§ 6.6 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLER
I beg to move, in page-143, line 24, at the end, to insert:and for the purposes of the provisions of Chapter II relating to persons who retired before the commencement of Part III of this Act the said establishment shall be. deemed to be an All-India service.The object of this Amendment is to secure that chaplains who have retired before Part III of the Act comes into operation shall have the necessary protection for their pensions.
§ 6.7 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
Will the same conditions apply to chaplains who may be appointed between now and the appointed day as apply to the case of civil servants?
§ Mr. BUTLER
This applies in the same way as the provisions which apply to members of the Civil Service which were discussed in this connection.
§ Mr. BUTLER
If a chaplain retires before Part III of the Act comes into operation, he is to have the protection provided by this Amendment—but he will have to have retired before Part III comes into operation.
§ Mr. BUTLER
As he would have retired before Part III became operative his interests would, presumably, be safeguarded.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."863
§ 6.9 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I should like to know what exactly it is that we are doing in this Clause. I have always understood both during our discussions here and at the meetings of the Joint Select Committee that the chaplains with whom we were concerned in this Bill were the chaplains for the Army in India, but after reading this Clause I have a shrewd suspicion that we are discussing chaplains not connected with the armed forces but ministering simply to members of the Civil Service.
§ 6.10 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLER
The chaplains with whom we are concerned here are also, to a certain limited extent, to minister to the civil population as well as to the military. The chaplains have a dual purpose—to administer to the needs to a certain extent of the civil population, as agreed to by the Joint Select Committee, and to the military forces.
§ Mr. JONES
I take the strongest possible objection to our being called upon to make provision for spiritual consolation for civilians. They ought to provide it for themselves, and not look to the State for it. I raise no objection to the provision of any such services for the troops, but I have a strong objection to these ministrations being provided—not at our expense, but at the expense of the Indian people. It is a lot to ask us to swallow—that the Indian people, who do not accept our Christian philosophy, are to bear the burden of chaplains for even the defence forces, but it is an intolerable thing that they should be asked to bear such a burden in the case of civilians dotted all over the country. An isolated -civilian is just as much entitled to these ministrations as are communities of civilians. I do not see why we should provide them for groups of people who ought to bear the cost themselves as a common effort. The individual who is isolated possibly needs spiritual consolation more because of his isolation. I ought to say, in fairness, that I know that the Indian people themselves do not want this point raised. I raise it myself as a citizen of this country, because I believe it is monstrous that we should ask people who do not accept our Christian faith to bear the burden of maintaining these chaplains. If it has to be done, let us do it out of our resources.
§ 6.12 p.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I do not follow the logic of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He is raising a point of principle about which, admittedly, there is no agitation one way or the other, and he has fairly told us that the Indian representatives do not make any point against this proposal. Therefore, he raises it as a matter of abstract principle, as one of the great and cardinal rules of government, as it were. If we are to deal with matters of principle, logic acquires exceptional importance, much more so than when dealing with matters of practical administration. He did not explain why he has no difficulty in providing for the spiritual needs of the Army in India, and yet is so outraged at similar provision being made to meet the very peculiar circumstances of the scattered official community. I do not see any point of difference in logic between the two. Obviously if it is wrong to ask an Indian to devote any portion of his taxes to the minister of a faith he does not share, the objection applies whether the provision is made for soldiers or for civilians. Why should the civilians be less worthy of attention in this respect than the soldiers?Peace hath her victoriesNo less renowned than war.The official civil population of India are doing work which is just as necessary to the well-being of the Indian people and to the maintenance of good order and good government as are the military, and why it should excite his wrath when the one class are ministered to while he allows provision to be made for the military without censure I cannot understand. It is a point of logic on which I should like him to enlighten us, and to define his view a little more accurately.
§ Mr. JONES
I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I on the Joint Select Committee, when we drafted our report, did say that we thought that it would be a generous gesture for this country to undertake to provide spiritual consolation even for the troops, rather than let the cost fall on the shoulders of the Indian people, who do not entertain our Christian philosophy. May I add, in passing, that if I seem illogical to the right hon. Gentleman he hardly did justice to himself. Is he 865 going to provide spiritual consolation for isolated individuals all over India?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I imagine that the chaplains do minister, as far as they can, to the whole of the white population there, because men who are at outstations come into the larger areas from time to time and there find provision made for their religion—facilities for the performance of marriage and for baptisms. I do not think the fact that some people may have to live for a long time outside an area where a chaplain is stationed shows any flaw in the argument for providing these chaplains. I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has completely changed his argument, though I do not say he has changed his mind. His first argument was based on the principle that he did not object to paying for chaplains for the troops, but objected to paying for those for civilians. The second speech he made was directed equally against the military and the civilians. As far as I could gather, he would free the Indians from any of the charges they have hitherto borne in this respect. If any religious provision were to be made for them it would be a special extra charge voted by this Committee. If that be so, it would be merged in the general question of Anglo-Indian finance.
It was only last year that we voted £1,500,000 a year to India in respect of the training of our troops and for various considerations in the military budget. That is incomparably greater than any of the questions contained in this matter. Looking at the great flow of money to and from India and this country for the discharge and appointment of the various services, there is not the slightest reason why the hon. Gentleman should not, as it were, mentally ear-mark some unspecified portion of that grant to this particular service of a religious character, and thus avoid that outrage to his conscience, or, through his conscience to that of his Indian fellow-subjects about whom he feels so keenly.
§ 6.16 p.m.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The Committee should be grateful for the speech to which we have just listened. It was an admirable speech, and showed up the hypocrisy of the suggestion—[Interruption]— not of the hon. Member's speech—and I feel very strongly about it and about the 866 motive behind the speech of the hon. Gentleman. It is monstrous that he should come down to this House and, from the Front Opposition Bench, describe as an outrage a provision made in order that both British and Indian servants of the Crown should be provided with spiritual ministrations. To describe that provision as monstrous is an abuse of language. He said: "It is an outrage." That is an abuse of language which has seldom been heard in this House.
§ Earl WINTERTON
This Clause. But I prefer to deal with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) first, and I will deal afterwards with the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me from below the Gangway as a supporter of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. For the hon. Member for Caerphilly to use a phrase of that kind about the provision of official money for the spiritual ministrations of British and Indian civil servants and soldiers in India is one of the greatest misuses of language that I have ever heard in this House. I hope that the sort of language the official Opposition use about these things will be widely known outside this House. I think there will be great resentment, and I hope there will be great resentment. Close association with Russia has made the Opposition Front Bench have some rather curious views on this matter.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The hon. Gentleman's words are an abuse of language, and I hope they will be widely known.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I am very glad that I have stirred the hon. Gentleman. Now I would like to say a word about the Clause. For generations, ever since the English have been connected with India, money has been provided out of official funds for the spiritual ministrations of troops and civil servants and not one Indian has ever objected. It has been left to the hon. Member for Caerphilly to make this protest against spiritual ministrations. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, who talks as though the Christian religion were an alien religion in India, that it is the third biggest religion in India. There are 6,000,000 Indian Christians. It is not an alien religion at all, and they will not be very grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, this great supporter of the Christian religion, who yields to no one—
§ Earl WINTERTON
They will not be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a, scandal that he should make that speech, and I challenge him to have the courage to go into the Lobby and vote against the Clause.
§ 6.21 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLER
In view of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and of the Noble Lord, I do not propose to enter into this controversy. The Government attach importance to the Clause. There was an obligation in the old days upon the East India Company to provide chaplains in their ships and in their stations for spiritual ministrations to the official civilians and soldiers in those days. Ever since then, the Ecclesiastical Department has carried out the duties for which it was founded. The Joint Select Committee, with the aid of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), looked very sympathetically into 868 this matter, and there was on all sides among the Indian delegates, if not agreement, at any rate an understanding that something in the nature of this Clause should be inserted in the Bill. There is a provision which we have already passed which states that the amount of money for the Ecclesiastical Department shall be limited to 42 lakhs of rupees. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 333, (e), he will find that we have implemented the suggestion of the Joint Select Committee in regard to the limit. They suggested also that encouragement should be given to ecclesiastical services in India to depend more and more upon their own efforts, and less and less upon the Government. I feel certain, now that the hon. Gentleman has heard this explanation as to the manner in which we are carrying out the age-long duty to provide spiritual advice to the troops and to the official civil population, he will see that the Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, and I hope his opposition will cease.
§ 6.23 p.m.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, and to prevent the Committee from coming to a decision, if there is still opposition to the Clause after the spirited rejoinders made to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) by the Noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but as this is the first time I have taken part in these discussions, perhaps I may be allowed to raise a point in which, I think, the interests of the Church of Scotland are affected by the Clause. First let me draw attention to Sub-section (3), which reads:The ministers of the Church of Scotland so appointed chaplains must be ordained and inducted by the Presbytery of Edinburgh according to the forms and solemnities used in the Church of Scotland, and shall be subject to the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all things of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, whose judgments shall be subject to dissent, protest and appeal to the Provincial synod of Lothian and Tweeddale and to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.It is not to the last part of that Subsection that I take exception. I know that the Church of Scotland is not organised in India. I was very surprised to learn, only a few days ago, that the Church of Scotland is not organised in 869 India, in view of her long and great record in that sub-continent, and I was amazed to find that there is no proper organisation of that church in India. As long as that is so, ministers ministering in India must be subject to some jurisdiction at home in Scotland, and very naturaliy that is provided for by inserting in the Bill:shall be subject to the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all things of the Presbytery of Edinburgh,The part of the Sub-section which may arouse considerable anxiety in Scotland is the first part, and the sentence which provides that the ordination of the chaplains must be made by the Presbytery of Edinburgh. I should like the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Attorney-General, who is very familiar with Scottish ecclesiastical matters, to tell me why the Metropolitan Presbytery of Edinburgh is singled out for preferential treatment or for a position of primacy in this matter. Why should the Sub-section not read: "presbytery of Glasgow," or of Aberdeen. or Kirkcudbright, or Dundee—
So far as I know there is no ecclesiastical district designated Lossiemouth. I should he very sorry if any individual presbytery were specified in the Clause, because it is contrary to the spirit of the Presbyterian Church to single out any one authority as being the sole channel through which the spiritual grace in orders can flow. The Presbyterian system is one of pure republicanism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] —Yes, as that word is rightly understood. It maintains that this grace of orders can be imparted by every individual presbyter, minister or priest, and it does seem a little invidious to single out one group of ministers and to say that chaplains who are ministering in the Province of Madras or the Province of Bombay as it applies to the Province of Bengal, shall be required to be ordained by this one group of ministers representing the Scottish metropolis. May I say, in passing, that I have the greatest respect for that group, as I have for anyone coming from Edinburgh, even for representatives of Edinburgh in this House—
The Noble Lady is not concerned with Edinburgh. I think she 870 will share my apprehension on this point. The Sub-section gives direct primacy in this matter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. If hon. Members will allow me, I will illustrate what this means. It is as though we were to single out one diocese in the Church of England and say that chaplains in India shall in future be ordained in Canterbury, or Winchester or Carlisle. I think that is a position which even the most devout upholder of the doctrine of apostolic succession would not for one moment sanction. There are strong sentimental reasons, but there may be also anxiety in Scotland on this matter. Young people entering the priesthood and the ministry have an attachment to a presbytery in Scotland, just as young people entering the Church of England ministry may have an attachment to particular dioceses. It is for those reasons that I feel bound to raise my voice.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt? I hope that he is not going to conclude without suggesting an Amendment which will give effect to his wishes.
Certainly. I am putting it before the Committee on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I was going to point out that the Secretary of State and those associated with him in carrying this Bill through the Committee might, between now and the Report stage, inquire into this matter with a view to leaving out the words: "by the Presbytery of Edinburgh" in order to permit anybody coming from any presbytery in Scotland to take office in India under the Sub-section.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Sir S. HOARE
I must not be drawn by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) into any kind of controversy about the internal organisation or spiritual foundations of the Presbyterian Church, but let me assure him and the Committee that these sections are really historical sections, which have been in existence, so far as I know, for generations. All that we are doing is repeating them, and repeating them, so I understand, at the wish of the authorities in Scotland. At one time, in my anxiety to diminish the length of the Bill, I was sorely tempted to leave them out. I felt that, if I had left thorn out, perhaps 871 no great change would have taken place. But at once it was pointed out to me that the whole Presbyterian organisation in Scotland, including, I feel sure, my hon. Friend, would have been on my back, and, being a cautious and timid person, I thought it was better to avoid, if I could, any opposition, for I already had a good deal upon my shoulders. On that account I have inserted in the Bill these historical clauses, which, so far as I know, have been in operation for generations past. That being so, I hope that my hon. Friend and the Committee will accept this Clause.
§ 6.32 p.m.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) should be the last to object to my hon. Friend's suggestion, because, so far as I remember, he took part in the historic discussions connected with the Welsh Church and the subject of dis-establishment—
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not objected to it at all. I was interested in the statement that was made.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman was objecting to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and I am trying to show how illogical the right hon. Gentleman is. I think I remember his defending the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and making even more emphatic speeches than those he has made during these discussions.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, and voted for the Bill. 'The speech that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has made to-night was exactly the sort of speech that was made against Mr. Asquith, and against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others. We were told that we were going to pull down the temples of religion, that we were irreligious, that all those who voted for the Bill were people who had no sort of faith at all, and that we were going to hand over Wales to sheer heathenism—all because we said that the Welsh people ought not to have imposed upon 872 them an establishment in which they did not believe. It has been said to-night that no Indian has objected to this Clause. I know as many Indians as anyone who has not visited India, and I have discussed this matter with them many a time. Most, if not all, of those with whom I have come in contact think it is rather invidious to ask Hindus and Moslems and Brahmins and Buddhists to pay for the teaching of our religion.
The Noble Lord said he hoped that our opinion and our action in regard to this matter would be known outside. What is it that we are saying? No amount of twisting our language can get away from it. All that we are saying is that if ministers of the Gospel—Presbyterian, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Baptist, Wesleyan—go to India to teach our religion, we, who want our religion taught, should pay for it. I myself subscribe regularly to one or two missions in India, and am glad that I have a few shillings to enable me to do that; and to say that, because I am against this proposal, I do not want religion taught either to the troops or to the Indians themselves or to anyone else, is a blatant outrage and a misuse of language on The part of the Noble Lord. When we go into the Lobby we shall be voting for exactly the same principle that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, when he was a member of the Liberal Government, stood up for—that those who want a certain religion taught should pay for it, and should not impose the payment on people who disagree with them.
§ 6.37 p.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I share the right hon. Gentleman's regret that the Noble Lord has not been in his place for some little time, because, owing to his departure from the Chamber, I, apparently have to bear the brunt of the castigation which the right hon. Gentleman felt it his duty to deliver. I shall not fail to mention to the Noble Lord, when I see him, what has occurred, and will show him my wounds. For my part, I have certainly not used any strong language at all on this point. I merely examined the logic which was behind the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), and so effective was my criticism 873 on that point that he completely altered his ground. Whereas he only objected to civilians before, he broadened the position, and objected to the ministrations whether they were for the military or for the civilians.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I did not wish to pursue my argument in my second intervention too far, as I am one of those who believe that two speeches on the same Amendment are rather more than enough.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I certainly should not have intervened but for the point which was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He has, I think, treated me with less than his usual justice by making me the whipping boy for the Noble Lord, whose attitude upon this Bill I have always regarded as most deplorable, and whom I should have been very glad to see chastened and castigated in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, had he been in his place. At any time when the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the humour to assail the Noble Lord, I hope he will be good enough to let me know, in order that I may be there to see.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I am very sorry, but he did take up this matter from the point of view of principle, and that is why I wanted to remind him that he was one of the champions of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. This matter is on all fours with that Measure, and my hon. Friend, being a Welshman, naturally wants to put that principle into practice.
§ 6.39 p.m.
§ Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE
I should like to ask what it is that we are dividing about I distinctly understood from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) that he intended to divide because he felt that this was expenditure which was not incurred for the troops; and, as 90 per cent. of the expenditure is incurred for the troops, I feel bound to ask him what he is dividing about. I certainly understood from him that he did not object to the appointment of chaplains.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 36.875
|Division No. 146.]||AYES.||[6.41 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cazalet, Capt. V.A. (Chippenham)||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh||Fox, Sir Gifford|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Fraser, Captain Sir Ian|
|Albery, Irving James||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Fuller, Captain A. G.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Clarke, Frank||Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Clarry, Reginald George||Goff, Sir Park|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Granville, Edgar|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Assheton, Ralph||Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cook, Thomas A.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cooke, Douglas||Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmith, C.)||Copeland, Ida||Grimston, R. V.|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Hacking, Rt. Hon Douglas H.|
|Bernays, Robert||Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)|
|Blindell, James||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Bossom, A. C.||Crooke, J. Smedley||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Boulton, W. W.||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hartland, George A.|
|Bower, Commander Robert Tatton||Cross, R. H.||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Crossley, A. C.||Harvey, Major Sir Samuel(Totnes)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Braithwalte, J. G.(Hillsborough)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Denman, Hon. R D.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Dickle, John P.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R,||Duckworth, George A. V.||Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Burghley, Lord||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Eimley, Viscount||Hornby, Frank|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles(Chester, City)||Evans, Capt. Arthur(Cardiff, S.)||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Jamieson, Douglas||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Somerville. Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Nunn, William||Soper, Richard|
|Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Orr E wing, I. L.||Spens, William Patrick|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Palmer, Francis Noel||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Fylde)|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles(Montrose)||Patrick, Colin M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||Penny, Sir George||Stevenson, James|
|Kirkpatrick, William M.||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Knight, Holford||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Potter, John||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Templeton, William P.|
|Levy, Thomas||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Lewis, Oswald||Ramsay, T. B. W.(Western Isles)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Liddall. Walter S.||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Ramsden, Sir Eugene||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Rankin, Robert||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R.L.|
|Little, Graham-,Sir Ernest||Rea, Walter Russell||Wallace, Captain D. E.(Hornsey)|
|Loftus, Pierce C.||Reed, Arthur C.(Exeter)||Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)|
|Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Mabane, William||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Remer, John R.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Rickards, George William||Warrender, Sir Victor A G.|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|McLean, Major Sir Alan||Robinson, John Roland||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Rothschild, James A. de||Wells, Sidney Richard|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.||Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter||White, Henry Graham|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Williams, Herbert G (Croydon, S.)|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon N.)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Meller, Sir Richard James||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Salt, Edward W.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Mitchell, Harold P. (Bi'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Samuel, Rt. Hon Sir H. (Darwen)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale||Savery, Samuel Servington||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Sir Walter Womersley and|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Dr. Morris-Jones.|
|Morrison, William Shepherd||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Banfield, John William||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Milner, Major James|
|Cleary, J. J.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Cove, William G.||John, William||Thorne, William James|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Kirkwood, David||West, F. R.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon George||Wilmot, John|
|Davies, Stephen Owen||Lawson, John James|
|Dobble, William||Logan, David Gilbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.|
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.