HC Deb 14 March 1933 vol 275 cc1915-29

Motion made and Question proposed, That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 31,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

10.47 p.m.


I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 30,000 men.

We move this Amendment as a matter of principle. Each year on some occasion members of the Independent Labor party have moved a reduction in some of the armed forces of the Crown. We are not advancing this reduction because we are inspired by pacifist or non-resistance philosophy but on a Socialist and anti-Capitalist basis. I do not say that in a contemptuous way, because we have absolute respect for those who are moved from that point of view, but we do not believe in absolute pacifism, although it is an ideal to struggle for. We believe that the armed forces as used in the air are being organised and will ultimately be used for the purpose of suppressing the workers in other lands and as an ultimate competitive instrument in the struggle of rival capitalists. I have listened to almost the whole of the discussion that has taken place today and, if there was not the other tragic and brutal side of the use of this force, one could have admired the splendid oration of the Minister in presenting the Estimates, because it was an oratorical feat of the very first magnitude. When one heard afterwards the various tales of romanticism that came from many young men in pleading for aerial clubs and so forth, one knew that behind all this romanticism there was the inevitable tragedy and brutality lurking in the building up of a force of this? description in this country and in every country in the civilised world.

I have followed closely the course of events in connection with every advance made in aviation, whether it was made by a Smith, a Hinckler, an Amy Johnson or any other person who was engaged in blazing the trail of what might be termed civil aviation. I have always been fired with enthusiasm at the exploits of those individuals, and if one were to confine one's feelings to that aspect and knew that the Air Force was only for the purpose of getting into touch with various parts of the world, to bring a civilising influence and to rescue people and bring succor in distress, as the Minister said, then one could, in this House and in the country, view with a tremendous amount of admiration the work in which these men are engaged. One knows, however, that ultimately this force is going to be used for the purpose of a more terrific warfare than that which took place in the late war.

It is being advanced in this House that we must organise this Air Force for the purpose of defense, but is not that just the argument put forward by every country in the world, by their Air Ministers, and by their statesmen in various assemblies? They all say that they are organizing for the purpose of defense, for the defense of the food supplies of the nation, of the women and children and the lives of the common people of each country. They go on building and piling up armaments, whether it be in the Air Forces, in the Navies or Armies, for the purpose of ultimate destruction of human lives throughout the world. Is this a time to come forward and tell us that our 100 per cent. efficient Air Force is going to ensure peace in a world which to-day is struggling with a tremendous amount of nationalism, mad nationalism that has overcome the world as the result of the great struggle from 1914 to 1918? Then you tell us that this efficient force will preserve peace. We are told that we are only fifth in the list in regard to the strength of world air forces, and it is being advanced by a large number of hon. Members that we ought to take our place at the head of the fighting forces of the world with an efficient air force to be used either to destroy another enemy force or to repel an enemy force if it should attempt to invade this country.

One knows from experience and from powers of reasoning that the League of Nations certainly cannot prevent war taking place. I say this only for the purpose of illustration. The League was created because the outcome of the world war had made the people of that period sick and tired of the very idea of war. The statesmen who created it made promises to the common people of all countries that it was a war to end war. As the outcome of that people said, "Well, prove to us that this is going to be the last war that will take place in a civilised community, and we. will believe that the men and women who gave their lives, the men who were blinded and driven insane, the men who had both arms and legs blown off in some cases and were disemboweled, those who suffered this tremendous ordeal in battle did not make that tremendous sacrifice in vain, if it has ensured the end of all war." Then the statesmen, driven from their usual device of subterfuge by the increased reasoning powers and conscience of the people, were driven to the alternative of attempting to set up an assembly representative of the various countries of the world to create the feeling that they were attempting to ensure peace, when they knew that a creation of that character, in a world where capitalism remained supreme, could not ensure peace in any shape or form.

An hon. Member said in connection with this discussion, "I am neither an expert nor a disarmament crank." I would point out to the hon. Member who used that phrase that those who are experts are mostly bordering upon disarmament cranks because of the experience they have undergone in the late War. We are told that we have to establish 'and build up a force of that character for peaceful pursuits. It is impossible. Let me take a quotation from the famous speech of the Lord President of the Council which he made on 10th November last. He said: I think it is well also for the man-in-the-street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. Later on he said: The only defense is in offence which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.] We are establishing, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, a force which will ultimately, if used in warfare, set out from this country and various points of vantage in the Empire to destroy women and children more quickly than the enemy can in order to protect what? To protect the well being of the lives of the common people? No. To protect private property. An hon. Member on the opposite side shakes his head in disgust. Let me tell him that the ordinary man-in-the-street has no quarrel with his fellow men in other parts of the world. He does not go to France, Spain, Egypt or any other part to destroy human beings because he wishes to destroy them. He does it because governments and private interests clash with those of other countries with regard to trade routes, raw materials or something of that character. Then the statesmen who have made secret pacts with other nations declare war and call upon the working class to implement the secret promises which they have made in times of peace. No man in this House can tell me that war is anything of a civilising nature. Every person who knows anything of war and has seen the victims of war cannot but be antagonistic to the idea of another world war, on which, I believe, we are on the eve.

It is a lamentable thing, after 2,000 years of so-called Christianity that we should be told by all responsible people that we are on the eve of a greater blood bath than anything which has been experienced in any period of history. Why are we on the eve of war'? Is it to advance civilisation? Is it to bring security to people who are starving because of poverty and misery? Is it for any of these things that we are going out to destroy human life, to live like beasts and burrow in trenches as men did in bygone days? Is it for those purposes we are going to war? It is not for those purposes at all. Today, in a world where you cannot get security of food, clothing and shelter, we are told that we are on the eve of another world war in order to ensure greater prosperity for a small class of the community. We refuse to believe that the development of this force in aviation will ensure security for the lives of the common people. A man who is living under the means test can look with contempt on any idea of invasion from a foreign Power. What could any foreign Power do? By aviation or other armed force a foreign Power could only invade and take possession of this country. Do those on the Front Bench or any Member of this House think that an intelligent, reasonable human being who is living in poverty fears invasion and the establishment of a Kaiser or a Hitler in this country, when we are living under Hitlerism just as extreme as in any other part of the world? The working classes are not afraid of that in any shape or form.

If a foreign Power, either by aeroplane or by any other armed force, captured this country and wanted to ensure the rights of private property, I cannot imagine a more efficient Government for robbing the poor than that we have in office at the present time. I cannot imagine them choosing any other set of men. Therefore, if by 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 aeroplanes a foreign Power was able to establish control here, that would be nothing to be afraid of. We were told by the Lord President of the Council that to resist would mean death to tens of thousands of women and children in every area. Therefore the policy of non-resistance, if it is to be a choice between one capitalist section or another, would be the very policy that ought to be adopted by the working class. The idea of patriotism or of nationalism burning in the breasts of mankind to defend himself in this country by keeping the present Cabinet as against another Cabinet of the ruling class, is opposed by every reasonable-minded person in any part of the world.

We say, quite frankly, that we are opposed to your force. I would oppose in this House, even if it meant security of employment for people on the Clyde, the building of cruisers. I would vote against the building of cruisers even if I knew that men were anxious for employment in the building of these death-dealing instruments. It has come to a fine pass when in our civilised existence, in order to get bread, we have to pray to build death-dealing instruments of warfare that will destroy human life. I say to hon. Members opposite that they have created, by a great deal of evolution, a machine that is deadly and brutal in its effects. They fear the machine that they have created. They fear that they may require to use it. No person would advance in this House as a reason for the creation of the force of aviation that it was only for civil purposes. Every person speaks of the possibility of using it in the future for war. One hon. Member, a retired Admiral, said that the aeroplane is a humane method of dealing with outbreaks. I would like to have a chance of throwing a bomb at his back as he walks out of this House, and see how he would like that humane method of dealing with people. This humane method of destroying life is something similar to what we heard during the late War, when the newspapers said that the Germans were afraid of the bayonet. Every reasonable-minded man would be afraid of the bayonet, just as every intelligent human being would be afraid of a bomb. How any person can say that a bomb is a very fine method of quelling outbreaks, I cannot understand.

The hon. Member for East Wolver Hampton (Mr. Mander) talked about economy in the use of the bomb for the aeroplane as against sending land forces, and he said in effect, "You can kill them more speedily; it costs less per head to kill them by the bomb." Yes, the rationalisation of the fighting forces or death-dealing instruments. That was in effect what he said, that you could kill much more cheaply by this Liberal method than by the other methods. If that is the type of mind that we have in this House, it is no wonder that we are drifting into the state of tragedy and darkness that the world is drifting into now, when they come to this House and talk in a cool manner like that of quelling outbreaks What do they mean by quelling outbreaks? Do they mean that you send out to India bombing machines to bomb the natives of India, whose country you are invading with your bombing machines and in whose country you are preventing the natives from setting up a decent form of government to rule themselves? Yes, my intelligent Friends, I know it is the idea that you are the only civilised, reasonable people in the world, that it is your function to bring civilisation to the poor natives of every part of the world. By God, you have brought this civilisation to a fine state in this country when you have reduced millions of human beings to a point where they wish they were dead rather than alive in your civilised system of society. You talk of intelligence. It is simply the idea of the bully who believes he is intelligent when he is using the whip on the poor native boy.

It is thought to be all right to talk in that manner about using bombs on Indians and coolies. They were given life equally with you, and God intended that they should have the same rights and feelings as you, the right to a share in the earth, but you have no right to comer all the materials of the earth and then to attempt to preserve them by force to the exclusion of every other section of the community. Then you grumble of other people trying to play the same game as you have played. You have all talked of Hitler and Mussolini, but your dictatorship is more silent and cunning than Hitlerism in Germany or Mussolini in Italy. That is all that you can advance from the Liberal benches, to quell tribes in Egypt, India, Persia and Afghanistan who may be rebelling against foreign rule, the foreign yoke. You who talk about Kaiserism being imposed on you, impose your Kaiserism on the people in every other part of the world. It is brazen effrontery of the worst kind to sit on the Liberal benches and talk in that contemptuous manner about natives in different parts of the world. I was amazed and horrified to hear a statement of that character coming from the hon. Member for East Wolver Hampton. We might have expected it from a retired general or a retired admiral, but from a man who sits in the security and seclusion of this House to come out with a statement of that kind is brutal in the extreme.

I stand here, not as a pacifist; I stand here as a human being, who is always prepared to defend his rights, and would be delighted to defend a country in which the whole of the people had a stake and that was being invaded by another force which wanted to prevent the communal ownership of the means of life. A country which looked upon the security and well-being of the citizens as its first charge, I would say was a State worth defending, but a State that treats its people with contempt, that reduces them to poverty, that degrades its womanhood, that breaks up the homes and destroys the lives of children—I say to you frankly that I have nothing but contempt for your system, for your Government, and for rule of that kind. I stand here tonight saying that I support this Motion whole-heartedly, as an individual who believes that your force is destined to wage terrible war on men, women, and children of other nations. Recognising that you are heading for war I ask Members of the House with reason, intelligence and consciousness to go into the Lobby for the reduction of this Force from 31,000 to 1,000, which is tantamount to the wiping out of the entire Force.

11.10 p.m.


I do not propose to detain the Committee long.


Hear, hear.


I hope that hon. Members of the Conservative party who have been longest in the House realise that our capacity to keep them sitting late is not limited by the smallness of our numbers. It is cheeky and offensive to cry "Hear, hear." It is quite easy for any hon. Member who is one in hundreds, but I am only one in four. I support this Amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do. Our views are the same on each of the fighting Services, but we do not wish to inconvenience Members by having more than one Division, as that will suffice to provide a vote on what to us is a matter of principle. We are entitled to state our case. I have listened to almost every speech in this Debate, and I confess that the speeches today have reached a higher level than those in the Debates on any of the fighting Services. I never thought that the Under-Secretary could speak as he spoke today. I thought his was a brilliant speech, from his own point of view, and that other speeches were very ably delivered.

What is our case? We on these benches think that we represent very poor people. Even if we risk unpopularity we think it wrong for us to neglect our duty in this House. What is our duty? I remember my predecessor in this House, Mr. George Barnes. He was a man of honesty and integrity, and he parted from the Labor party at the time of the War. He succeeded in getting the people in my division to support the War. He did it honestly. They were told that if they voted for him and pursued the War it was the last war, and that never more would the people from the slums be asked to go out again and take part in the slaughter. These men in their tens of thousands left everything. I do not say that the rich did not make sacrifices, that they did not show valor and bravery, but the sacrifice made by the poor people was far more. When a rich man was killed his dependants were not faced with poverty, as was the case when a poor man was killed. These poor people left the slums, left houses which were not worth defending in order to go out and fight. Today we are asked to spend more on the air. Why? Because you are to fight another war. Your army is no longer efficient, your navy is no longer the key power it was: and we have to spend more on the air. The pledges made to these poor men and women have been broken. It does not matter whether the blame is ours or somebody else's; the fact of the matter is that these poor people are being called upon to get ready for another war. What is the reason for war? The military reason is that it is to make the nation secure. It may be that the other nation is the aggressor, but even so the reason given for an army and an air force is to make the nation secure. What does security mean? For the ordinary man it means his home, his wife, his brains. You are going to ask these folk to fight for security when today thousands of them have not security in their homes today. What right have you to ask them to fight for security when you cannot give them security in their homes?

Yesterday I stood in a Glasgow court, packed with hundreds of souls, everyone of whom was fighting to keep his house. If a German or a Japanese came to-morrow they could not inflict greater hardships on these people. I remember that when I was about seven or eight years old being carried by my mother out of the house late at night because the fear of the sheriff's officer was greater than the fear of Germans or foreigners. Who is it that joins the Army in peace time? If you are to have an Army it is important to have an Army in peace times as well as in war. Who joins the Army now in times of peace? Leave out the officers, who joins the rank and file? Are they the sons of Members of Parliament, of doctors, of teachers, or even of artisans who are in work? Not one in one hundred belong to those classes. I stood on Saturday last in Bath Street, Glasgow, and saw hundreds of young men— well perhaps that is an exaggeration, but at least 30 or 40— waiting their turn to join. Years ago, when trade was good it was almost necessary to go out and haul them in. These were the sons of the poorest section of the community— the sons of those to whom you will not give security in their homes. They are being asked to defend their homes, but you will not give them homes. It is wrong for me or for any of us to ask these people to do what we would not do ourselves. I do not speak for Conservative Members; I know that their view is different from mine, but, from what I know of my own class and of the ideas of the comfortably-placed workman, I say that not one of us would wish to see a son joining the Army as an ordinary soldier. Working people would go on their bended knees to keep their sons from joining.

These young men join, not because the sons of the working class are more bloodthirsty than the sons of the middle class, but for a very different cause. The young fellow of 18 or 19 wants fun and he only joins because there is no other life open to him. It is almost too cruel to picture a nation refusing these people their unemployment benefit, or cutting it down, and at the same time asking them, nay, forcing them into the Army by what is worse than conscription— the terror of want. You give them no home life and you ask them to defend a country in which they have no economic say, in which they can play no effective part at all. For those reasons we oppose the Vote, and for my part I have always done so in the case of Army, Navy and Air Force alike. I say from my constituents' point of view, that if the nation guarantees to the folk whom I represent decent homes and decent conditions of life, then I may reconsider my opinion. But while my folk live in want, almost in destitution, I could not recommend them to join. An hon. Member said that they would be killed at home if they did not go out to fight and defend themselves. To my people, and I share this view with them, death has no great terrors. What is life to them? It is nothing, and they have no great fear of being killed. For many of them life holds only one hope, and that is death. For our part, we shall go into the Lobby to vote against the nation spending these millions for war instead of leaving the nation reasonably organized, decently and socially minded, to vote its resources and its capacity, not for destruction, but for the uplifting of humanity.

11.26 p.m.


Hon. Members who sit here— —[HON. MEMBERS: "When-are they?"] I suppose where many of you have been all the evening. I know it is late, but I am going to say what. I propose to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up !"] I intend to speak just as loudly and as softly as I choose and, if hon. Members wish to hear me, I am certain that my voice will carry if they will kindly be silent while I am speaking. I have listened to most of this Debate this evening, and I wish to state my point of view. My hon. Friends here, as has been the case ever since we were a party, are divided on the question of pacifism. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] That is our business, and I think the insolence of the hon. Member is worthy of him at this hour of the night. It is 10 years since a number of us moved a similar Amendment as that which has been moved tonight. Each of us voted in our own way, and, as I do not want to give a silent vote tonight, and as I believe that my view is held by some of my colleagues, I want to put it to the Committee.

I take very much the view of the social conditions and the results of war that was stated by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but my view about war and violence would not be changed even if conditions were more secure. I feel that violence and war and all the accompaniments of those evils have brought disaster upon disaster on previous civilisations, and that it is not only morally true, but historically true, that individuals and nations that take to the sword perish by the sword. I believe that that is a fundamental truth, quite apart from any ethical consideration. History proves that, but, if I believed in violence and war, I should be inclined to be on the side of many of those who have spoken tonight. There cannot be any half measures about this. Either you go to war and prepare for war in the most thorough manner possible, or you must take the view, as I do, that it is wrong to go into war at all. I cannot see any halfway house. I have never been able to see it, and I cannot see it tonight.

There was one speaker earlier in the evening who arrived at conclusions which I do not accept, but in his speech he used the same language as the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkins on) employed the other night. He said that people's minds, and their attitude to life, must be changed, that there must be a change of heart. I would say to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that it is really a mistake for us to think that very poor people take our view about this. I sit for Bow and Bromley and have lived there for very many years, and at the outbreak of war— before the declaration of war— I held meetings in order to try to rouse opinion against the war. The people who opposed me most, who were most bitter in their opposition, were some of the very poorest of the poor. And as I see this thing, and as life passes along, the more certain I am that there is absolutely no hope for mankind until there is this sort of change in our mental and moral outlook towards one another.

I do not believe the world can be made better by forcing something on to people. I may be inconsistent in being in this place at all, but I am quite certain that you will never make a nation what you want that nation to be merely by Acts of Parliament— by what you can do for it. The people have got to get it into their own minds that the world is what we make it and our country is what we make it, and we have got to get the ordinary young men and women to understand that it is not people like us who can save them, but that they must save themselves. They must learn the lesson that we are trying to put here— that all down the ages man has tried to get his way by force and domination and power; and in the end it has been just Dead Sea fruit.

I do not stand here as any paragon of virtue or religion. I feel tremendous hesitancy in speaking about these things, but I am so confident that the great religious teachers were right when they said, all of them, from Confucius to Christ himself, and onwards, that the Kingdom of God, the thing that mankind wants most, is within men and women, and also that all human life is sacred. Anyone here who believes in the Incarnation must believe that. I am not thinking of those who are agnostics or who do not accept our faith, I am thinking of those who say they believe in Christianity. In that case, because of the Incarnation, they must believe that all human life is sacred, and if that is true then I cannot feel that it is right, under any circumstances, to kill my fellow men and women. I cannot think of one of the early Christians in an aeroplane dropping bombs. I cannot believe

that He, the most sacred figure in all history, would have wanted to gain his way by destruction, by killing, by force. It is for those reasons and for no other reasons that I shall go into the Lobby in support of this reduction.

11.35 p.m.


The whole Committee must have been deeply moved by the sincerity of the speech to which we have just listened from the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever view is put to this House with such sincerity we always listen to with pleasure and respect. The hon. Members for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) have this year chosen the Air Estimates to make the speeches that they make year by year on one service or another. The views that they have expressed are not new to us, nor are they any more relevant to the Air Estimates than they are to any other service. The speeches are, in reality, general expressions of feeling as to what is the best method of avoiding war. As I said earlier on, the Committee is always glad to listen to expressions of opinion, stated with so much sincerity and with so much engaging skill. I hope that hon. Members will not think it discourteous of me, after such a long Debate, if I say that I do not agree with those views, because I think that if they were put into practice they would not have the results that the hon. Members desire. For that reason, I cannot accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 1,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 216.

Division No. 82.] AYES. [11.38 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Lunn, William
Cape, Thomas Hirst, George Henry McEntee, Valentine L.
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Maxton, James
Daggar, George John, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Dobble, William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Edwards, Charies Kirkwood, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grenfell, David Rees (Giamorgan) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McCovern.
Grundy, Thomas W. Logan, David Gilbert
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Balfour, Capt. Harold (1. of Thanet) Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Bafniel, Lord Bllndell, James
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Borodale, Viscount
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Bossom, A. C.
Aske, Sir Robert William Batsman, A. L. Boulton, W. W.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Belt, Sir Alfred L. Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Broadbent, Colonel John Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Pike, Cecil F.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hornby, Frank Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ralkes, Henry V, A. M.
Browne, Captain A. C. Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Buchan, John Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Burghley, Lord Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Ratcliffe, Arthur
Burnett, John George Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Ray, Sir William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Carver, Major William H. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Reid. James S. C. (Stirling)
Castlereagh, Viecount Ker, J. Campbell Held, William Allan (Derby)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Kerr, Hamilton W. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Clarry, Reginald George Lamb, Sir Joseph Ouinton Robinson, John Roland
Clayton, Dr. George C. Latham. Sir Herbert Paul Ropner, Colonel L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Law, Sir Alfred Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Colfox, Major William Philip Leckle, J. A. Runge, Norah Cecil
Colman, N. C. D. Leech, Dr. J. W. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Lees-Jones, John Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Conant, R. J. E. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'I)
Cook, Thomas A. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Cooke, Douglas Lewis, Oswald Salt, Edward W.
Copeland, Ida Liddall, Walter S. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Lindsay, Noel Ker Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Craven. Eflis, William Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Crooke, J. Smedley Llewellin, Major John J. Selley, Harry R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Lloyd, Geoffrey Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Davles, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Leckwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Dlckie, John P. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Shute, Colonel J. J.
Doran, Edward MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Drewe, Cedric McCorquodale, M. S. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.
Duckworth, George A. V. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Duggan, Hubert John McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) McKie, John Hamilton Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Dunglass, Lord McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Eastwood, John Francis Macmillan, Maurice Harold Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Eimley, viscount Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Strauss, Edward A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Marsden, Commander Arthur Strickland, Captain W. F.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Martin, Thomas B. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Everard, W. Lindsay Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Sutcllffe, Harold
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Templeton, William P.
Fox, Sir Glfford Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Fremantle, Sir FrancTs Mltcheson, G. G. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Fuller, Captain A. G. Moreing, Adrian C. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Gledhill, Gllbert Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Tinker, John Joseph
Glossop, C. W. H. Morrison, William Shephard Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of
Glucksteln, Louis Halle Muirhead, Major A. J. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Goldle, Noel B. Munro, Patrick Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Warrender, sir Victor A. G.
Graves, Marjorle Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Greene, William P. C. Normand, Wllfrid Guild Wells, Sydney Richard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nunn, William Weymouth, Viscount
Grimston, R. V. O'Connor, Terence James Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. O'Donovan, Dr. William James Whyte, Jardine Bell
Guy, J. C. Morrison Palmer, Francis Noel Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hales, Harold K. Pearson, William G. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Penny, Sir George Wills, Wilfrid D.
Hanley, Dennis A. Percy, Lord Eustace Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perkins, Walter R. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Petherick, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston) Lord Erskine and Commander Southby.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.


Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £4,110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.