe that to be the general wish of the country and of the House of Commons. We in this Committee, however, have a right to inquire into some of the details of this Supplementary Estimate. A sum of £140,000 is not one which the Committee ought to pass lightly. I wish to ask a few questions, in the first place, as regards these Iraq levies, so that I may have some knowledge of this subject in the future. This is a most interesting point. Many of us wish to know exactly what are these levies. I remember in other days when hon. Members who are now on the Government side of the Committee were on this side and when questions arose regarding levies in other parts of the Empire, there was a storm of inquiries and a desire on the part of hon. Members to know all about those levies. I do not see why I should not show the same interest in the levies which are being raised in Iraq.
I should like to know exactly the number of these levies and their nationality; whether they are drawn from only one section of the community or from all sections of the community; whether the officers training them are British officers or native officers, and whether they are paid directly or by means of a lump sum. In the Estimate we find a lump sum of £16,000 under this heading but I think we ought to be told in what way these levies are paid. They are I understand doing a great service in helping to police a part of the Empire, and in these circumstances we have a duty to look after the interests and the welfare of these men. If any of these men are injured for life, do they receive pensions? Do we care for them in the event of total incapacity as a result of wounds or other injuries? The 1993 Minister of Pensions is in his place. I suppose the question does not concern his Department but this is a point to which the Committee ought to give some consideration. There is a further question of vital importance. This is a Supplementary Estimate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to notice that the Parliamentary experience of hon. Members opposite has gone so far, that they know that it is a Supplementary Estimate, but the Committee has a right to know whether this payment is to go on for some years. Are we to have another Vote of the same kind next year?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Supplementary Estimate before the Committee deals with the period up to 31st March this year. Next year is not under consideration. It will come up in a new Estimate.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I fully accept your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, that next year must look after itself, and I leave the matter there since you do not wish us to pursue our inquiries into the future. The next point I wish to raise is regarding the sums specified in reference to various Departments. For instance a sum of £1,000 is put down in relation to the Admiralty and I should like to know precisely what was the work done by the Admiralty. Was it in connection with the transport of troops or were ships sent to a certain port to make a demonstration? If so, we have a right to know whether any forces were actually landed in Palestine. I do not say anything as regards the Air Ministry because that subject has been dealt with already, but it would appear that the sum which is put down in respect of the War Office is a little more than it ought to be. May I inquire what forces were used in this respect, and if, by any chance, they came from Egypt? It is most important to find out about that, in view of certain things which are going on in Egypt at present. At the end of the Estimates under the sub-head E 1, there is the sentence:The capital cost of these works is payable to the Air Ministry,followed by a sum of £15,000. I am not quite sure from these Estimates whether that is the whole of the capital cost or only part. If it is not the whole, we ought to know whether there are more commitments, but if it is the entire thing, we know that that is not a continuous sum. It is extraordinarily diffi- 1994 cult to get information on this point, bin I think the Minister is possibly entitled to say whether this is only a proportion of the capital sum which is accounted to the Air Ministry, or whether it is the whole. Added to that, as far as this sum of £15,000 is concerned, I should like to know in what way we are establishing the Air Force in a capital way. Are we establishing a base, or new aeroplanes, or what are we doing? It is not right that these sums should be put down in this vague way, and we should know precisely what the Government are doing. Now I come to Item E.2, "Transjordan Frontier Force (Grant-in-Aid)." At the end of the second paragraph I find the words:with the assistance of this contribution which is calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the cost of the Force.I have read that through more than once, and I only hope hon. Members opposite have read it with the same diligence, but I think we ought to be told why we have to pay one-sixth and who pays the other five-sixths. It is clear to me that at some time or other it has been laid down that we should have to pay a certain proportion of this sum, and for that reason I think it is essential that we should know why that is the sum and who are the people who pay the other proportion.
In dealing with an Estimate of this sort, when we are called upon at a most unfortunate time of the year to find a large sum of money, it is usual to say that even although you have emergencies such as you have in this respect, the House of Commons will always honour them, yet we know that during the last few months the maladministration of the Government has been so bad in every quarter that there have not been the adequate savings out of which we might have been able to meet a sum of this kind. I should not be allowed to go into the matter of savings, but, in the event of there having been savings, this £140,000 would have been very much less, and I am raising it from that point of view, because I believe it is due to the gross extravagance and maladministration of every section and part of the Government that we are called upon to provide such a large sum of money tonight. I know the hon. Member opposite has not been long in his office, and that he has not yet got all the strings in his 1995 hands, but I do hope that, as time goes on, he will not have to come to this Committee for similar sums.
§ Captain HAROLD BALFOUR
I should like to ask a few questions on the Vote for the Iraq levies. Knowing that they are worked on a definite establishment, that their commanding officer is British, and that their senior officers are British, I would like to know how this gross miscalculation of Government money has arisen.
§ The CHAIRMAN
These would be very proper questions on the original Estimate, but the £16,000 on this Supplementary Estimate, we are told, is because of an under-estimate.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am pointing out that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and that questions with regard to officers and who they are would be perfectly legitimate questions on the main Estimate, but this is merely a sum of £16,000, because, we are told, there was an underestimate.
§ Captain BALFOUR
I apologise if I was transgressing the Rules of Order, but I would ask who ha" gone short, or who would go short if this Estimate were not voted to-night. Everybody must agree that these Iraq levies are nationals, and while we hold the mandate for Iraq we have a certain responsibility for their administration. They are a body which I am sure hon. Members opposite would encourage if they desire this country to be a self-dependent country in the future. On the question of the advance for the British force in Palestine, I see there is a sum of £1,000 for the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Boss) glossed over that £1,000 for the Admiralty and asked something about the £63,000 for the Air Ministry. One would like to know what has been done for the £1,000, and what the British taxpayers who have to find this money have got for that expenditure. I see that there is a War Office Vote of £35,000 and that the Air Ministry have got £63,000. I cannot but feel that, with the lesson of Palestine administration before us, with the lesson of the defence 1996 of Palestine in the recent disturbances before us, it would have been better if the Air Ministry Vote had been put up from £63,000 to £70,000, and the War Office Vote reduced from £35,000 to £5,000, because the air is the most humane—
§ Mr. STEPHEN
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing alternative ways of spending this money?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I was just about to rise in order to point out that the hon. and gallant Member may ask questions about the £63,000, but not discuse alternative methods of spending the money.
§ Captain BALFOUR
I would ask two questions—why only £63,000 has been spent on the Air Ministry Vote, and—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to ask why that amount has been spent, but he is not entitled to say that we should have spent more or less in relation to another Service.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
On a point of Order. Is not the hon. and gallant Member entitled to ask why so much has been spent on the Air Ministry?
§ Captain BALFOUR
I was going to ask why £35,000 had been spent on the Army and £1,000 on the Navy, what the British taxpayers had got for that money, and what they had got for the £63,000 for the Air Force, and then leave hon. Members to judge for which money they had got the best value, knowing the value of aeroplanes as compared with the Army and Navy for defence. As regards buildings, I should like to know whether the capital cost is in respect; of permanent buildings, and what we shall get in the future as British taxpayers for that expenditure at the present time. I would ask also whether we could have some information as to the item, "Trans-jordan Frontier Force (Grant in Aid)." I should like particularly to know how that £10,000 was arrived at, so that the Committee can examine whether the taxpayer had not better value for the money than the way in which it is being spent at the present time.
§ Mr. AMERY
I do not propose on any item of this Supplementary Estimate to 1997 discuss the issues which will be presented to us by the Commission in their Report, and on the actual policy of defence necessitated by reason of recent troubles in Palestine. I would make only this observation. Every Government in this country since the War, of whatever political complexion, has endorsed and supported the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. At the same time, there has also been in every party a minority disposed to question the wisdom or practicability of that policy. But I think that both those who support them, and those who differ from them, would be in agreement in holding the view that no British Government could allow its declared policy to be overthrown by mob violence, or allow a population settled in the country in reliance on the policy of successive British Governments, confirmed internationally by a Mandate, to be subjected to violence and persecution by other sections of the population. With that observation, I will leave that part of the Supplementary Estimate which is concerned with the urgency measures required during the recent troubles.
I should like to say a word or two about the other items in this Supplementary Estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), in his searching investigations into various matters connected with this Supplementary Estimate, spoke of the sum as a very large one. All these matters are in a sense relative, and when he spoke of a sum as being large, I could not help casting my mind back to a time when we were spending in the Middle East £24,000,000—and it was not many years ago—in pursuance of a policy which was modified by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the time, into a policy which he believed, and which experience has since proved, would progressively rapidly reduce expenditure by the British taxpayer in that part of the world. Even as recently as five years ago, when I was responsible on that side of the House for the ratification of the Treaty of Iraq, I had to listen to the most woeful prophesy from those benches as to the appalling expenditure to which we were likely to be committed in Iraq. To-day, the whole of the expenditure of the ground forces in Iraq, added to, as it has been, by the Supplementary Estimate of £16,000, amounts to £190,000. The expenditure upon that small and splendid 1998 force of Assyrian levies represents all in the way of ground force in Iraq for which the British taxpayer is now responsible in connection with very great responsibilities and great opportunities in that country.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman is discussing something which is outside the Estimate altogether.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is not discussing policy, but the result of the policy being that the amount for which we are now asked is less than it was.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The right hon. Gentleman has harked back to the policy of his predecessor, and said that it had had the direct result of reducing this sum; and if that is allowed, certain hon. Members must criticise that policy.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the right hon. Gentleman entered into details of the policy, I should rule it out of order, but it cannot be out of order to point out that the expenditure was so many million pounds, and that, as a result of a change of policy, it is now reduced.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the policy was a direct result of a decision of a previous occupant of the Colonial Office. That may or may not be true, but as the right hon. Gentleman has stated it, it is open to some who hold the contrary view to discuss it.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
May I ask if there is no protection for the Government against these interruptions from the other side?
§ Mr. AMERY
There is a slight increase in the amount of the Transjordan Frontier Force. That amount represents only one-sixth of the expenditure of the standing defence force for both Palestine and Transjordan. It is worth while drawing attention to the fact that five-sixths of the expenditure—one-sixth by Transjordan and two- 1999 thirds by Palestine—is found by those countries. Therefore, while we regret and deplore that circumstances have compelled us to spend an extra £100,000 in dealing with an emergency, it is worth pointing out that the actual sum that we had to spend, even when slightly increased as it has been, represents the remarkably low level to which our expenditure in connection with our responsibilities in the Middle East has fallen.
§ Dr. SHIELS
A great many of the questions which have been raised have either been answered by other Members, or have answered themselves, so that I have not quite the big task that I might have had. I quite understand that many big issues are involved in the figures which I put before the Committee, but we understand that we cannot go into them. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Major Rose) asked about the Iraq levies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said something about these, and I would point out that the levies have both British and native officers, as well as some British non-commissioned officers. There is not so very much miscalculation in regard to the additional expenditure, because they had rather extra duties to do, and a great deal of travelling, and a larger number than was anticipated has signed on again. The rank and file of the Iraq levies are enlisted, in the first instance, for a period of two years, and a bounty of one month's pay for each year is paid on re-engagement; and it is therefore gratifying to find that expenditure under this head has been exceeded, because it shows that so many of the levies are anxious to reengage, which is a tribute to the spirit of the force.
§ Dr. SHIELS
That is a question I could not answer now, because I am not sure about it; but I will be glad to inquire and let the hon. Member know.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
Is any contribution made by the local Government towards the maintenance of these levies, or has this country to stand the whole cost?
§ Dr. SHIELS
This force is under the control of the High Commissioner, and we are solely responsible for it, [Interruption.] I have taken note of the many items brought forward by hon. Members during the Debate, and am trying to answer as many of their points as I can. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) raised a question about the operations of the ground troops and the Air Force squadrons in Palestine. That is an interesting subject, and one which has engaged the attention of many experts in military matters. A great deal of the work of the Air Force during the recent disturbances consisted of the transport of ground troops to various parts of Palestine, and hon. and gallant Members who understand the subject will appreciate that in that way the Air Force were very valuable adjuncts of the ground force. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, as usual, was interesting, asked me a great many questions, some of which i have answered already. I was very glad indeed to note his anxiety in regard to compensation, pensions, and so on for the levies, and I hope that his remarks will reach the proper quarter, because they were in the right spirit. In regard to the Admiralty expenditure, that was incurred because certain naval forces were landed, as the hon. Member will remember. It is not a very large expenditure. Then the hon. Member said a very kindly word for the War Office, which is rather unusual, and I hope it will be appreciated by those for whom it was intended. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), who opened the discussion, feels very strongly on certain matters connected with this Estimate, but I did not quite understand what he meant when he said, if he did say it, that the use of troops should not have been allowed during the recent disturbances.
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
As far as I remember, I never said that I deprecated the use of troops during the disturbances, for, of course, they were necessary, but I did deprecate the policy which caused us to have to use the troops.
§ Dr. SHIELS
I am very glad of that explanation, because the way in which the hon. Member expressed himself led rather to a misunderstanding. I think we must all agree, whatever our opinion on these matters, that we must continue to ensure the protection of all the inhabitants of a country where we are responsible for the preservation of order. What we want in Palestine is the operation of influences which will make a Vote of this kind for ever unnecessary in the future. I would like to say how much I appreciate the spirit of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney North. I think it was the proper spirit, and while in some respects it may be difficult, I hope it will prove possible for the people of Palestine to come together in increasing friendliness, so that there may be no repetition of this Vote. I am very glad that, on the whole, the Members of the Committee have tonight contributed to this spirit by the moderation of their speeches, and I hope that, in addition to the moderate and temperate forces now in Palestine, the Members of this Committee will also be factors making for peace in Palestine and for blotting out for ever these memories which we would all wish to forget. After the full and interesting discussion we have had I hope the Committee will now see their way to giving me this Vote.
§ Mr. DIXEY
We have listened to a most reasonable speech from the Under-Secretary, but I must remind hon. Members that however important the occasion may be it is their duty to be absolutely satisfied that no money has been thrown away. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite feel it is a very disagreeable task, but it is a necessitous task, particularly in view of the evergrowing deficit of this country and the unemployment problem. There are one or two points upon which I am not quite satisfied with the explanation which has been given to the Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Air is not in the House at the moment, and, had he been present, I should have liked to have had some further explanation from him in regard to the £63,000 for which' the Air Ministry is responsible. I was not at all satisfied with the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to this item, which seems to me to be altogether out of proportion to the 2002 requirements, although he has said that it was part of the cost of the troops. I notice that the Air Estimates in this respect are twice as much as the Estimates of the War Office, and I think we should have fuller details about that matter.
The Committee is entitled to a fuller explanation than that which has been given in regard to this large sum. I am very dissatisfied with regard to the statement which has been made concerning the expenditure of £15,000 in Iraq about which the Under-Secretary said he had no information as to whether there was to be any contribution paid by the Iraq Government. I want to make it perfectly clear that we ought to be informed as to whether we are likely to have any further contributions from the Iraq Government towards this sum. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are rather impatient when we are discussing Supplementary Estimates, but I would like to point out that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) raised this point. Therefore, I expect to receive some sympathy in regard to it from the benches opposite. With regard to the works which appear under this Vote, I would like to know are they permanent or have they been simply erected for temporary purposes?
§ Dr. SHIELS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
§ Captain CAZALET
I was not privileged to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), but, from one or two remarks that he has made since, and from one or two remarks that other hon. Members have made, I feel certain that I should have disagreed with almost everything that he said.
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to come into the Chamber who has not heard a particular speech, and to say that he disagrees altogether with it?
§ Captain CAZALET
I thank you very much, Mr. Dunnico, for that Ruling. I 2003 think, if I may say so without any offence, that my hon. and gallant Friend's general attitude upon, this question is so well known that no one could have doubted the tenor of his speech even though they had not heard it, I should like to dissociate myself entirely from the attitude that my hon. and gallant Friend has adopted towards this Vote, and to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). I feel certain that there are many people, both in Palestine and elsewhere, who are sincerely grateful to the Government for the prompt and decisive action that they took in regard to the disturbances last autumn. At whose door the blame is to be laid we shall know when the Commission produce their Report, but it is obvious that, whenever such an occasion arises, it must be the duty of the Government, whatever their political opinions, to rise to the occasion, and to use every available means in their power to restore law and order.
The Under-Secretary said that we were contributing this sum of £15,000 to capital expenditure in Transjordania for the reason that the Transjordanian Government could not afford to pay anything. I should like to ask him, what does the Transjordanian Government pay for? Does it contribute anything towards the maintenance of the police force in its own area? I quite appreciate that the police force of Transjordania is used to a large extent to protect Palestine from raids from Arabia and from the levies of Ibn Saoud, and, naturally, they cannot afford to support the whole of that force, but I should like to know—I think the matter has arisen at Question Time, but we have never yet had a satisfactory reply—exactly what contribution comes from Transjordania itself, how much comes from the Palestine Government, and how much from our own Exchequer.
I am sure that the Committee are grateful to the Under-Secretary for his very careful and courteous explanation, but there are some points in the Estimate which are a little puzzling to us on this side, and perhaps he might feel inclined to relieve our anxiety. Under the heading, "Transbordan Frontier Force," we find an 2004Additional provision as a contribution towards the cost of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force consequent on its reorganisation and the recent disturbances in Palestine,and we understand that of that sum we pay one-sixth, because Transjordania has no money at all. The point that I want to emphasise is that part of this money is due to the recent disturbances in Palestine, and we are paying it. Under Subhead El there is a sum of £99,000 spent on the three Forces, and then this paragraph:The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government will be considered later.What does that mean? One would imagine that there must be some definite arrangement between this country and Palestine as to who is responsible for certain services and costs, but this paragraph gives me a suspicion that the British Government are not quite sure where they stand—whether they ought to pay the money, or whether Palestine ought to pay, or whether this country will have to pay the money. What is it that will be considered later, and upon what terms will it be considered later? Should I be wrong in making the suggestion that this demand for money will be considered after the issue of the Commission's Report, and that upon that Report will depend whether the Government are held guilty of gross neglect in regard to looking after law and order in Palestine, and turn round and say, "We have been judged guilty by the Report and therefore have to pay the Bill," or whether, on the other hand, if the Commission report in favour of the Government and say that the troubles in Palestine were due to—
We are asked to pass a large Estimate of £140,000, and I am discussing the very largest item in it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The issue is whether the Commission was justified or not and whether the sum asked for shall be granted.
The paragraph says:The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government will be considered later.2005 The point I am trying to get from the hon. Gentleman is, why should it be considered later? Why is it not possible to put down in the report that this Government is responsible, in which case the paragraph is unnecessary, or to say that the Government is not responsible, but if the other side will not pay it we shall have to? With a large sum of money like this, the Committee is entitled to know what considerations the Government has in mind. I have a suspicion that they are uneasy, that they really do not know where they are and are trusting to the generosity of this side of the Committee, knowing the kindly way in which we treat them, and are hoping that the Vote will slip through without adequate explanation. We are constantly having to complain of the paucity of facts given us in these Supplementary Estimates. I should feel that I was not doing my duty to the taxpayers of the country when we are asked to vote £99,000 for a debt which the Government may or may not owe and which they may
§ or may not recover. I think the Committee is entitled to a fuller explanation as to this item of £99,000.
§ Dr. SHIELS
I think I gave a pretty full answer when I spoke before, and some of the points that have now been brought forward I have already answered. There is no mystery about the responsibility of the Palestine Government. It all depends on its financial position. I think it will be generally agreed that a number of the points that have been brought forward will be more properly discussed when we have the report of the Commission before us. I would ask the Committee now to let us have the Vote.
§ Dr. SHIELS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question he now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220, Noes, 116.2007
|Division No. 175.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dukes, C.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Duncan, Charles||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Angell, Norman||Ede, James Chuter||Kinley, J.|
|Arnott, John||Edmunds, J. E.||Lang, Gordon|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lathan, G.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Egan, W. H.||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Batey, Joseph||Elmley, Viscount||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bellamy, Albert||Evans. Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Lawson, John James|
|Benson, G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Leach, W.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Birkett W. Norman||Gill, T. H.||Lees, J.|
|Blindell, James||Glassey, A. E.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gossling, A. G.||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gould, F.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Longden, F.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Bromley, J.||Gray, Milner||Lunn, William|
|Brothers, M.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Groves, Thomas E.||McElwee, A.|
|Buchanan, G.||Grundy, Thomas W.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||McKinlay, A.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Hall. Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||McShane, John James|
|Cape, Thomas||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Haycock, A. W.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hayes, John Henry||Mansfield, W.|
|Chater, Daniel||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||March, S.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Marcus, M.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hollins, A.||Markham, S. F.|
|Compton, Joseph||Hopkin, Daniel||Marley, J.|
|Daggar, George||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Marshall, Fred|
|Dallas, George||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Mathers, George|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Matters, L. W.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Isaacs, George||Melville, Sir James|
|Day, Harry||Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)||Messer, Fred|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Middleton, G.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Milner, J.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Morley, Ralph||Romeril, H. G.||Sullivan, J.|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Rothschild, J. de||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W)|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney. South)||Rowson, Guy||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Tout, W. J.|
|Mort, D. L.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Townend, A. E.|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Turner, B.|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Sanders, W. S.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Sandham, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Muff, G.||Sawyer, G. F.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Scott, James||Walker, J.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Scurr, John||Wallace, H. W.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Watkins, F. C.|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Shield, George William||Welsh, James (Palsley)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Shillaker, J. F.||West, F. R.|
|Palin, John Henry||Simmons, C. J.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Palmer, E. T.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Perry, S. F.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sinkinson, George||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Price, M. P.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wise, E. F.|
|Raynes, W. R.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Richards, R.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sneil, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Stephen, Campbell||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Ritson, J.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Albery, Irving James||Ganzonl, Sir John||Remer, John R.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gower, Sir Robert||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Salmon, Major I.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bracken, B.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Savery, S. S.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Skelton, A. N.|
|Butler, R. A.||Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward||Hurd, Percy A.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Iveagh, Countess of||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)||Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||King. Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Lamb. Sir J. Q||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainibro)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Culverwell. C. T. (Bristol. West)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Lymington, Viscount||Warrender. Sir Victor|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir kingsley|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Muirhead. A. J.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||O'Neill. Sir H.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Penny, Sir George||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
Question put, and agreed to.