HC Deb 03 April 1933 vol 276 cc1473-501

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.52 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Unlike my hon. Friends who have preceded me, I hope to be very brief in the remarks I have to make, but I am not sure that I shall be so breezy. I must pay a tribute to the speeches in this Debate so far, which have been very much to the point—except for those of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. In all my 12 years' membership in this House I have never had a Minister treat me in that way before, and I will try to see that it is not done in the future. We have come now to the most important part of this Measure, because Clause 4 is the only Clause which is explained in the Memorandum on the Bill. Why the other Clauses were not explained I cannot say. If hon. Members will follow me for a moment, we will see what Clause 4 does. I should have thought it was the duty of the Under-Secretary of State for Air to explain this very important Clause to us. In fact, I think he ought to have done so at the beginning, because, as I shall be able to show, the Clause embodies a very important principle. The Memorandum states: The Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken at once to commence the formation of the new Indian Air Force. That appears under the heading "Clause 4," with which I am now dealing. Will the Under-Secretary for Air tell us how it comes about that the Government of India alone have decided in favour of this step? Where do our Government come in? I want to ask, "Is it within the competence of the Government of India to decide that steps shall be taken at once to commence the formation of a new Indian Air Force?" I should imagine, for those who understand anything about the problem, that is a real constitutional issue.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is a very important constitutional point, but this is not the occasion on which it arises.

Mr. DAVIES

I bow to your Ruling at once, Captain Bourne, because you know the Rules very much better than I do.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Is it not within the ambit of a discussion on Clause 4 for my hon. Friend to refer to the Memorandum? The Memorandum itself is headed, "Clause 4" and specifically indicates the scope of the Clause and the occasion which has given rise to its insertion in the Bill. I submit, therefore, with all respect, that what my hon. Friend has said is strictly relevant to the Clause. Indeed, the Memorandum is concerned solely with Clause 4, and nothing else.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member will read the Memorandum he will notice that the provision of the personnel of this force and its discipline is a matter for the Indian Legislature. All this Clause does is to deal with the relations of any air force in India with the Air Force of this country when the two may happen to be serving together. We cannot go into the motives which may have led the Government of India to create the force.

Mr. LAWSON

May I call attention to the fact that, so far as I know, no statement has been made in this House about the creation of this new Indian Air Force? We are discussing it now for the first time, and neither the Secretary of State for India nor anyone else representing the India Office is present. We must ask that someone should be here to represent the India Office, otherwise we shall be compelled to move to report Progress. As it seems that no move is to be made to secure the attendance of a representative of the India Office, I beg to move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot intervene in the speech of another hon. Member in order to move to report Progress. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. DAVIES

I will consider very seriously the point raised by my hon. Friend as to whether we should not later move to report Progress, but I want first to make one or two very pertinent observations.

Mr. COCKS

On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Clause speaks of An air force raised in India, are we we not entitled to ask what sort of an air force this is with which our own Air Force will have to associate? Is it the kind of air force with which our own Air Force will agree to associate? Are we not entitled to ask what, exactly, is meant by "an" air force?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Certainly not. Any question of that kind would have to be addressed to the Secretary of State for India.

Mr. DAVIES

The reply of the Chair has reinforced our demand, and between now and the conclusion of my very brief speech we shall have to consider what action we shall take. On second thoughts, I agree entirely with the point you made, Captain Bourne, on the point of Order that I raised on paragraph 1, but on the second paragraph of this Memorandum I think I shall be entitled to proceed to argue against the adoption of this Clause. Before I do that I would invite the Committee to note exactly what Clause 4 is. It differs from the Clauses with which we have dealt up to now. So far we have been dealing in the main with the Army, and have only mentioned the Air Force in passing, but this Clause is headed: Amendments of the Air Force Act. and, consequently, I suppose we must confine ourselves to that Act. It says: 184B. When a body of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force and a body of an air force raised in India are serving together under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India, a member of either body shall, if it is so provided by the regulations, but subject to any exceptions or limitations specified therein, have the like powers of command over members of the other body as if he were a member of that body holding relative rank. This is almost a proposal to amalgamate the two Air Forces; at any rate Regulations are to be prescribed, by the Air Council and the Government of India, as to how to deal with the two separate forces when they are called together either for battle or for peaceful purposes. The first question that I want to put to the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill is, what are the Regulations likely to be? That is a very proper question to put to him. Will the Regulations governing the two bodies be on the same basis as the present Regulations governing our own Air Force? There would be no reason for this Clause were it not for the fact that a branch of our Air Force will at some time go to India. What for, we cannot tell.

I do not know what the Government's apprehensions may be in regard to India. It is inconceivable that the new Air Force to be raised in India are likely to come to this country to work in conjunction with our own Air Force. I can, however, conceive the possibility of a rising in India, but I cannot conceive of a rising in this country that would warrant an invitation to the new Air Force at Delhi to come over to London to subdue the British people with Indians manning the Indian Air Force. I am putting the case as clearly as possible. It requires a good deal of argument and analysis to find out exactly what the Clause means, and that is why I ask the hon. Gentleman what the Regulations are to be. Will they be based on the Regulations now in force in this country, governing our own Air Force, or will they be a combination of the Regulations existing in this country and those in operation in India governing the Air Force there?

It is pertinent to ask a further question: Does it mean that in future no section of our own Air Force will be called upon to go to India unless special circumstances demand it? If I understand the position rightly, Clause 4 means that the establishment of the new Air Force in India practically precludes the necessity, except in special circumstances, of any call being made on our own Air Force to go to India for operations. I am stating it properly when I put it that way. Now let me conic to a paragraph of the Memorandum which is also pertinent to the point which I am raising. Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum reads: It is necessary, however, to make provision to regulate the relations between members of the new force and members of the Royal Air Force when units of the two forces are doing duty at the same station or are otherwise serving together, and also to make provision for the discipline of members of the Indian force when attached to the Royal Air Force. How conies it about that our Air Force is called the "Royal Air Force"? If the great Imperialists, jingoes and junkers in this country, those royalists and monarchists love the word "royal" in connection with the Air Force, why do they preclude the word "royal" being attached to the Indian Air Force? Why should not the Indian Force be called the "Royal Indian Air Force"?

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I do not think that this Clause gives any title, or can give any title, to the Indian Air Force.

Mr. DAVIES

I was only asking that in passing: it was not part of my main argument. Brushing that point entirely aside, I concede at once that the Indian Government must be master in its own house. I am treading on very delicate ground when dealing with the problem of the use of the word "royal." I will leave it at that, because it is a very touchy problem. I will drop it at once. Having said that, let me come to what is the actual kernel of the problem. First of all a new Air Force is to be established in India. We are not allowed under the Clause to argue why our Air Force can take into its bosom the word "royal" and the Indian Air Force cannot. What we can argue on this Clause is the question of the Regulations that are to be established to deal with these two Air Forces when they meet together.

I have been a member of the Select Committee which inquired into the Rules of Procedure of this House, and I ought to know how far I can travel to the right or to the left. Knowing that, I am going to be very careful to keep myself in strict order. Let me come, therefore, to the two Air Forces when they meet. I am not allowed to argue why these two Forces should ever meet, or whether they should meet in India, across the Mediterranean, in England, China or Japan. All that I have to deal with here is the Regulations that are to govern these two Air Forces when they do meet. The problem will arise when they meet, if ever—but that they will meet is clear, otherwise the Government would not have included these provisions in the Bill. They will meet some day. Whether they will meet in combat I do not know. They will meet in friendship, I hope, and whenever they meet in friendship they will be faced with a set of Regulations under this Clause. The point, therefore, is that when the two Forces meet, what will be the Regulations that cover them?

For soldiers, the problem of religion is a very important matter. In connection with the Army, I gather, every entrant to the Army who does not state his religion automatically becomes a member of the Church of England. That is the case in our prisons and our mental institutions too, I believe. The first thing I want to ask the Under-Secretary for Air is, Will these Regulations provide that when a man does not declare that he is a Primitive Methodist, a Unitarian, a Wesleyan or a Congregationalist, a Roman Catholic, a Brahmin, a follower of Confucius or a member of the Tao, he automatically becomes a member of the Church of England for the purposes of the regulations? I am keeping within the Rules of the House. Let me travel a little further. The third paragraph of the Memorandum reads: Sub-section (1) deals with the first point on lines similar to those of Section 184A of the Air Force Act which governs the relations between air, naval and military forces when acting together, and Sub-sections (2) to (4) deal with the second point by making personnel attached to the Royal Air Force subject—as a general rule—to the Air Force Act when outside India. The Committee will see that the first thing which Clause 4 does is to provide that Regulations are to be made to govern the two Air Forces when they meet. But, lo and behold! the third paragraph of the Memorandum explaining Clause 4 travels far beyond that. It implies that when one of the sections of the Air Force meet a battalion of our Army or a section of the British Navy, there must be, I imagine, Regulations, to provide for the amalgamation for the time being. A proper question to ask therefore is as to whether those Regulations will be printed in the English language. When a member of the Welsh nation joins the Air Force, will the Regulations be printed in Welsh for him? If a Scotsman cannot read the English language the Regulations ought to be printed in Gaelic as well. When the new Air Force is brought into being in India, the Regulations will be required to be printed in every dialect and language known to members of the Indian Air Force. Some of us who were bred and born in the principality of Wales have been offended on many occasions when English Regulations have been submitted to our boys, and they have not been able to understand what they meant. It is therefore very pertinent to ask in what language the regulations will be printed. I assume that they will be printed in the English language.

Mr. LOGAN

There ought to be a Royal Welsh Air Force.

Mr. DAVIES

Yes. There are the Royal Welsh Guards. That is aside from my main argument. I have explained the first part of Clause 4. Let me pass on to something that is quite as important. I have been as I have already stated in the House for 12 years and I have heard Debates on the Army Annual Bill for 12 years' running. I will tell the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that we have usually had a whole day to discuss this Bill, yet after we had been talking on it to-day for three hours he moved the Closure on my Motion. We have sat all night on this Bill on previous occasions. I am pleased to understand straight away that the Air Ministry understand the etiquette of the House of Commons better than the War Office. It is more gentlemanly by far, they will not move the Closure on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his observations on the Closure are not in order.

Mr. DAVIES

Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 says: All officers belonging to an air force raised in India, when attached to or doing duty with any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force outside India, subject, however, to such exceptions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Air Ministry ought really to explain what that means. I thought I knew something about the English language; I have read as much as I could in my spare time; but I would like to know whether there is not one word "with" too many in the print. It appears tome that the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us whether we should not cross out the first "with," or it may be that we should delete the second.

I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government apprehend in this connection. Do they apprehend that these joint forces will be called upon to go to Afghanistan, which, if my geography is not wrong, is not very far from India? Will they be called upon some day to go into Russia? I think that, when any Government come clown to the House with a Bill of this kind, making preparations such as are suggested in this Clause, we are entitled to ask what they think may occur to warrant these forces coming together to go outside India at all. Where can they go? India is a continent itself and there is ample room for two Air Forces in India, without their going outside. Are they going to Africa? It is pretty clear that they cannot go to America; I cannot see an Air Force going across the Pacific or the Atlantic except as an experiment. But there is a definite plan somewhere at the back of the mind of the Government that something is going to occur in the East, which would warrant these two Forces coming together, and the Force raised in India joining with ours to go outside India is to do something for the British, Empire. I think, therefore, that my question is a very proper one to put to the right hon. Gentleman.

Then we are told that these regulations may be prescribed by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India. How often are they going to meet to do this work? India is a long way off. I forget the distance, but I am told that it is 6,000 miles. The Government will have to spend something on cables and wireless messages, on telephoning, and on couriers, for the purpose of sending messages; or will they send for the Governor-General to come here to deal with these regulations? He has been here before. It may be that this Bill is nothing but an after-thought to put into operation something in the way of regulations that the Government have already drawn up. The Clause becomes more interesting as we go on; indeed, it is packed full of meaning. I find, following the paragraph I have just read, another paragraph which reads: Non-commissioned officers and men belonging to a force raised in India, when attached to, or otherwise acting as part of, or with, any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force outside India, subject, however, to such exceptions as may he prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India. What are the exceptions that the Air Ministry have in mind? Is there this possible exception, that an officer might say: "I am not willing that the Air Force over which I have some control should go to Afghanistan, or Moscow, or China, or Japan"? Is that the exception? Can the regulations provide that a man who, say, has been brought into the Air Force in India, and who is a Brahmin, could say: "I will not serve on the same airship as members of the Church of England from England"? I would like to know what are the exceptions for which provision is made here. Then Subsection (3), at the bottom of the page, says: This Section shall not apply to any officer, non-commissioned officer or man of or belonging to any such force who is for the time being subject to this Act by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five or paragraph (8A) or paragraph (8B) of Section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act. I come back to where I started—

Mr. MORGAN JONES

On a point of Order. My hon. Friend has referred to paragraph (11A) of Section 175, but, on looking at the Act, I find no such paragraph (11A); nor is there, as far as I can discover, any paragraph (8B) in Section 176. I would like to know what our position is. The paragraph in the Bill is most misleading; there is no such reference obtainable.

The CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Member state what his point is?

Mr. JONES

You will observe, Sir Dennis, at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill, these words: by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five. If you look at page 106 of the Air Force Act, you will find a paragraph (11) in Section 175, but no paragraph (11A).

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is scarcely doing himself justice. He had better read the Clause with which we are dealing at the moment. He will find there that it is proposed to insert such a paragraph.

Mr. JONES

The words are quite clear. I stand to be corrected, but I submit that I am not to be told to read a thing when I have already read it out to you. The Sub-section reads as follows: This Section shall not apply to any officer, non-commissioned officer or man of or belonging to any such force who is for the time being subject to this Act by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five or paragraph (8A) or paragraph (8B) of Section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act. I look for paragraph (11A)—

The CHAIRMAN

I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman, but I can only do it in this way, and only if he will let me do it. I must tell him at once that the point which he is raising is not a point of Order at all. The hon. Gentleman appears to think that I have done him an injustice in suggesting that he should read this Clause. May I point out to him what I mean? If he will go back to the earlier part of the Clause, and will read the beginning of Sub-section (2), he will see that by Sub-section (2) it is intended to add a paragraph (11A) after paragraph (11). That was the part that I wanted him to read. As to the question of a point of Order, I must rule that no point of Order is raised by what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes to ascertain what is meant by the Clause, that is a matter for debate, and not a process of order.

Mr. DAVIES

We are getting the situation cleared up rapidly, and, needless to say, I am very much obliged to everyone who has made any interruption at all in order to clear the atmosphere. I will continue the brief remarks I was making, and will come to the paragraph marked (ii) on page 5 of the Bill, which reads: Powers of command, when forces are serving together, shall, so far as provision in that behalf is made by Regulations under Section one hundred and eighty-four B of this Act, be determined by those Regulations. This is, I think, the first time in the history of the Fighting Services that a Fighting Service in India and a section of a Fighting Service in this country have come together in such a way that we have to provide a new Clause in the Air Force Act to make regulations governing them. I should like to repeat the question that I put earlier. Will these regulations be based upon the principles governing our own regulations at home, or upon the regulations governing the Indian Air Force; or will the principles of both be combined in one when the two Forces meet? I think I have raised some very important questions on this Clause, and I am satisfied, in spite of anything that may be said to the contrary, that Clause 4 introduces a very important principle into the Bill. I know that I cannot raise the issue again as to who mooted this new Indian Air Force, but, had I been able to do so, it would have been very interesting to find what the Government had to say in reply.

I desire to protest against any regulations or any proposal that would increase Air Forces in any part of the world except for civil purposes, and I think it is right and proper to say that we on this side of the Committee object to representatives of our Government going abroad to argue in favour of disarmament, attending disarmament conferences, and putting forward proposals, and then coming home and informing their Under-Secretary that he must come down to the House in order to increase the Air Forces throughout the Empire—because that is what it means. In spite of all that has been said up to this moment, I am satisfied that Clause 4 introduces a very dangerous principle into an Act of Parliament, and, for these reasons we shall without any hesitation vote against this Clause and against the whole Bill, not only as a protest against the Bill, but as a protest once again against the shabby treatment meted out to myself by the hon. Gentleman who now represents the War Office.

Mr. LAWSON

May I now, Sr Dennis, raise the point of Order which was raised when your predecessor was in the Chair? We are discussing here a very important decision in reference to Indian policy. The Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken to commence the formation of a new Indian Air Force. No statement has been made in the House as to the decision of the Government or as to the policy that is behind the creation of this new force, and yet to-night we have not a representative of the India Office present. I mentioned the matter nearly half an hour ago, and there has been no attempt by those on the Front Bench to get a representative of the India Office here. I ask leave to move to report Progress in order to give an opportunity for a representative of the India Office to attend And to explain this policy.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman, as far as I can gather, asks me whether he can move to report Progress in order to get here a representative of the India Office to answer certain questions in regard to Indian legislation, and not the legislation of this House. That is not administrative business or business for which the India Office is responsible. In the circumstances, I can scarcely see that I can accept a Motion to report Progress for such a reason as is asked.

Mr. LAWSON

I realise that it is no reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman who is here to 'answer for the Air Force, but everyone who knows anything about Indian affairs knows that, when an important decision is taken with regard to the Indian, Army or the Indian Air Force, it is also 'a matter of fundamental policy. The memorandum clearly says that the Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken. We know nothing about the reasons why those steps are to be taken, and there is no one from the India Office to tell us. The right hon. Gentleman is a representative of the Air Force. He is not in a position to tell us the reasons which have induced the Government of India to set up the new force. It appears to me that it is a very grave reflection upon the Committee, And it is hardly treating the Opposition fairly.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order. Now he is arguing almost as if he were moving to adjourn. I have definitely come to the conclusion that, if he asks leave to move the Adjournment in order to obtain the presence of the Secretary of State for India or someone from the India Office, for the reasons given, then I must decline to accept that Motion.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Might we not ask that some statement shall be made either by the representative of the Air Force—

The CHAIRMAN

That is a, matter for debate in the ordinary way.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

A very vital question has arisen here between the India Office and the Air Department, and we are, surely, entitled to have some explanation. The Clause speaks of the Governor-General of India and the Secretary of State for Air being entitled to make certain regulations. On page 5 there is an Amendment to paragraph 4 of Section 190 of the Air Force Act, which defines the expression "officer": After the words '(d) any officer of a Dominion Force' there shall be inserted the words, 'or of a force raised in India'. This seems to mean that there is to be a junction effected between a section of the Air Force raised in India and a section of the Air Force in this country, and that these two sections joined together will operate according to regulations issued by the Secretary of State for Air jointly with the Governor- General of India. Surely this is bringing a hew principle into what are called the Fighting Forces of the country. It is bringing partial control of a, colony or a dependency over the Fighting Forces of the country. I think a Motion to report Progress is a perfectly orderly Motion, and we ought to have the Secretary of State for India here to tell us what are the reasons which have led to this junction between the Air Force in India and the Air Force of this country and so enable us to discuss this part of the Bill with information derived from that source.

The CHAIRMAN

It is, of course, a very common thing for a Bill to refer to something which cannot be discussed in the Debate on the Bill, because the Bill does not effect that thing. This Bill is not effecting any of these things to which the hon. Member referred. Therefore I do not see, in the circumstances, how they are matters that can be debated or upon which he can insist upon a reply as a matter of order.

Mr. MACLEAN

It is not a matter of debating the items in the Bill. We are entitled to know the reason why these two forces are to be joined. We ought to know why certain things are likely to be done, such as the issuing of joint regulations by the Governor-General of India and the Secretary of State for India. It is the first time that a Service Bill has been brought before the House which has handed over to someone over whom the House has no control the issuing of regulations which are going to govern the operation of the Services that are paid for by the House. That is the vital question—handing over part of the control of the House to someone over whom the House has no control. He is to have a share in the issuing of regulations which are to lay down the methods to be pursued by part of the Air Force. If it were the Navy that we were discussing and control of the Navy were passing partly out of the control of the House, and if you, Sir, were sitting on these benches, with your knowledge of procedure, you would be the first to protest against such a violation of the rights of the House.

The CHAIRMAN

I am not sure that I need go so far as to say that what the hon. Member has said is not in order, but I am going to make an appeal to him that, when he is supporting a point of Order to the Chair, he should not make any reference to what the particular occupant of the Chair might be doing if he were an Opposition Member on the back benches instead of being in his position of responsibility in the Chair. I am afraid I must keep to my opinion in spite of what the hon. Member has said, to which I have listened with the greatest possible attention. I cannot see that these are matters which are effected or carried out by the Bill. The hon. Member may differ from my decision—he says he does—but unfortunately for him, it is my decision and not his which counts. I must rule that these are not matters upon which I can accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am very sorry to force the issue, but the point we have to bear in mind is that power is being given to someone over whom the House has no control to issue regulations governing part of the Air Force which we maintain and pass an annual Act in order to govern. It is something that is in the Bill, and it gives power to the Governor-General to assist in issuing regulations. It may not be in order technically, but it would at least be a nice gesture for the Government to make to have the Secretary of State for India here to give us some explanation as to what is being done.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has now made clearer to me what is his point, with the result that I can perhaps make clearer what my point is. So far as these regulations, which he is afraid of, are to be made, they are to be made jointly by a representative who is controlled by this House and another who is not. The person to whom the hon. Member should address his question is the representative of the Air Council who is here to answer and not to any representative of the Governor-General of India who is not here to answer.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

We desire to have a representative of the India Office here to guide us. So far we have failed to bring sufficient argument to bear to convince you, Sir, of the strength of our case. You will find on page 5 of the Bill a reference to certain definitions, and you will find: After the words '(d) any officer of a Dominion force,' there shall be inserted the words 'or of a force raised in India'. The Section of the Act referred to there is the Section that defines the word "officer." If there were no change at all proposed in the definition of the word "officer," I should have no case for inviting the presence of the Secretary of State, but it is at this juncture in our history that the Air Ministry chooses to make a change in the definition of "officer" and to differentiate between an officer in India and an officer in the Dominions. That, in a way, is pre-judging the very important constitutional issue which we discussed last week, and we ought not to allow this change to take place without having the guidance of the Secretary of State for India to show us why it is to be made at the very time when Parliament is discussing whether or not certain constitutional changes should be made.

The CHAIRMAN

I am very sorry that I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member, who in my opinion has made no case, whatever. I can only suggest to him that he should read the Clause again with more care. I do not think any question arises there of altering the general definition or meaning of the word "officer" at all.

Mr. COCKS

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) in the most interesting, fascinating, lucid and imaginative speech which he made, and which was the last speech delivered in this Debate, although it seems to have been delivered rather a long time ago. I agree with him that the Clause introduces a principle of great importance—I would say of momentous importance—and a principle which may affect the relations between ourselves and our great Empire. Apparently some mysterious Air Force is to be arranged in India. We know very little as to what this mysterious force is to be, but we are told that its personnel is to be Indian. It is not to be an English Air Force; it is to be an Indian Air Force. I do not know the purpose of the force. I might ask, but the reply, I am told, would be out of order. I do not know whether it is to be utilised for the purpose of influencing Congress. I do not know whether it is to fit in any way into the proposals put before the Indian Conference by the Prime Minister as far as those proposals can be understood.

The CHAIRMAN

All these questions of which the hon. Member does not know the answer are out of order.

Mr. COCKS

I was only making a few observations before coming to the point. I thought that one was entitled to do that in this House. I have not the slightest idea of disputing your Ruling, but from close observations of the various speeches made by Members of this House, I sometimes think that they take perhaps longer than they need to reach the valid points. But leaving aside for the moment the things I do not know, I should like to point out, as I have stated, that the personnel of this mysterious force is to be Indian. The Clause to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee says: When a body of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force and a body of an air force raised in India are serving together under such conditions as may be prescribed"— I will not read the intervening words: a member of either body"— this is the point— shall …have the like powers of command over members of the other body"— the first body will have powers of command over the members of the second body— as if he were a member of that body holding relative rank. [Laughter.] I am extremely surprised that such hilarity should be shown upon a matter of such extreme importance. What does it mean? I want to be careful to explain that we on this side do not object to it, but it ought to be made clear that it means that a British airman who goes out to India may, in certain circumstances, be commanded by, and have to obey, the orders of natives of India. Those natives of India may have views on the subject of self-government, for example, which might offend the sensitive conscience of a British airman belonging to a Conservative, Liberal and National Labour party, if such a party remains.

The CHAIRMAN

The conscience of the Chairman is being offended by those views being brought forward by the hon. Member in this Debate.

Mr. COCKS

If it is a fact that in this Clause it is provided that in certain circumstances members of the British Air Force may be commanded by members of an Indian Air Force, I wish to congratulate the Government upon being so broad-minded on the subject of racial prejudice. I am glad that the National Government have abandoned the idea of the superiority of the white races, and particularly of the British race. Perhaps I have congratulated them too early. If one reads on, it says: For the purposes of this section, the relative rank of members of different forces shall be such as may be provided by regulations. That seems to put rather a different complexion on the whole thing. Under the regulations a member of the Indian Air Force of similar rank may be considered to be inferior in rank to a member of the Air Force. In other words, a flight-lieutenant belonging to the Royal Air Force in India may be considered superior to an Indian air-marshal. If the relative ranks are to be altered by regulation in that way, instead of being a matter of congratulation, it might be a tremendous insult to the Indian people. If a flight-lieutenant goes out to India, instead of his being commanded by a member of the Indian Air Force holding a higher rank, certain regulations may be made to the effect that an English flight-lieutenant is superior to an Indian air-marshal. It is a deplorable situation and ought to be looked into very carefully. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Air to explain, if he can, exactly what this means. A very high constitutional point is involved affecting relations between ourselves and the people of the great sub-Continent of India. I should like to go on to other points, but I think that that point is sufficiently serious to demand all the powers of the Government to explain it away. It is a question of the utmost importance, and I press for an explanation.

6.55 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon)

It is very gratifying both to my hon. Friend and to myself to feel that this Bill, which usually is the subject of but cursory interest on the part of the House, should, on this occasion, have been the focus of such an interesting and instructive discussion. It is particularly flattering to the Department which I represent that this Clause —the only Clause which affects us to any great degree in this Bill—should also have called forth the flights of oratory and imagination to which we have just listened. I am rather in a difficult position in that although many questions have been put to me during the course of the discussion, very few, if any, are in order, and therefore, much as I should like to reply to them, I find myself debarred from doing so. But there are some questions which are naturally of interest to the Committee and which it is only natural that Members should have put to me. Although I cannot go into the constitutional point which hon. Members alleged the new Clause raises, the Committee may like to have a few words of explanation with regard to the formation of the Indian Air Force. The policy of associating Indians more fully in the defence of their country was decided in 1930, and the formation of this Force is a step in that direction. The idea of forming a force which, at the same time, would be separate from the Indian Army and from the Royal Air Force in India—

Sir P. HARRIS

Are we allowed to discuss the formation of an Indian Force? Is not that a matter for the Indian Government?

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the right hon. Baronet is entitled to give an answer upon matters which come within his knowledge with which his Department has to deal.

Sir P. SASSOON

It was really only in the interests of the Committee that I was trying, in a few words, to describe of what the proposal consists and what assistance we are ready to give and are to give. It is primarily a matter for the Indian Government and for the India Office. As far as it affects the Air Ministry and the Royal Air Force, all that we are doing is to attach a few officers of the Indian Air Force for instructional purposes to Cranwell and a few of the personnel to one of our depots in India.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) raised several points and said, "What is the meaning of this new Air Force of India? What is apprehended? Are they going to be sent to Russia? Are they going to be sent to Afghanistan? What is the meaning of it?" I would answer in a very short sentence and say, that nothing is apprehended and everything is apprehended. But surely there will be within the memory of all Members of the Committee the gallant part played by the Indian Army in the Great War in the trenches in France and Flanders. Therefore we cannot preclude in the future—we hope that we shall never have another war—if another war takes place, the possibility of units of the Indian Air Force, as well as ground forces, taking part. The hon. Member also pressed me to say on what principle the regulations will be based. In India the discipline will be subject to the Indian Air Force Act, and outside, except very close to the Border, they will be under the Air Force Act.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) asked me many questions, of which, he said, he did not know the answers. I cannot give him the answers because the Chairman has ruled them out of order. But he raised an important query as to the possibility of an Indian officer commanding British personnel. As at present arranged, the powers of command are only such as will enable the personnel of either the Indian Air Force or the British Air Force to perform duties such as guards and other things. In future what commands they will exercise will naturally be subject to the decisions of the Air Council and the Governor-General acting in conjunction, and it will depend as to how the Indian Air Force develops step by step, and how far it shows itself capable of using those greater responsibilities. I do not think that I can answer in any other way because that is really the existing situation. I hope, therefore, that I have fully satisfied all the inquiries which have been made, and that we may now have the Clause.

7 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us his explanation, and for having taken such care in making that explanation. I submit that the subject under discussion has been raised quite seriously, and has an important bearing on our relationship with India in respect to our Air Force. A few minutes ago I tried to put a point of Order on a matter of some substance, but I do not intend to pursue that subject. In this Bill, I am sorry, there is a proposal to add the words, "an Air Force raised in India." I regret that these words are introduced just now. You, Sir Dennis, did not agree with the point of view I took with regard to Section 190 of the Air Force Act. Looking again at that Section I am convinced that I was correct in saying that Subsection (4) does, in point of fact, define the word "officer."

My objection is to introducing these additional words at this particular date. If it had been done last year there would have been less objection, but just now the whole question of the relation of India to this country is, what I may call, sub judice. In the Indian mind, with which we are fairly well acquainted, and for which my party have tried to speak in this House, there is a vision of India being regarded as a Dominion, and having Dominion status. The introduction of these words in this Bill dashes that hope and will come as a ground of offence, because it implies that the force in India has already been prejudged by the Government as an Air Force not having Dominion status. I repeat that I am sorry the words have been introduced this year. If they had been postponed until next year there would have been less objection, because the Joint Select Committee would have arrived at a decision, and the Government would have introduced their proposals to the House of Commons. To introduce it this year is running the risk of conveying an impression that the Government have made up their mind finally as to the status of India in this matter. This is an unfortunate time to introduce such a phrase.

As to the purpose of this proposal, we are in entire agreement with the Government. We have always been in favour of the Indianisation of a section of the Indian Army. As far as these proposals go in that direction, we have no objection to them. The only difficulty we see is that the Indianised section of the Army will still remain subject to regulations imposed by the Secretary of State and the Governor-General, without relation to any legislative body that may be in India. I cannot quite understand the distinction we have of the duty and the function of an officer, and that of a non-commissioned officer. On page 4 are the words to which I refer. Officers, I understand, are considered as doing duty with any portion of the regular, reserve or auxiliary air force outside India. Non-commissioned officers and men are deemed to be "attached," or to act as "part" of any such force. Why are officers not to be "part" of any such force, just as non-commissioned officers and men are? Beyond these minor criticisms, I have nothing further to say.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE

It is rather unfortunate, I agree, that, as the hon. Member below me has said, these words should be inserted at this time. I noticed a little while ago that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) had come into the House. I feel sure, that when he is here, he will give us the benefit of his wonderful mind, as he always does when matter is as confused as this one appears to be. I do not feel at all sure what the purpose of this new force is to be, nor am I certain as to the position of these Indian officers and non-commissioned officers and men when they are serving outside India. Is the present a prudent time to bring this matter before the Committee? I ask that for the reasons which have been stated by the hon. Member below me and, in addition, I ask it because of the very grave suspicion which will be raised in the minds of many people in India as to the purpose for which this new Air Force is to be used.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is getting outside the scope of the Debate. We cannot discuss the employment of the Air Force.

Mr. McENTEE

I asked the Minister to explain what may happen when the new Air Force is formed and it became inter-mixed with the Air Force of this country. When these officers, non-commissioned officers and men are brought from India to this country they will fraternise with members of the Royal Air Force and other branches of the forces. For what purpose were they being trained? That question I notice was put down by an hon. Member who supports the National Government, and a, supplementary question came from one of the back benches regarding Indianisation. The hon. Member who put the supplementary question asked whether Indianisation could not be deferred a little.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is out of order. It is quite true that the Minister referred to Indianisation, but this only provides for certain occasions when certain members of the different forces are acting together under regulations outside this Bill.

Mr. McENTEE

I was only referring to a matter to which reference had already been made. I was only using as an illustration the question asked and the supplementary question put. I do not intend to pursue the matter any further. For the reasons stated I think the time is unfortunate. We ought to know something of the nature of the regulations. Many of us are always very suspicious about giving to a Government Department power to make regulations, especially when no indication is given as to what the nature of the regulations will be. In this Bill the power is being given to somebody outside the jurisdiction of this House. We will have no right to criticise, and have no control whatever. Power is being given to make regulations governing the action of certain members of a force over which, presumably, we shall have no control whatever. This force will be almost entirely under the control of the Indian Government and the India Office. When these Indian officers and men come over here to any of the depots in this country, I suppose they will become subject, as are other officers from the Dominions, Colonies, and foreign countries, to the legislation recently passed. Over the money expended on them, or anything else, I suppose we shall have no control whatever. The whole matter is left in the hands of the Indian Government.

It is a great pity we have not present somebody from the India Office, although you, Sir Dennis, have ruled that it is not necessary that anybody representing that Office should be here. We have had a very limited explanation—nothing like a full one—from the Minister representing the Air Force. Many questions were raised by my hon. Friend sitting below me, and some of them did require an answer, and ought to have received one. Hon. Members, I hope, will vote against this Clause. I have not an imagination strong enough to believe that our opposition will be successful, but, at any rate, we have an opportunity to protest against the action of the Government and the way in which they have handled the whole matter we have been discussing to-night.

Sir P. SASSOON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 40.

Division No. 104.] AYES. [7.15 p.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Doran, Edward Liddall, Walter S.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Drewe, Cedric Lindsay, Noel Ker
Albery, Irving James Duckworth, George A. V. Llewellin, Major John J.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Eastwood, John Francis Lloyd, Geoffrey
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Eden, Robert Anthony Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Aske, Sir Robert William Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Emmott, Charles E. G. C. MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Atkinson, Cyril Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McCorquodale, M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Essenhigh, Reginald Clare McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mckie, John Hamilton
Balniel, Lord Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fox, Sir Gifford McLean, Major Sir Alan
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Fremantle, Sir Francis McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Fuller, Captain A. G. Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Ganzoni, Sir John Maitland, Adam
Beit, Sir Alfred L. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Gluckstein, Louis Halle Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Bernays, Robert Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Goff, Sir Park Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Blindell, James Gower, Sir Robert Meller, Richard James
Boothby, Robert John Graham Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Boulton, W. W. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mitcheson, G. G.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Grimston, R. V. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Broadbent, Colonel John Gritten, W. G. Howard Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Moreing, Adrian C.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gunston, Captain D. W. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hales, Harold K. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Burghley, Lord Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Morrison, William Shephard
Burnett, John George Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd) Moss, Captain H. J.
Butler, Richard Austen Hanbury, Cecil Munro, Patrick
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hanley, Dennis A. Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Harris, Sir Percy Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Hartland, George A. Nunn, William
Carver, Major William H. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) O'Connor, Terence James Patrick, Colin M.
Castlereagh, Viscount Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Patrick, Colin M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Peake, Captain Osbert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm., W) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Pearson, William G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheirrsford) Penny, Sir George
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Percy, Lord Eustace
Christie, James Archibald Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Clarke, Frank Holdsworth, Herbert Petherick, M.
Clarry, Reginald George Hopkinson, Austin Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Clayton, Dr. George C. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)
Colfox, Major William Philip Hornby, Frank Pike, Cecil F.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Horsbrugh, Florence Potter, John
Conant, R. J. E. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cook, Thomas A. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Cooke, Douglas Hume, Sir George Hopwood Pybus, Percy John
Cooper, A. Duff Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Copeland, Ida Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cowan, D. M. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ramsbotham, Herwald
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Cranborne, Viscount Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ray, Sir William
Craven-Ellis, William Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Rea, Walter Russell
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Ker, J. Campbell Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Cross, R. H. Kerr, Hamilton W. Remer, John R.
Crossley, A. C. Knox, Sir Alfred Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Ropner, Colonel L.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ross, Ronald D.
Dickie, John P. Levy, Thomas Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Donner, P. W. Lewis, Oswald Rothschild, James A. de
Runge, Norah Cecil Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. Turton, Robert Hugh
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Spencer, Captain Richard A. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Spens, William Patrick Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Savery, Samuel Servington Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wells, Sydney Richard
Scone, Lord Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Weymouth, Viscount
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Stevenson, James Whyte, Jardine Bell
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Strauss, Edward A. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Strickland, Captain W. F. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Skelton, Archibald Noel Sutcliffe, Harold Worthington, Dr. John V.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Tate, Mavis Constance Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Somervell, Donald Bradley Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor) Thorp, Linton Theodore Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James
Banfield, John William Hirst, George Henry Milner, Major James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Jenkins, Sir William Owen, Major Goronwy
Cocks, Frederick Seymour John, William Parkinson, John Allen
Cove, William G. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McEntee, Valentine L.
Grundy, Thomas W. McGovern, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 39.

Division No. 105.] AYES. [7.25 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Castlereagh, Viscount Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. sir J.A.(Birm, W) Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Albery, Irving James Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Fox, Sir Gilford
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Christie, James Archibald Fremantle, Sir Francis
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Clarke, Frank Fuller, Captain A. G.
Aske, Sir Robert William Clarry, Reginald George Ganzoni, Sir John
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Clayton Dr. George C. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Atkinson, Cyril Colfox, Major William Philip Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Conant, R. J. E. Goff, Sir Park
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cook, Thomas A. Gower, Sir Robert
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Cooke, Douglas Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Balniel, Lord Cooper, A. Duff Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Copeland, Ida Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Cowan, D. M. Grimston, R. V.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.) Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Gritten, W. G. Howard
Beit, Sir Alfred L. Cranborne, Viscount Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Craven-Ellis, William Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Blindell, James Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hales, Harold K.
Boothby, Robert John Graham Cross, R. H. Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Boulton, W. W. Crossley, A. C. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Hanbury, Cecil
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Curry, A. C. Hanley, Dennis A.
Briant, Frank Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Harris, Sir Percy
Broadbent, Colonel John Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Hartland, George A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Dickie, John P. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) Donner, P. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Doran, Edward Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Burghley, Lord Drewe, Cedric Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Burnett, John George Duckworth, George A. V. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Butler, Richard Austen Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Eastwood, John Francis Holdsworth, Herbert
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Astorn)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Hopkinson, Austin
Carver, Major William H. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hornby, Frank
Cassels, James Dale Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Horsbrugh, Florence
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Scone, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hums, Sir George Hopwood Morrison, William Shepherd Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Moss, Captain H. J. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Munro, Patrick Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Skelton, Archibald Noel
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Nunn, William Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) O'Connor, Terence James Smithers, Waldron
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Owen, Major Goronwy Somervell, Donald Bradley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Peake, Captain Osbert Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ker, J. Campbell Pearson, William G. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W. Penny, Sir George Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Knox, Sir Alfred Percy, Lord Eustace Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Perkins, Walter R. D. Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Petherick, M. Spens, William Patrick
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylds)
Levy, Thomas Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Lewis, Oswald Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Liddall, Walter S. Pike, Cecil F. Stevenson, James
Lindsay, Noel Ker Potter, John Strauss, Edward A.
Llewellin, Major John J. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Procter, Major Henry Adam Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Lloyd, Geoffrey Pybus, Percy John Summersby, Charles H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Sutcliffe, Harold
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Tate, Mavis Constance
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Ramsbotham, Herwald Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
McCorquodale, M. S. Rawson, Sir Cooper Thorp, Linton Theodore
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Ray, Sir William Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Rea, Walter Russell Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Turton, Robert Hugh
McKie, John Hamilton Reid, William Allan (Derby) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Remer, John R. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
McLean, Major Sir Alan Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Macmillan, Mauric Harold Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Maitland, Adam Ropner, Colonel L. Wells, Sydney Richard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Rosbotham, Sir Samuel Weymouth, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ross, Ronald D. Whyte, Jardine Bell
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Rothschild, James A. de Wills, Wilfrid D.
Meller, Richard James Runge, Norah Cecil Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie(Banff)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Mitcheson, G. G. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.
Moreing, Adrian C. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Savery, Samuel Servington
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James
Banfield, John William Hirst, George Henry Milner, Major James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allan
Cocks, Frederick Seymour John, William Price, Gabriel
Cove, William G. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McEntee, Valentine L.
Grundy, Thomas W. McGovern, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.