§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Commander SOUTHBY
I do not desire to keep the Committee for more than a few moments, nor do I desire to discuss more than Clause 2. I suggest to the House that Clause 2 should be omitted from the Bill, and I personally have every intention of voting against the Clause if, as I hope, the matter is pressed to a Division. In the Second Reading debate on a similar Bill which was brought forward for a similar reason on the 7th July, 1922, reference was made to a Treaty which was to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war. In the Second Schedule of that Treaty reference was made to two articles which were designed to make it clear that 2526 submarines must conform to the ordinary laws of war. It is a fact that the same laws have always applied to submarines as apply to any other type of war vessel. The rules for visit and search at sea have been the same for every type of ship throughout the history of naval warfare, and there was no reason why submarines should have behaved differently from other types of ships. The rules of sea warfare were broken by the Germans in the intensive submarine campaign which they waged against this country and the Allies during the War.
It was the Germans who dishonoured the well-known traditions of the sea and they undoubtedly made the name of submarine a by-word and a hissing throughout the world. No breath of dishonour of any kind attached to the submarine service of the Navy of this country and of the Empire. In fact, our submarine service emerged from the War with honourable traditions which were higher than, perhaps, those of any other branch of the sea service. The reason for drawing up this Section 4, which Clause 2 of the present Bill seeks to eliminate, was to produce rules which would prevent a repetition of the happenings during the late War. The matter was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who spoke on the Second Reading of a similar Bill on 7th July, 1922. He pointed out that the object of the Bill was to put some limit on, and to enforce some rules for, the conduct of warfare by submarines, and in order to do that it had to be possible to treat violations of those rules as if they were what they are in fact, acts of piracy. He quoted in his speech the words of a distinguished American, Mr. Root, who said of the Treaty:It undertakes further to stigmatise violation of these rules and the doing to death of women and children and non-combatants by the wanton destruction of merchant vessels upon which they are passengers as a violation of the laws of war, which, as between these five great Powers and all other civilised nations who shall give their adherence, shall be henceforth punished as an act of piracy.Anyone who saw, as many Members of this House saw, the results of that submarine warfare must have realised that something must be done, if we could not eliminate the submarine, to prevent the submarine from being used in a similar way in future. I have myself seen two 2527 boats, with the crew of a ship which had been torpedoed, in the middle of the North Sea. They were neutrals. They were trying to sail back from the middle of the North Sea to this country. There was not the slightest hope of their reaching this country, because they were in the middle of a rising north-easterly gale, and if it had not happened that a flotilla had seen them and picked them up they never could have reached land. It is iniquitous that that should happen, and if in the future we are to have unrestricted submarine warfare then, I say, the decision arrived at in the former Bill was a good one. It enables us to say that if we catch a submarine behaving as the German submarines behaved we shall try the captain for acts of common piracy perpetrated upon non-combatants and upon women and children and treat him as pirates have always been treated in the history of the world when they were caught. The Section which this Clause seeks to remove says:Any person in the service of any Power who violates any of the rules contained in Article I, set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act, whether or not such person is under a governmental superior, shall be deemed to have violated the laws of war, and shall be liable to trial and punishment as if for an act of piracy, and if found within His Majesty's Dominions may be brought to trial before any civil or military tribunal who would have had jurisdiction to deal with the case if the act had been an act of piracy.That is a clear and sensible statement, and cannot be considered as excessive. The Act of which this is Section 4 was consequent upon the Treaty of Washington, and the Bill we are discussing to-night is consequent on the London Naval Treaty, but the circumstances have not really altered. I should think there is now more feeling throughout the civilised world against unrestricted submarine warfare than there was in July, 1922, when this Act was passed. Last night, when this Bill was being discussed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said:The further point is the repeal of Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, which provides for the trial and punishment of persons violating certain rules for the protection of neutrals and non-combatants at sea. It has been found by the nations that it is not possible to enforce that, and 2528 it is thought better to follow the usual pracice rather than to endeavour to enforce something which cannot be enforced and which would be likely to embroil the Powers in serious trouble.Why should it embroil the Powers in serious trouble? This Section 4 was passed after the Washington Treaty had been agreed. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether after the Washington Treaty any other signatory Power passed similar legislation giving force to the intention of the Treaty to restrict submarine warfare. I put some questions last night to the right hon. Gentleman which I do not think he answered very fairly. He rather skated round the point. I asked him whether any signatory to the Washington Treaty had made the suggestion that this Section 4 should be eliminated. He kept on saying that because some of the Powers who signed the Washington Treaty had not ratified it it had been found impossible to get an agreement upon this particular Section 4. But what about those signatories who did ratify? Are they satisfied that the provisions of Section 4 are workable, or are they not? Have any of them promoted legislation to do away with Section 4? This House is being asked to pass a Bill which will do away with those provisions which make submarine warfare more risky to the person who carries it out, because there are penalties attached to the misuse of the weapon. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state quite clearly whether the suggestion to do away with Section 4 came from representatives of this country or from some other signatories to the Treaty. I also ask him whether signatories to the Treaty of Washington did or did not pass similar legislation to that passed in this House in July, 1922. I want to know whether those countries have taken the same steps that we are now taking. That brings me to the Treaty of London which was signed by certain Powers, and I want to know whether the suggestion to eliminate Article 4 was agreed to by all the signatories to the Treaty of London, and whether the suggestion that it should be eliminated was a suggestion of ours, or a suggestion of other signatories?
I want to be certain on this point. The First Lord of the Admiralty is asking the House to pass this Bill which eliminates the provisions of Article 4. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the 2529 Committee that, in fact, the other signatories to the Treaty have undertaken to do the same? We also want to know if there has been agreement among the British Dominion representatives on the point? Can the First Lord say, further, whether all the British Dominions, who were signatories to the Washington Treaty, passed similar legislation to that passed by us in 1922. The Committee are entitled to know why it is desired to eliminate an Article which I believe gave satisfaction to every hon. Member of this House and to everybody throughout the British Empire.
We want to humanise submarine warfare so long as it remains. Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite made eloquent speeches in 1922, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) made an impassioned appeal. I do not often see eye to eye with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on other matters, but on this question we are in agreement. Is the hon. and gallant Member prepared to support to-night the principle which he so eloquently defended in 1922? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to go into the Lobby to maintain this bulwarke, against the unrestricted submarine war-fare which was carried out with such disastrous and abominable consequences by the Germans during the late War? I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull will bring with him into the Lobby those friends of his who ceaselessly advocated this principle in the past outside this House. If hon. Members below the Gangway will look at the debate of July, 1922, they will find that their then Leader made an eloquent appeal in favour of the suggestion, during the Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Measure dealt with in that year. Not a voice was raised against Article 4. I suppose that on that occasion Mr. Asquith, who was then leading the Liberal party, voiced the opinion of that party on the subject, and he was in favour of Article 4 being included. Are hon. Members below the Gangway going into the Lobby on this question with the Conservative party? Are they prepared to come forward to-night in support of a principle which was advocated by the late Mr. Asquith? I have put a number of questions to the First Lord of the 2530 Admiralty on this question, and I do not think that his answers have been very clear. I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically whence comes the desire to remove this Article, which has had universal approval.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)
What does the hon. and gallant Member mean by "universal approval"?
§ Commander SOUTHBY
I have yet to read of a single voice which was raised against the suggestion during the debate of 1922. The whole country at that time was dead against the torpedoing of ships which involved the lives of women and children. Who initiated the movement to withdraw this Article? If there is some very good reason for it, let us know that reason. The Committee is entitled to know the reason for this desire to exclude Article 4. I am quite content to leave this matter to the vote of this House. I am one who has seen the disastrous effects of unrestricted submarine warfare. If this Bill is passed, the captain of a ship can say in regard to torpedoing a vessel "I have been given the order to do it by my superior. If you keep in Article 4, when you talk to the captain of a submarine you will be able to say: "If you torpedo a merchant ship, I will try you for what you do." If the First Lord of the Admiralty had only seen what the Germans did during the War, I am sure he would think that no trial would be too rigorous, and no punishment too great, to mete out to those who were in charge of German submarines during the War.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) has put a good deal of energy into his speech, and we welcome his support of more humane rules governing submarines in time of war. I do not think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member has fully apprehended the situation which arises under Section 4 of the Act of 1922. No country desires more than this country does to see more humane rules laid down for dealing with submarines. We have signed and ratified the Treaty, and what is the position? It is that internationally in law that Treaty does not operate until all the signatories of the 2531 Treaty have signed, and until that time not one of the Powers feel bound by the terms of the Treaty. What is the position now? In this country we are bound by our constitutional practice provides that certain of our Treaty obligations must be incorporated in a Statute.
In some countries, it is not necessary for them to pass a statute to implement in law the provisions of a Treaty. That is not necessary in the case of the United States. As soon as a declaration has been made by the President of the United States, the provisions of a Treaty become binding in law upon the citizens. When the hon. and gallant Member asks me whether the other signatories to the Treaty are going to pass similar legislation, I say "Yes" and "No." That depends upon the constitution of those countries, and how they are required to implement Treaties. Let it be understood, however, that, in the case of an international Treaty like the London Naval Treaty, all the signatories are morally bound loyally to observe their obligations under the Treaty, and, therefore, they will pass whatever legislation is required to implement the Treaty. Article 22, of course, gives expression to what the international law shall be in this matter, in substitution for the Treaty which has previously been agreed between the parties.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
May I clear this matter up? I do not want to criticise anything that my right hon. Friend is saying on this occasion, but I think we ought to have the matter clear. The London Naval Treaty, which was signed this year, only comes into force when all the Powers have ratified; but was that the case with the Washington Treaty? I confess that I do not recollect at this interval of time whether that was so, but my recollection is that the asphyxiating gas part of the Washington Treaty, in which we denied ourselves the use of gas, has not actually been ratified by France. I think that we, the United States and Japan have ratified it, and I imagine that we are bound as one to the other. I do not want to tie my right hon. Friend up in a legal argument, because he and I are not lawyers. I do not know if the Attorney-General has given, or could be got to give, an 2532 opinion on this matter, but, as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) said, it is a very important matter and we want to be quite clear about it.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
It is very difficult, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, for me to give a legal opinion, as I am not a lawyer, but I have given the House the best advice that I have at the moment. May I explain to hon. Members what the real position would be if this Clause were not passed now? That is the point that we have to consider. We should be retaining on the British Statute Book a penalty which we could apply in the case of acts which would be regarded as piracy under the Root Treaty against any national of a foreign country who was caught in the act, whereas there would be no such obligation on any other principal Power in the world. If such a British Statute were to be operated, it might open a very dangerous door in regard to the treatment of Britishers as well, because the implication is that you are keeping on the British Statute Book a penalty to operate a set of rules that you want to keep with regard to practices at sea—[Interruption.] It is not easy to explain. You would be keeping on the British Statute Book a penalty which you would operate against anyone breaking a set of rules which you want to see observed, but which other Powers now do not consider themselves bound to observe; and you would be operating that penalty against them in respect of rules to which they do not agree.
See what a door that opens at once. It means that every British naval officer might, in foreign countries, be subject to severe penalties under foreign Statutes based upon any set of rules on any question that other Powers might like to adopt. Obviously, if you are going to save a Statute which is going to operate by way of penalty in matters of this very great importance, it is essential that you should have that operating with respect to what is agreed by the Powers concerned. That is a very important point. It is, therefore, useless, in our judgment, for us to keep on the Statute Book a penalty in respect of a treaty which has now passed away, which is not agreed to by the Powers concerned, which is superseded by 2533 Article 22 of the London Naval Treaty, the ratification of which has now been passed by the United States Senate, and which is being ratified by this country. That previous treaty is being superseded by an article of the London Naval Treaty, which has been agreed to by all five Powers, and is assured of ratification by all five Powers. I am quite confident that, when hon. Members think of this matter in the light in which I have put it to-night, they will at once see that the wisest thing for us to do is to repeal that particular section of the Act of 1922. May I add that, as I said last night, no one could have striven harder than the British delegates to the London Naval Conference to secure the abolition of the submarine altogether; no one could have striven harder to make the most severe rules apply to the use of submarines against merchant ships at all. We have, at any rate, for the first time, got some measure of agreement regulating the use of ships—[Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom has long naval experience, and knows that there were implied rules operating, but a statement of this kind has never been put into a Treaty agreed to by nations. That is a very important point. It is a big step forward towards the goal which we want to reach, and which I want to reach as much as any other Member in the House.
§ Major GLYN
I feel entirely unconvinced by the speech of the First Lord, and more than ever inclined to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby). It seems to me that the argument used by the First Lord would be all very well if we were satisfied that Article 22 of this Treaty really does replace in every way Article 4 of the Root Treaty. I am not at all satisfied about that, and, also, I think it is a great mistake for us to assume that we in this country cannot state by means of a Statute what we believe to be an ideal to be achieved. We believe that the form of submarine warfare carried on in the last War should, if possible, be stopped or limited, and I believe that the First Lord and all Members on this side of the House feel equally strongly on that point. Since when has it been that we cannot make a Statute that we believe to be right, with- 2534 out waiting for some foreign country to say, "Ditto"? It seems to me that the British people in the past have usually observed the honour of war at sea, and I am not convinced by the argument of the First Lord that, by refusing to pass Clause 2 of this Bill to-night, we are doing anything to endanger the Treaty.
Surely, we are doing something to discourage every other nation from aiming at a standard of naval warfare which we consider to be honourable. It will certainly be interpreted by other nations, if we go back on what we said in 1922, that we have changed our minds and altered our ideas. I am amazed at hon. Gentlemen opposite, all of whom support the League of Nations and all of whom say that they will do everything possible to do away with the submarine, actually asking us to support Section 32 of the previous Treaty, to wipe all that out, to say that we have abolished every principle that we ever thought worth putting into a Statute and have put nothing in its place—because Article 22 of the present Treaty does not take the place of the principle which we announced in this House, and which was contained in the ordinance of the Washington Treaty.
I feel very strongly that it is not for this country or this House to be the first to cast away principles which we held immediately after the War, when the recollection of all the horrors of war was strong in our minds. Why should we to-day, at the bidding of the present Government, go back on that? If I felt that it really endangered the Treaty, it would be another matter, but I do not. I believe that this country is still meant to lead in naval warfare, and to show an example, and I fail to see any right or justice in asking the House to go back on something which is far more important than small details, but is a matter of high principle. Those of us who, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom, saw these things, know that the recollection of the War is fading all too quickly, and if, by a new Statute, we wipe out something that we all believed to be essential in 1922, I think it would be the greatest possible mistake. I trust that the First Lord will reconsider this matter, because the Treaty is not in danger. He has not told us at the bidding of what Power we are asked to do this, or who started it.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
It is not at the bidding of any Power. We are going to-night to honour our obligations under the Treaty which has been signed.
§ Major GLYN
With all respect to the First Lord, I did not understand that that was the purpose of this debate. What is the use of having a debate or voting if everything that is presented to us by the First Lord has to be ratified by us because someone else has done it? Surely, we are to be allowed to exercise our own opinion, to state what we feel, and to vote according to our conscience. As far as we are concerned, I trust that on this side of the House we shall not allow any misunderstanding to exist as to the weapon of the submarine. We want to see the tradition that this weapon should never be used in war forced upon other nations. We know that certain other countries refused to co-operate with us in the abolition of the submarine arm. Personally, I regret that. I think it would have been a very good thing if it could have been abolished, and I think the First Lord agrees with that; but why, because other nations want to use that weapon, should we allow them to make it more poisonous than it need be? It is our business to stand up and vote according to our consciences.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not wish to delay the proceedings any further. I did quite enough mischief last night from the Chief Whip's point of view. Anyone who loses time is rather a nuisance from the point of view of the Chief Whip, and the late Chief Whip, of course, thoroughly agrees, except that he is in Opposition. We are not discussing the Treaty of London itself, but only one part of it. With the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) I have a great deal of sympathy. I think it is very unfortunate that we have made this retrograde step. Nevertheless, as the First Lord points out, the fact that one Power has ratified the Washington Treaty—this I gather is the case, though I am still a little doubtful about it—does not bind the other Powers. It is no use our laying down rules unless the other Powers are prepared to adopt them as rules. In fact, it is only too obvious 2536 that the rules of war will not be kept in certain circumstances unless they have general sanction and acceptance, and apparently it is the case that the present Government at Paris is not prepared to accept the standard which we take up and which has been so eloquently voiced by the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, with every word of which I agree. Suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman goes to a Division and is supported by the Committee, what will be the exact effect? It will simply mean that we shall still attempt to carry out Article IV of the Washington Treaty of 1922. I hope there will be another Government in France before long which will take a different view, but the present French Government is not prepared to accept Article IV. Therefore, while we may say we intend to try for piracy, anyone who murders seamen, and the Americans, Japanese and Italians say they will be prepared to do that, the French do not agree, and there is little chance of getting other Powers to agree if one Power stands out.
The Washington Treaty and Article IV are by no means perfect. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom will read them again and think over his speech, he will know that even the Washington Treaty was rather a retrograde step from the old pre-War laws of the power of visit and seareh at sea. It allows the sinking of merchant ships. We had always maintained before the War that under no circumstances should a ship be sunk on the high seas unless she had not been brought before a Prize Court and properly tried. The force of law was actually brought into warfare. Look at the position we have reached now. In 1922 you had the Washington Treaty in which, under certain circumstances, as long as you took the crew on board, you could sink a ship. That was a retrograde step. Now we go a step further back. You can now sink a ship provided the crew can take to open boats and, in the opinion of the submarine commander, can reach land, a very wide provision indeed which can easily be got round. The lesson from this is that, as long as you recognise the right of attacking private property at sea in a private war, you always run the risk of some nation breaking all rules and all laws, as was done in the late War. The only way is 2537 to say that the great Powers are determined that their commerce and that of neutrals shall not be attacked and misused as commerce was in the last War, and you have got to come back to the second of President Wilson's 14 points, that commerce at sea shall not be attacked under any circumstances.
The discussion is taking too wide a scope. The real issue is whether or not we shall retain a penalty and apply it to certain breaches of the law at sea irrespective of what other nations may do.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I apologise for going a little wide. I return immediately. As long as the right of attacking merchant ships outside the three-mile limit is admitted, you will always run the danger of the rules which you have always had in the past being broken. The only point between the First Lord and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom is whether it is worth while keeping in the right of trial for piracy. Under the circumstances, I would beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to divide the Committee. I do not think it matters so very much really. The real sanction in all these things, as it has been in the past, is not the right of trying for piracy. You do that if you feel strong enough to do it. We were not strong enough to do it in the late War but, if you are strong enough to do it, you can stop the breaking of such rules as are recognised. I look for a far greater step forward, and that must take place at a later conference, and I hope in that case we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
I am not at all satisfied with the First Lord's reply because, as I understand it, it amounted to this, that our trial for piracy rests upon the old principles of the common law. It seems to me that, if you carry the First Lord's argument to its logical conclusion, you would say we must abolish the whole of our common law remedy against piracy because some other small Power in some other part of the world has not the same common law as we have always observed in regard to piracy. What did this Treaty of 1922 do? It did not apply merely to the people who signed the Washington Convention in that year. It did not apply 2538 merely to those Powers. We passed into the Statute law of this country a definite penalty to be imposed by the courts of this country against any of the subjects of another Power who did not observe our laws with regard to piracy, if we caught them doing it to one of our ships or if they came into one of our Dominions. It did not matter whether they belonged to one of the particular Powers which signed the Washington Treaty or not, we let it be known to the world, and I am very glad that we did, that if similar acts to those committed by the Germans in the last War were carried out in any future war, we should consider them to be acts of piracy. We were, perhaps, ahead of other nations in that respect. If we were, I am glad that we took this step.
What are we doing now? The Section that we are about to repeal, if the House passes this Clause, will prevent the man who is acting under a superior from being tried for piracy, and it will also stop us from trying a person for piracy in this country if he is found in one of our Dominions. We have these rights only under the Section of the Act which the present Bill would repeal. Is it a good thing to do that or is it not? The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that if we were strong enough to do it, we should take these forms of reprisals against a man if we could catch him. If you are going to treat a man as a criminal, I would much sooner that you gave that man a fair warning before you tried him, and let it be known that it was part of our Statute law that if he committed such an act, he could be tried for piracy in our courts rather than take the way by which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to get out of this critical Division which he does not want to see pressed upon the Committee.
The fair and honest way, and the way that this country should give a lead to the world, is by saying that we are going to treat people in this way whatever any other country in the world may do. Let it be known that we set up these standards in the year 1922, and that we are not going to depart from them in the year 1930. Just because we happen to be getting further away from the period of the War, we should not forget some 2539 of the things that happened. Let us have these powers in reserve—and we hope that they will be only in reserve—to show nations what we, at any rate, intend to do, and not let conditions merely be put down vaguely in the Treaty, because a treaty does not give any sanction to the courts of this country as does the provision which we are about to repeal. A treaty only applies to its signatories, but if we get the provision upon the Statute law of this country, it will apply to every country, and every country will know beforehand that it is going to apply to the subjects of that country.
I hope that although we cannot abolish the submarine altogether, it will be made almost impossible for people to misuse that weapon, and that if they do misuse it they shall be tried as ordinary pirates through the common law procedure of this country. I hope that we shall support my hon. and gallant Friend in pressing this matter to a Division, in order to see who is really inclined to make war more merciful, and, therefore, less barbarous. [Interruption.] Yes, less barbarous than it will be if we do not try to enact this particular provision. We are doing away, and let us not blink our eyes to it, with a provision that seeks to make submarine warfare more merciful, because under that provision the man in charge of the submarine knows that he may be caught, and that if he is caught he is liable to be tried for piracy. Therefore, he is less likely to carry on barbarous methods. Those who vote against the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend are certainly voting that submarine warfare may, as far as the commanders of submarines are concerned, still be carried on in the barbarous manner in which the German submarine commanders carried it on during the last War.
§ Dr. BURGIN
I think some misunderstanding has crept into this discussion, and perhaps a brief explanation will show whether it is so or not. Whenever this House passes a Bill to ratify a treaty, a certain risk is incurred. Other parties may not ratify. We have a habit of ratifying treaties very quickly, and sometimes decided inconvenience is caused. In 1922 this House passed an Act to ratify 2540 the Washington Treaty. In that Act we passed a certain section, believing that other countries were going to do the same. It turns out that that expectation has not been realised, consequently the Act which we placed upon the Statute Book does not represent an international situation at all. It represents a position loyally taken up by this country in the belief that other parties to the contract were going to follow suit. They have not done so, and consequently the Statute is, to that extent, not an international agreement.
This country has always two entirely different spheres. It has its own national sphere, and it has also its international sphere. We are discussing to-night an aspect of its international sphere. Among the same parties as those concerned in the Washington Treaty there has been subsequent discussion. Whereas agreement has not been found possible on the whole of the Washington Treaty a substituted agreement has been made between some of the same Powers for a replacement of a Clause that has no longer been found to be applicable, because one of the great States will not agree. Therefore, the First Lord of the Admiralty comes to this House, and in submitting the London Naval Treaty he proposes that we should, as internationalists, having entered into a new Treaty containing Clauses to which all the nations have said they will agree, pass in this House an international agreement, and erase a section which was thought to be an agreement but which the passage of time shows was not a clear agreement. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
We are not discussing the common law of piracy. We are not discussing the statute law of piracy. Our common law of piracy remains entirely unaffected. We can pass in this House any law of piracy that we like; we are a sovereign Parliament, but when we are dealing with a Naval Treaty and expressing in terms of the Statute for the ratification of an agreement which has been made between sovereign States, we follow the terms of that agreement, or we do not. The London Naval Treaty represents a substituted agreement. The old Clause 4 of the Treaty of Washington is no longer applicable, and this House is being asked to make the Statute Book agree with 2541 the facts of the international position, which is that Section 4, passed by us in anticipation, was not agreed to by other States, and is therefore no longer applicable. In its place we have the London Naval Treaty. That is what the House is being asked to approve to-night.
§ Sir DENNIS HERBERT
I do not often intervene in naval debates and I only do so this evening because it is the service in which every hon. Member and every Englishman should be deeply interested. The question which I should like to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty and also to the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) is this: Do they believe that any British naval officer ever wants, has ever wanted, to break these rules which they are proposing to repeal? If the First Lord is not prepared to answer that question, and if the hon. Member for Luton is not prepared to answer it—
§ Dr. BURGIN
I am, and at once; and the answer is an emphatic negative, but it is quite an irrelevant question.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
I will come to the question as to whether it is irrelevant in a moment. I am glad to have had that answer from the hon. Member. Whether I shall get the same reply from the First Lord I do not know, but I have asked the question of my friends on this side of the House who have served in the Navy as to whether any British officer is ever likely to break these rules which it is now proposed to repeal. I do not believe they ever would; or that they have ever done so. What is the next thing we have to meet? Take the hon. Member's suggestion that the question is not relevant. I say that it is relevant for this reason. If we intend, whether it is law by the Statutes of this country or not, to keep certain rules which are in accordance with the great traditions of the British Navy it is not irrelevant, when we have once placed these rules on the Statute Book, that we should keep them there. The First Lord says, and I gather that the hon. Member for Luton agrees with him, that we should repeal these rules for this reason; that we placed them on the Statute Book believing that other parties to a certain treaty would do the Same and that they have not done so. Again I ask, is that any reason why, if we intend to keep them, that we should repeal them?
2542 The amazing part of it is that this proposal is put to us by a Socialist Government, who in season and out of season, in this House and on public platforms, on naval matters, on military matters and on international matters, have abused us because they say we have not taken the lead. Their policy has always been, never mind whether others disarm, let us disarm. Here is something where there is no compulsion on us, no duty on us, to repeal these rules. The First Lord said just now that the reason for this Clause in the Bill is that it is in accordance with the recent London Naval Treaty. Can the right hon. Gentleman show me any obligation under the recent London Naval Treaty, or under any other Treaty, why this country should take these rules off the Statute Book? The whole thing is a complete fraud. There is no reason whatever, no compulsion on us, no duty on us, there is not even a request to us from any single party to any one of these treaties that we should repeal these rules. Are we to disarm, to do something which may seriously harm our position in the world, as an example to other countries when we know that they will not do it?
The question for discussion is not disarmament, but the application of certain rules.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
I am sorry if I appeared to strain the point. I am addressing my arguments directly to the question whether we should repeal certain laws enforcing certain rules of conduct at sea during warfare. With great respect to you, what I want to say is this: That a Government who ask us to disarm and to run risks in disarmament, as a gesture and example to other countries, ought not to ask us to repeal rules which we shall keep, whether they put this country at a disadvantage or not; that they should not ask us to repeal the legal sanction of rules which are only in accordance with the traditions of the British Navy. Here, for once, we have a chance of making a gesture—to use a favourite phrase of hon. Members opposite—to other nations, of setting an example to them of what we should do, instead of which the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee and, with no reason for it, asks us to retreat from the position of the good example which we have shown.
2543 There have been questions of difficulty which have been touched upon in this debate, as to the exact legal position at the present time, and I want to make a protest against the fact that when we are discussing a Bill dealing with an important international Treaty, there is on the Government Front Bench neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General, and not even the Scottish law officer who sometimes deputises for them. We have been treated as if the Committee was not expected to take an interest in this kind of thing or to do more than the bidding of the Government. I hope that those of us who are here will at any rate go to a Division on this subject and show that we intend, as far as we can, not merely to oppose the proposal, but that we intend to maintain the great traditions of humanity and decency associated with the British Navy.
§ Mr. ARNOTT
I do not profess to be an expert on naval matters, but I have taken an interest in some of the problems raised to-night, and I am rather astonished at finding the extreme pacifist view preached from the Tory benches. The view that we have had expressed to-night is that we can make an international Treaty for the whole world in accordance with our view, and that if we think it wrong to use submarines in a certain fashion then we can decide that they shall not be used in that fashion not only by us but by the whole world. In fact hon. Members opposite are attempting to regulate the use of submarines by example and not by international agreement or law. Strangely enough, in doing so they say, "We would like to abolish submarines, but unfortunately we cannot." That is sheer nonsense. If they could abolish submarine law or the law that is accepted by other nations, if they could impose the law here, without regard to other nations, as to the conduct of submarines, they could impose the same law in regard to the building of submarines and the use of submarines in any fashion whatever.
The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) said that the Government believed in disarmament by example. That is exactly what the Government have refused to do. That is the quarrel of the Government with some of the members of "the Mountain," as it has 2544 been described. The Government have never accepted the view that we ought to abolish the Army and the Navy, and that other people would then follow suit. The whole purpose of the Naval Treaty is to try to get disarmament by another method, because that method will not operate. Some of us would like to go a long way towards the complete abolition of the Navy and the Army, but we realise that it cannot be done in that way.
We cannot discuss the question of the abolition of the Army and Navy upon this Clause. The issue before the Committee is a very simple one as to whether certain laws which are now in existence and on the Statute Book should remain there and should be applied by this country.
§ Mr. ARNOTT
I had no intention of discussing the general question of disarmament, but I am trying to point out, in reply to the last speech, that we are not responsible for the assumption—which seems to be the only ground-work of the arguments addressed to us from the other side—that we can determine, by our legislation, the course of conduct not only of this nation but of other nations as well.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
I never suggested anything of the kind. The whole burden of my remarks was quite to the contrary. I asked the specific, or shall I call it, the rhetorical question, of the right hon. Gentleman—does he expect that any British officers would ever break these rules? If not, what is the objection to having these rules made applicable by Statute law to British officers, although we know they do not apply to other countries?
§ Mr. ARNOTT
That is easily answered. Do you believe that an honest man would steal. If not, why make laws against stealing? We are dealing now with the definition of certain actions on the high seas as piracy and that definition depends on what is accepted by other nations. We are simply wasting our time in attempting to deal with the matter in our own Statutes and that ought to be clear even to legal gentlemen opposite.
§ Major COLFOX
It seems to me that a great deal of the argument on this Clause is entirely beside the mark. In the original Act this country laid down certain principles and ideals and guiding 2545 rules as to what we thought was right and fit and proper. We set a comparatively high standard of decency and humanity, and I can see absolutely no reason whatever why we should go back from the high standard which we have set just because other countries in the world are not prepared to go to such a high standard as ourselves. Why should we always be asked to degrade our principles and our standards to the level of those of other countries which we all know to be inferior to our own. [Interruption]—There may be people opposite who do not think that our country is better than all others, but I am not one of them; and as we have set up these standards and ideals, I can see no reason why we should go back from them at the bidding of any country or of all countries. Therefore, I strongly support the deletion of this Clause and the retention of our standards.
Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN
I am sick of those people who want to make war more terrible. I simply cannot understand the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is trying to tie our hands and to encourage other people to shoot at us, knowing that we can do nothing if we catch them. It seems to me the most extraordinary attitude to take up, and I shall go into the Lobby to record my vote so that if there does happen to be a war, and any of these submarine people are caught, they shall pay the penalty.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
I want to say—[Interruption.] I think the Committee will do me the compliment of admitting that I speak in this House when I have something to say, and will allow me to be as sincere in my views as they are in theirs. I have heard hon. Members opposite advocating extreme pacifist views, which I personally abhor, but I do not interrupt them and refuse them a hearing, so why should they interrupt me? The argument of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Arnott), if it meant anything at all, meant that he objected to our putting into operation rules which we believe should operate for other people unless they were a party to those rules, but if you press that argument to its logical conclusion—and Article 4 is only reaffirming the age-long principle that an act such as those perpetrated 2546 by German submarines is in fact an act of piracy—you are bound to allow that the piracy which is carried on by Chinese pirates is perfectly legal, and you have therefore no right to say to the Chinese pirates, "If I catch you murdering and looting a British steamer, I will hang you." Is he going to say, does he honestly hold, that if a Chinese pirate pleads that he does not subscribe to the existing world-wide ideas on piracy, he has a right to loot and burn and destroy as he likes?
§ Mr. ARNOTT
If the French and ourselves differ as to what is piracy, we cannot impose our views on the French.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
There has never been an iota of difference between us and the French as to the carrying out of the chivalrous rules of warfare at sea, nor have we any reason to believe that the French would behave as the Germans behaved in the last War. The First Lord made the point that, if this was not deleted, our submarine officers would be put at a disadvantage as regards foreign nations.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
I did not say submarine officers. I said that our officers generally might be made subject to any rules passed by other Powers and implemented by their domestic Statutes, which might possibly operate hardly against them.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
I accept the correction; I should have said our officers generally. I suggest that there is not an officer in the great Service over which the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to preside who would mind accepting the risk in order that this provision should remain on the Statute Book.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
If you press that to the logical conclusion, you would have to take a poll of all the officers in the Service. We do not often hear the First Lord admit in the House what his technical advice has been although we have often pressed him for it. I do not think the Committee has ever listened to such an amazing speech as was delivered by the hon. and 2547 gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Has he read his own speeches on this subject in the past? What an ardent disciple of disarmament and of making rules for submarine warfare he was! Now, because of the party whips, he lies down and says, "Oh well, I will support the Government." He often poses as a Daniel prepared to stand up for his principles, but he does not stand up to-night for what he believes, and for what he has said in the past is right. Reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member to what was done in the past, and he said that in the past ships had always to be sent in to be condemned as prizes. I agree, but the reason that that law was obeyed in the past was because in those days, when people in charge were not perhaps so fearful of foreign opinion and so mealy-mouthed as they are now, those who broke these well-known and well-established laws knew perfectly well that those in charge would exact a very swift and speedy vengeance for an act of piracy committed on the high seas. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) who spoke from below the Gangway argued that we are not discussing piracy and that the clause is not applicable because we are discussing an international aspect. We are quite accustomed to the somersaults of the Liberal party. I would remind him of what his party leader of 1922 said. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"] It was in the days when there was a party leader. If hon. Members below the Gangway would turn up the debate in 1922, they would change their minds. This is what was said by Mr. Asquith in that debate:If submarine warfare is to be allowed at all, everyone will agree that these provisions, to prevent such acts by submarines, are not in any circumstances a departure from the universal rules as to piracy, and are necessary to make logically complete the well-established principles of international law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1922; cols. 724–5, Vol. 156.]There is absolutely no reason, and no argument has been adduced from below the Gangway or from the other side of the House, why these well-established principles, which Article 4 only sought to reaffirm, should not be kept upon the Staute Book. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that they have preached in season and out of season that we 2548 should do away with submarine war or make that war more humane. To-night is one of the occasions when they have to act up to their principles or run away from them. There is not a person who will read this debate to-morrow who will not realise that Members opposite went into the Lobby because they had been told to do so, and because they had been told that if they did not pass the Bill the London treaty would fall to the ground. It is not a fact at all that it will fall to the ground. There is no reason why we should not say to the whole world that submarine warfare is to be restricted, and we ought to be brave enough to declare that if we catch anybody acting in future as they have done in the past, we are going to try them for it.
Those hon. Members who go into the Lobby in support of the Government will have failed to practise what they perpetually preach. If they vote for the deletion of this provision, they will be voting to take away a provision which was acclaimed by hon. Members in the House on a former occasion. Let them have the courage to go into the Lobby with hon. Members on this side. It is all very well for the First Lord to laugh, but it is no laughing matter. We are always being told by hon. Members on the other side of their sincerity about disarmament and pacifism, and now is the time for them to translate words into deeds. Whether the laughter of the First Lord on a vital matter like this is sufficient to deter hon. Members I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The hon. Member who said "Divide!" is no doubt making the best contribution he is able to make to this Debate. No doubt he is one of those who go round the constituencies and say that the Conservative party are warmongers. Now is his time to do a little more than say "Divide!" He should have more courage, and go into the Lobby for what he has always said are his principles. As for hon. Members below the Gangway, I suppose they will either be absent from the House or will support the Government who are now asking us to make submarine warfare more inhuman by taking this regulation off the Statute Book.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
No one suffered more than the fishing community from the acts of piracy of German submarines 2549 during the War. It is an astonishing thing to have to listen to-night to representatives of two important fishing constituencies on the opposite side of the Humber to my own advocating the taking away of rules and regulations in the Washington Convention. I challenge hon. Members to go and explain the matter to their fishermen and see what they say. I should like to have the opportunity of debating with them in front of those fishermen.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
If the hon. Member was referring to me, I may say that he was not in the House when I spoke.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I sat in this seat the whole time, and heard every word the hon. and gallant Member had to say. It is a surprising thing to me that a Socialist Government should bring forward a proposition like this, which is a step backward from what we expected would be the outcome of the Washington Convention. I well remember at the time it was advertised throughout my constituency and other shipping constituencies that the Government had been able to get these regulations and rules about submarine warfare. It is a question which does stir the minds of people who had to seek a living on the water during the War period. It was said throughout my constituency what a great triumph it was to the Government of that day. It is true it was not a Socialist Government and we did not expect a Socialist Government would ever consent, even if it meant breaking away from the Conference, to go back upon the agreement made at that time. I am glad to know that my hon. Friends are going to divide against this proposal, because, as representing a constituency which paid the greatest toll, perhaps, of any in proportion to its population owing to submarine piracy, I shall be able to record my vote against it.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
In view of the rather long debate, I think the Committee will expect me to make a final reply. The statements made to-night show extraordinary confusion of thought, and it will be very unfair for the country 2550 found when we came into office, it is an to get the impression which some hon. Members opposite seem to wish it to have. I have already said that the Government have tried, in the last few months, to abolish the use of submarines altogether. If that had been kept in mind by some hon. Members opposite, they would not have said some of the things which they have. We are not dealing, as the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) seemed to think, with an Act upon our Statute Book referring only to British officers. He asked me whether I thought any British naval officer would ever have to be proceeded against for such an offence as is contemplated under Section 4 of the Act of 1922. I certainly do not think so, but the operation of that Section is not confined to British officers, although I am quite certain that the hon. Member was under that impression.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
Perhaps I did speak rather carelessly of it. What I meant was that there is no reason why we should not have upon our Statute Book, irrespective of whether other countries have them, provisions which we are prepared to enforce upon ourselves. At any rate, that would set a good example to other countries, and it might persuade them to do the same thing. It would be better than retreating from our position.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
What hon. Members seem to forget is that this Section 4 refers to an article in the Root Treaty. We have put into a British Statute something which cannot be operative internationally, because the Root Treaty is dead. I think we ought to get that well into our minds. It is dead. It never was completely operative, because all the Powers who were signatories did not deposit their ratification. Until all the Powers had deposited their ratifications, the treaty could not be operative. We, following our ordinary constitutional practice, put into a Statute the necessary provisions to implement our obligations under the treaty in the event of the treaty becoming international law. Since then we have come to an international agreement about this matter which although, as we have freely admitted, is not as good internationally as would have been the case if the Root Treaty had been ratified, yet, in face of the position we 2551 improvement. For the first time acts and conduct in the process of war are the subject of a definition in an international treaty instead of resting entirely upon a knowledge of established practice. That is a step forward. It does not go as far as we would like it to go, but let me say that we cannot possibly make international law out of a domestic law. The hon. and learned Member said, "Never mind, let us keep it on the Statute Book as an example." Do we intend to keep it on the Statute Book but never operate it? I would like an answer to that question. Do we intend to keep this provision on the Statute Book and operate it against the nationals of some other country who have now agreed to this Convention and who have entered, with representatives of our country, into a subsequent treaty to which we are a signatory and which will be ratified?
§ treaty impose any obligation whatever upon this country to pass this particular Clause?
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
If the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) had been listening he would have heard my view before. What I said was that we were implementing our proper obligation under the Treaty signed by us by asking this Committee to implement it on the Statute Book of this country. That is a proper thing for us to do, and, when this matter is explained to the Committee and to the country in the light in which I have spoken now, I do not think that people will be led away by sentiments of the kind expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and the hon. Member for Watford.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 58.2553
|Division No. 460.]||AYES.||[11.3 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Elmley, Viscount||Lawson, John James|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Foot, Isaac||Leach, W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Arnott, John||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Gill, T. H.||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Gillett, George M.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Gossling, A. G.||Longden, F.|
|Barr, James||Gould, F.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Granville, E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||McElwee, A.|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Groves, Thomas E.||McKinlay, A.|
|Benson, G.||Grundy, Thomas W.||McShane, John James|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mansfield, W.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||March, S.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Haycock, A. W.||Marley, J.|
|Brothers, M.||Hayes, John Henry||Mathers, George|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Melville, Sir James|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Messer, Fred|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Middleton, G.|
|Buchanan, G.||Herriotts, J.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Morley, Ralph|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hoffman, P. C.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Mort, D. L.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Muff, G.|
|Chater, Daniel||Isaacs, George||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Johnston, Thomas||Naylor, T. E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kelly, W. T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Dukes, C.||Kennedy, Thomas||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Duncan, Charles||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lathan, G.||Potts, John S.|
|Price, M. P.||Simmons, C. J.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Sinkinson, George||Walker, J.|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Raynes, W. R.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Richards, R.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Snell, Harry||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Ritson, J.||Sorensen, R.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Romeril, H. G.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Sullivan, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Rowson, Guy||Sutton, J. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Sanders, W. S.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Tinker, John Joseph||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Sexton, James||Toole, Joseph||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Tout, W. J.|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Townend, A. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Shield, George William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Vaughan, D. J.||Paling.|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Viant, S. P.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ganzoni, Sir John||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Salmon, Major I.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gower, Sir Robert||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Meller, R. J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Ramsbotham, H.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Remer, John R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Fielden, E. B.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Sir George Penny.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.