HC Deb 11 April 1934 vol 288 cc347-65

At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act (which relates to the mode of enlistment and attestation) the following Sub-section shall be added:— The general conditions of the Contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute or to perform in consequence of a trade dispute any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment.—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.


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

The proposed new Clause more or less states our case and does not require a great deal of argument. In brief, our case is that soldiers ought not to be used, as they sometimes are, in a trade dispute. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will reply in much the same strain as he did upon the previous Amendment by telling us that this is an old claim in which there is little that is new. That may well be so, but in politics as he knows, and as every hon. Member knows, a group of people keep hammering away year after year in order to realise an object. We have put down this new Clause as a perfectly reasonable proposal, because we think that members of His Majesty's Army should be kept away from any trade dispute which takes place in this country.

There are two reasons for our Amendment. I would first remind the Financial Secretary to the War Office that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put a number of questions to him some time ago as to the right of a member of His Majesty's Forces to join a trade union. The hon. Member for Bridgeton received assurances from the Financial Secretary that any member of the British Army was entitled to join a trade union. If that be the case, and if the union which is joined by such a member of the Army decides to conduct a strike, it would be entirely wrong to ask that soldier to become possibly an active participator in the dispute. The Financial Secretary may argue that the soldier is bound by an oath of loyalty to the Army and consequently that the oath must be complied with, but I reply that the soldier has also taken—possibly not an oath but—an allegiance to his trade union. The oath to the Army may be considered a matter of deep conviction, but surely his allegiance to the trade union ought not to be any more lightly set aside than the oath which is taken in regard to the Army. I know that the Financial Secretary will argue against this and will possibly sweep aside the point which I am about to make, but I look upon this almost as an article of faith. When a man takes an oath to the Army and also an allegiance to his trade union, the latter is, in my view, the more important. The union represents him as a member of the working class fighting to improve conditions on behalf of the workers. The allegiance is allegiance to his class. In the case of the Army, the oath is not entered into as an act of allegiance to his class and as a result of it he may possibly be used against his class.

I listened to the intelligent speech which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), which contained a number of truths against which it is very difficult to argue. The hon. and learned Member does not intervene in Debate as frequently as he once did. I do not know whether the Parliamentary machine has got him now as it gets most of us sooner or later. He said a number of interesting things. He referred to the man who is living in an industrial district—I am not now speaking about the ages of 17 and 18 in relation to the Army but in regard-to the general background of the Army—in a dark industrial area where unemployment is rife and who knows nothing about happiness of human life, and said that if he joins the Army the Army gives him comparatively good food, a regular income, good clothes, fairly decent housing conditions and fresh air. The hon. and learned Member says that it is much better for the man to be in the Army than in the shocking, dark conditions to which he may have been accustomed in the industrial district. To that kind of argument it is difficult to find an answer, but I think it makes the case for our Amendment stronger. I will tell the hon. and learned Member why.

We are apt to argue that we have no conscription in this country and, in theory, that is correct, but in actual practice it is not the case. The great majority of men join the Army, not because of their liking for it, but because it is the only way in which they can get the things of which the hon. and learned Member spoke and which they desire. If they could get those things without the Army, the Army would not see them, in most cases. Consequently, we have what is, in my view, a worse form of conscription, namely, the compelling of the poorest sections of the community to join because of their economic surroundings. I live in a part of Glasgow which is just outside the Division which I represent. It is not the poorest part, but is a comfortable working-class or even a middle-class district. I represent about the poorest part of Scotland. There are certain times in the year, such as Christmas, New Year, Easter and in the Summer, but particularly Christmas and the New Year, when, in my Division, young chaps by the score are home on leave, but where I live you never see one. Where I live hardly an individual joins, but in my Division they join in large numbers.

Great credit has been given to the Financial Secretary for his readiness to meet an hon. Member who writes to him about an individual case. Whatever differences we may have had, I have always found the Financial Secretaries to the War Office of all parties ready to meet me upon an individual case. In districts that are wealthy you find hardly one young man joining the Army, for the simple reason, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that young men join the Army because it is the only way of getting the desirable things of life. Men living under bad economic conditions are forced to join. If that is so, surely it is not right that they should be forced to take part in industrial disputes. If they are compelled economically to join the Army, they should at least not be compelled economically to range themselves upon any one side in a trade dispute. I look upon this Amendment as one of the essential things from the point of view of those who sit on these benches, and in these days of great Army recruiting campaigns. I trust that the Government will recognise that the great bulk who join the Army come from districts where industrial conditions are not at the present moment happy or pleasant, and that they should not ask those men, against the consciences of a great many of them, to take part in a trade dispute in any way.

The Financial Secretary may repeat what has been argued by all his predecessors and say, "We never take sides. We only intervene in the case of a threatened riot with which the civil forces are not able to cope, and where there is a threat to the supplies of food or for some other reason of that kind." I do not take that view. That may be the reason given in this House, but those who know trade disputes are aware that, although the reason for the use of the Army may be said to be the breakdown of the civil police or the danger of interruption of supplies, the moment the Army come into a district in which there is a trade dispute the men who are on strike see them and see their guns or their tanks. During a dock dispute in the city of Glasgow I have seen tanks come through the centre of the city. The next day the strike was nearly finished, because every man had the feeling that if he remained out the weapons might be used and death might be the result. The strike was finished. We know that the moment the Army arrives it effectively takes sides against the workers. For those reasons, I put forward this new Clause.


Before the Debate goes any further I ought to remind the Committee that this new Clause in its present form was put down, by agreement some years ago with the Chair, in order to avoid a Ruling given in 1914 that the proper place to raise the question of using troops in trade disputes was on the Army Estimates and not on this Bill. The discussion upon the Clause is strictly limited to what duty the recruit should or should not be asked to undertake.

5.15 p.m.


I was not aware of the Ruling which you, Captain Bourne, have just quoted. I can see that it might perhaps somewhat hamper the remarks that I was proposing to make in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but, as I shall only deal with the issues that he raised, and answer them to the best of my ability, I hope I shall not get out of order. The hon. Member, with his usual eloquence, has made out as strong a case as he can for a Clause which has been frequently debated in the House. He prefaced his remarks by saying that the loyalty of a man to his trade union, if there should be a conflict of loyalties, would be far greater than his loyalty to the Army. I do not wish to be led away into a discussion on ethics with the hon. Member, but I must say at the outset that I profoundly disagree with that view. It seems to me that in all cases the larger loyalty must come before the smaller. However great may be a man's loyalty to his native town or county, that loyalty must be entirely swallowed up when the greater loyalty of his attachment to his country is affected. As the trade union, in the hon. Member's own words, is out to protect a particular class in the country, surely loyalty to that class must give way as against loyalty to the British Army, which is out to protect the country and all classes.

The hon. Member himself, in the concluding words of his speech, went far towards answering his own contention, and also towards informing the Committee on what I was intending to say. The issue raised is that of the use of troops in civil disputes. We do not pretend that we have any right to make use of troops in order to interfere with an industrial dispute; we do not believe that we have any legal right to attempt to break a strike by using troops to carry out duties which, in normal times, would be carried out by civilians; and, whatever the experience of the hon. Member may be, I can assure him that, so far as I have been able to find out, troops have never been used in this country in order to interfere in a purely industrial dispute, or to carry out duties which would otherwise be performed by civilians and thereby to act as blacklegs and undermine the power of the strike. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule, as the hon. Member is as well aware as I am. The first is when there is a danger of real breaches of the peace, or, more usually, when breaches of the peace have actually taken place. In such cases it is the duty, not only of the troops but of every citizen in the country, to support to the best of their ability the forces of law and order. It is not any more the duty of the soldier than it is of the civilian to support the forces of law and order, and to support the police in maintaining law and order.

The other exception to this rule is when a strike is of such a nature that it endangers the very life of the community. In the General Strike, for example, when the community's supplies were endangered, and there was a real danger, which no one has ever denied, of people suffering from starvation, then, in order to make sure that supplies were brought safely into the heart of the community, whence they could be distributed to the people whose lives depended upon them, troops were used. They were used for that purpose only. The use of them was entirely successful, and I do not think that any thought passed through the mind of any man who was employed on that work that he was doing anything against his class. He knew as well as we know that, if supplies began to run short and there was really a serious danger of hunger to the community, it would be his class that would be the first to suffer. On that occasion the service rendered to the country, and, above all, to the working-classes, by the Army, was inestimable. I do not believe that any ill will was aroused in the mind of anyone by the use that was made of the troops in the General Strike. There was no disorder; not a single rifle was discharged or a single blow struck. It really would be the height of folly and madness to suggest that, if such a calamity were again to face the people of this island, we should paralyse our hands beforehand and refuse to make use of such an invaluable weapon for the benefit of the whole people.

To suggest that when men join the Army they should take a choice as to the duties they were to perform, and that some of them should be serving under different terms from others, is in itself quite impracticable, and it was on this ground, if on no other, that the Labour Government, when they were in power, refused to accept this Clause. That is only one of the grounds. I have already attempted to give the main grounds, and to my mind they are so powerful that I do not think the most optimistic Member of the Opposition, when he read this Clause, can really have hoped that the Government could possibly accept it.

5.23 p.m.


I should not have ventured to enter into the discussion on this proposed new Clause, with which, I may say, I am in complete agreement, but for the fact that I have had some slight experience in this matter, and am fully conscious of the feeling which is engendered when a man in the position of a recruit is called upon to participate in action that is repugnant to him. There are several reasons which prompt men to join the Forces to-day. Some may desire to escape from anxieties attaching to their ordinary everyday life; others may be attracted by the possibility of travel; and they are prepared to countenance the possibility of acting in international strife if it arose; but I have yet to meet any young man who would willingly assert that he was agreeable to be used, should the occasion arise, in a dispute of an industrial character. The majority join with the hope, not only that international strife will never call them into action, but with a still greater hope that they will never be used against their brothers and fathers who may be making efforts to better the conditions in their everyday calling.

We have been told, and I am not prepared to contest it, that the Army in the last War fought well because they were of the opinion that they had a just cause; but it is not our duty to ask men to take part in strife against their fellows if they think they have a bad cause, and I cannot visualise the possibility of the great mass of our young men thinking for one moment that the cause of their brothers and fathers in endeavouring to better their conditions is other than a good cause. There are two aspects of this matter. There is the possibility of the Army being used in the streets, and it is not necessary for me to picture what that means; history affords numerous examples of it. But I am also particularly in favour of so delimiting the action that may be taken as to preclude any possibility of soldiers entering into the ordinary everyday work which strikers or people engaged in a dispute have left, because, if the case is so bad that nobody will take it up except armed forces acting under the instructions of the military power, then it is certainly a very bad case. Moreover, every hon. Member will realise what takes place when these men go back into civil life and go back to work with the men whose conditions they have been, on the streets and in the warehouses, endeavouring to repress. The hon. Gentleman has stated that in this country the troops have never been used for that purpose. I wish he were able to say that in the Empire the troops had never been used for that purpose, but, unfortunately, he cannot say that, because in the Dominion of Canada—


I do not think we can deal with the Dominion of Canada on this Amendment.


My own experience in the matter, as a sergeant in one of the militia organisations of the Crown, was to find myself faced with an instruction from my captain to hold myself in readiness to call out my squad to participate in an intimidatory process against the organisation of which I myself was the secretary. We were strongly of the opinion that the conditions under which we worked were intolerable and should be resisted, and we were prepared to fight against them; and I am sure that you, Captain Bourne, will appreciate my consternation at being instructed, as a sergeant of the organisation which had to act as an intimidatory force, to take part in that intimidatory process. The only thing I have to be thankful about in connection with that matter is that from that moment my opinions gradually changed, until they became what they are to-day. That is the only beneficial effect that accrued from it. In the British Empire the Army has been used for intimidatory purposes; it has been used in strikes; and there is no reason to think that what has taken place there could not take place in this country. Therefore, I think we should provide ourselves with ways and means of preventing the bad feeling which exists after such events from displaying itself in this country. For that reason I support the proposed new Clause.

5.28 p.m.


The hon. Gentleman has said that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) answered himself—that, if there is a conflict between two loyalties, the larger and wider loyalty must have precedence over the smaller and narrower, and that, since loyalty to the State is to be regarded as a wider loyalty than loyalty to a trade union, the trade union must be abandoned and loyalty to the State must be regarded as being in the ascendant. I do not think, however, that that is quite the position which arises. Men join the Army on the assumption, usually, that their services are going to be used against another Power, not against their own people. Soldiers never contemplate civil war when they join the Army. When an industrial dispute is so serious that the use of the Army has to be invoked, what happens is that the wider loyalty, the loyalty to the State, has been dissipated by the conflict, and is replaced by the loyalties of one class as against another. That is a situation of civil war. It is not a situation in which the State stands above both classes, but a situation in which the State has divided itself up. Consequently, the poles of the argument are not as the hon. Gentleman sets them. He would make them so appear that the general interest of the state stands above the interests of the classes in the State. That may be true in respect of certain interests, it may be true in respect of earthquakes, fires or epidemics, but it is certainly not true with regard to industrial disputes, because industrial disputes are in fact fought within the State itself, and, if they become sufficiently serious, involve the whole ethics and practice of civil war. Therefore, the wider loyalty has disappeared.

We contend, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has not established his position at all, except that it is customary for the ruling class always to identify itself with that wider loyalty, and to assume that, in fighting for the ruling class, they are fighting for the State, the State becoming merely the apparatus of the ruling class. It has always been the contention of those who uphold representative government that there are ways available for the settlement of disputes within the State which make it unnecessary to invoke the military power. Representative government would never have arisen if that were not so, and, indeed, before representative government had been set up civilians were very jealous of the right of the State to have a standing army at all. There have been many conflicts fought in the House and there have been many discussions curtailing the right of the Crown to have a standing army, because in the absence of representative government that standing army was used by the Crown against the interests of the subject, so that the hon. Gentleman again overstates his case.

It is wrong to suppose that the modern Army was built up with this end in view. The modern Army has been built up with one object in view, and that was to use it against what were considered to be the enemies of all the members of the State. What is suggested here is that, in the event of an industrial dispute arising of a protracted and widespread nature in which the stability of the State is endangered, the use of the military forces can be lawfully invoked. They must be invoked on one side or the other. They cannot be invoked with neutrality. Indeed, merely marching into an industrial township is in itself an intimidatory act. The fact of the Army, with tanks and aeroplanes, entering any centre where there is a fierce and bitter industrial conflict taking place is itself a use of the armed forces on behalf of the employers to intimidate the working-class people into subordination.

You do not, therefore, exercise the armed powers of the State in order to maintain the stability of the State. You exercise them in order to secure a victory for the ruling class—for the employers. The hon. Gentleman said there have never been occasions in the history of the country where armed forces have been used in that way. I cannot recall it from my own memory, but I seem to have heard that on one or two occasions the Royal Marines have manned pit pumps. I also remember Mr. Asquith threatening to use the Army in the case of the railway disputes in 1911 and again in 1921. So it is not true to say that this is a power the exercise of which is never contemplated. It is always in the background as the last resource in the case of industrial disputes.

We support the new Clause because we do not desire to see people who have been recruited for one purpose used for purposes to which they are alien and which are repugnant to them. The hon. Member for Gorbals pointed out that many men were driven into the Army by sad industrial circumstances. The very reason that drives them into the Army is the reason why industrial disputes take place, and they are likely to be used to maintain just those circumstances that cause them to enlist. It seems to me to be a monstrous proposition. If we did not have representative government, if we had no means of settling disputes the hon. Gentleman's logic would be supreme. But, if there is a dispute so serious as to endanger the safety of citizens and the stability of the State, there are endless ways of allowing the citizens to decide which side is to secure a victory. You may have an election, if you want, at any time. That is the way to do it.

The thing that frightens, me about the modern Army and Air Force is its impersonal character. There was much less danger with the old mercenaries than there is with the modern Army. If you brought the old Army into conflict with the civilian population, you necessarily-had in most cases almost a hand-to-hand conflict in which one living person was-confronted with another. That warm intimacy of human conflict might give rise to temporary high feeling, but at the same time it had the effect of mitigating the rancour of the contending parties. It is difficult, as most military authorities know, for a man to engage in a bayonet charge. People do not like bayonet charges. They have to be worked up to it. Soldiers in the old days were always very reluctant to charge a civilian population. But now you can fire a rifle from a long distance and kill a man in the most impersonal manner, or you can drop-a bomb from the air and the aeroplane flies on and does not see what havoc it has created. It is the impersonal nature of the modern Army and Navy that frightens me. People destroy and murder in such a remote and objective way that the warm intimacy of human relationship does not enter into the mitigation of the conflict.

I would urge, therefore, that the proposed new Clause should be incorporated in order that modern lethal weapons should not be used in civilian conflicts. One of the outstanding characteristics of the late conflicts in Vienna was that the standing Army remained loyal to its paymasters. It was loyal not to any overriding authority—because Dollfuss was an enemy against his own State—but to those who paid their salaries and to their officers, because the modern Army is a machine. It slays from a distance. It kills not men but a target. For all these reasons, we ought to lay it down that the Army and Navy should not be invoked in any circumstances in a dispute between members of the civilian population.

5.39 p.m.


The Financial Secretary misunderstood the purpose of our Clause when he suggested that it was impossible to have in one Army two different standards of discipline—one body of men who could be called out in a trade dispute and one that could not. The purpose of the Clause is to make it impossible for any recruit joining the Army to have this duty recognised as one of the things that he would have to perform—that every recruit joining the Army, in giving the oath of loyalty and accepting the conditions of service, would recognise that it was not one of his duties to take part in any trade dispute, and that would apply to all members of the Army and Air Force. There would not be one set that stood aside from trade union duty while another crowd marched out. It would simply be impossible for the Government to call upon any of the armed forces to take part in such a dispute.


The Clause, as worded, would not apply to those already in the Army.


I see that it would be necessary to make it retrospective, but obviously the intention is that there should not be this double standard, but that recruits for the Army should not have this regarded as one of their duties. I have seen the military used in trade disputes. I saw them engaged in a trade dispute that we had in Glasgow, where the workers of all trades were struggling in 1920 for the establishment of a 40-hour working week. Without any justification whatever recruits were drafted into the city, and that had an intimidating effect upon the whole population, particularly the womenfolk and children. The morale of the strike was broken. It collapsed within a few days. It was not a strike against the State. It was not a strike for any illegal purpose. It was a strike for the establishment of certain conditions and the recognition of those conditions by employers of labour in the district. It was a demand for something which, I believe, if it had been granted at that time, would have had a wholesome effect upon the whole national life in the years that have intervened between 1930 and now. It was a legitimate demand that the workers were entitled to make. Particularly in the aftermath of the War were they entitled to make it.

A large proportion of the men engaged in the strike had just come out of the Army. They had been through the War, and here were young recruits fetched into the city and placed at all important points, with fixed bayonets, against men who had come home from active service and who were expecting that some of the many promises that had been made to them were going to be realised. They may say what they like. The safety of the State and so on may be used as an argument, but these troops were used to drive the men back to their work under their old employers under the old conditions. Similarly in the General Strike the intimidatory use of the troops was very well recognised by all those of us who were in sympathy with that great movement. We know how that power used to drive the people back again into their employments and to prevent the workers of Great Britain demonstrating their sympathy with the demand of the miners for a living wage. That is all that was being asked. The whole power of the State, the Army and the Air Force, which had been recruited for entirely different purposes, was used by the Government of the day to compel the miners to remain on their starvation level of wages, because that is all that was being asked in connection with the General Strike. It is the easiest thing in the world for a Government, if they see a body of strikers marching through the streets demonstrating with bands and banners, to say, "This is a threat against civil order."

But, as those of us know who had any part in that movement at all, there were no revolutionary intentions in the minds either of the people who took part in the 40-hour strike that I have referred to or in the General Strike in support of the miners' demand for a decent wage.

The excuse of the fabric of the State being imperilled is very easily used, but in hard fact what was done was to place the power of the State behind the mine-owners in driving the miners back to work under intolerable conditions. On that occasion the miners and the working-class generally had a higher wisdom than those who were in control of the State. It would have been a wise and intelligent thing, and would have made for a healthier and more useful life if at that time, instead of driving the men back to work by a display of armed force, the Government of the day had said, "Look here we recognise that this is a serious problem and that the men engaged in this fundamental industry must have decent conditions of life. You go back to your work, and we will set ourselves to see that you get decent conditions of life." That would have been government. The other thing was merely a display of brutality. It is absolutely wrong that the sons of working-class parents should be marched out armed with cartridges and bayonets to drive their fathers back to work under conditions which are intolerable.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office gave an interesting disquisition upon the ethics of loyalty. He did not pursue it very far, and consequently I do not want to pursue it any further, but he says that the loyalty to the town must give way before loyalty to the county, and that the loyalty to the county must give way before loyalty to the country as a whole—that loyalty is a matter of geographical demarcations. I do not know whether loyalty is a thing of that nature or not. I do not understand it in that way. I understand loyalty to causes and to principles, and I do not understand loyalty to geographical areas. I understand prejudices in favour of a particular geographical area. I understand my own prejudices for my own little town in Scotland and the prejudices of the people who live in that town, though anyone coming into it may see no justification for them. But to call it loyalty and to make loyalty something which depends upon geographical determination is to my mind a misuse of the word altogether.

The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that the average workman in the working-class movement has something more than a loyalty to his trade union when he goes into one of these strikes. He has something more than a loyalty to the working-class. He has a loyalty to perhaps one of the biggest conceptions which men in these days can have in their minds. He has a loyalty to the idea of a world completely free from poverty and internecine strikes. He has a loyalty to an ordered community throughout the world, to the lessening of poverty, and to recognising the right of one another to live decently and free. That is a big loyalty, and it is wrong that a young soldier coming from a working-class home should be asked to take on, as one of his conditions, the undertaking that he will go out to fight against his own loyalty and the loyalty of the people from whom he comes, and against that big idea and ideal.

I have heard the hon. Member himself talk in terms of bigger loyalties than merely national loyalties. Loyalty to nations has a tremendously big effect among European nations to-day. As we see it operating in Europe, there is a danger of it being carried to extremes in the shape of economic nationalism and the aggrandisement of one particular nation against the interests of all the other nations, and we see it as a menace. Suppose I give the hon. Member a present of the national loyalty as being a sane and decent one, it is entirely another thing, even when a young man joins the Army from the most patriotic and loyal motives, to make use of such a man, who has ideals in serving his country, in the interests of the employing classes of the country against the interests of the working-classes of the country.

I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it is fair simply to say that previous Governments, including a Labour Government, rejected the proposed Clause? This continuity of policy business can be carried too far. It is certainly true that when the right hon. Gentleman Mr. T. Shaw was Secretary of State for War and this Clause was moved, he at least had the grace to say that he accepted it in principle, and I think that he promised also that in practice he would see that it was operated. Fortunately for him no circumstances arose which would have put him into any difficulties with reference to that promise.

I want to point out this further fact to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Since that time his Government have come to this House and obtained power to strengthen and to develop the police force as a disciplined force. When that was done it took away from the Army the duty of intervening in this particular type of dispute. There is no need to have two disciplined forces for this purpose. If the police are recruited,

Division No. 191.] AYES. [5.54 p.m.
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Mainwaring, William Henry
Cape, Thomas Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James.
Daggar, George Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allen
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) John, William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Davice, Rhyt John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thorne, William James
Dobble, William Kirkwood, David Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McEntee, Valentine L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Groves, Thomas E. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Aneurin
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Clarry, Reginald George Fox, Sir Gilford
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Clayton, Sir Christopher Fremantle, Sir Francis
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Cobb, Sir Cyril Fuller, Captain A. G.
Albery, Irving James Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Gledhill, Gilbert
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Conant, R. J. E. Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Bainlel, Lord Cooper, A. Duff Goff, Sir Park
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Copeland, Ida Gower, Sir Robert
Boauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Blinded, James Craven-Ellis, William Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Boothby, Robert John Graham Crooke, J. Smedley Grimston, R. V.
Bossom, A. C. Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Gritten, W. G. Howard
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Cross, R. H. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Crossley, A. C. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Bracken, Brendan Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Gunston, Captain D. W.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Guy, J. C. Morrison
Brass, Captain Sir William Davison, Sir William Henry Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Broadbent, Colonel John Dawson, Sir Philip Hales, Harold K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Denville, Alfred Hanley, Dennis A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) Dickie, John P. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Browne, Captain A. C. Doran, Edward Harbord, Arthur
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Drewe, Cedric Hartington, Marquess of
Burnett, John George Duckworth, George A. V. Hartland, George A.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Duggan, Hubert John Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Eady, George H. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Carver, Major William H. Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Castlereagh, Viscount Elliston, Captain George Sampson Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Elmley, Viscount Hornby, Frank
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Howard, Tom Forrest
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Christie, James Archibald Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Hurd, Sir Percy

organised and officered to deal with this particular job, there is no reason why the Army should have to deal with it in addition. The only possible reason is that in that case you can make a display of weapons and can use the method of tyranny. There was not a disciplined, specially recruited, officered and educated police force when the late Labour Government were in office. It is there now, and therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that there are changed conditions which are sufficient to justify him in accepting the Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, S3; Noes, 274.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Morrison, William Shephard Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Munro, Patrick Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald Somervell, Sir Donald
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Soper, Richard
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) North, Edward T. Spent, William Patrick
Kerr, Hamilton W. Nunn, William Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Knox, Sir Alfred O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Stevenson, James
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Pearson, William G. Stones, James
Law Sir Alfred Penny, Sir George Stourton, Hon. John J.
Law Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Petherick, M. Strauss, Edward A.
Leckle, J. A. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Leech, Dr. J. W. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston) Sugden, sir Wilfrid Hart
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Potter, John Tate, Mavis Constance
Lewis, Oswald Procter, Major Henry Adam Templeton, William P.
Liddall, Walter S. Pybus, Sir Percy John Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Lindsay, Noel Ker Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Thompson, Sir Luke
Llewellin, Major John J. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Ramsden, Sir Eugen Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lloyd, Geoffrey Rea, Walter Russell Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Reid, William Allan (Derby) Train, John
Loftus, Pierce C. Renwick, Major Gustav A. Tree, Ronald
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Rickards, George William Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Turton, Robert Hugh
Mabane, William Ropner, Colonel L. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Ross, Ronald D. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McCorquodale, M. S. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter Watt, Captain George Steven H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Runge, Norah Cecil Wayland, Sir William A.
McKeag, William Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
McKle, John Hamilton Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Wins, Wilfrid D.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Magnay, Thomas Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Salmon, Sir Isidore Wise, Alfred R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Withers, Sir John James
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Womersley, Walter James
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Savery, Samuel Servington Worthington, Dr. John V.
Milne, Charles Scone, Lord
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Selley, Harry R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Moreing, Adrian C. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Captain Austin Hudson.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Schedules and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.