At the end of section forty-three of the Army Act (which relates to redress of wrongs) there shall be added the words:
If any soldier thinks himself wronged in any matter by any officer, and does not receive the redress to which he may consider
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 143.961
|Division No. 137.]||AYES.||[1.29 a.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke||Harris, Sir P. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Barnes, A. J.||Holdsworth, H.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Barr, J.||Jagger, J,||Silverman, S. S.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Burke, W. A.||Kirby, B. V.||Stephen, C.|
|Cassells, T.||Lawson, J. J.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Leonard, W.||Westwood, J.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Logan, D. G.||White, H. Graham|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Ede, J. C.||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Mathers, G.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Maxton, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Milner, Major J.||Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Potts, J.||and Mr. Foot.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Price, M. P.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Grant-Ferris, R.||Porritt, R. W.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Radford, E. A.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (G. of Ldn.)||Grimston, R. V.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Guy, J. C. M.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Hannah, I. C.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Harbord, A.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Beit, Sir A. L.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Rowlands, G.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Salt, E. W.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Holmes, J. S.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Hunter, T.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Bull, B. B.||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cartland, J. R. H.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Cary, R. A.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Spens, W. P.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Leckie, J. A.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Channon, H.||Liddall, W. S.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Christie, J. A.||Lindsay, K. M.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Lloyd, G. W.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Loftus, P. C.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)||Lyons, A. M.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Turton, R. H.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||McKie, J. H.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Drewe, C.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Markham, S. F.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Dugdale, Major T. L.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Duggan, H. J.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S||Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Emery, J. F.||Moreing, A. C.||Wragg, H.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Everard, W. L.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Fleming, E. L.||Palmer, G. E. H.|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Peake, O.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||Penny, Sir G.||Sir James Blinded and Major Sir|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Perkins, W. R. D.||George Davies.|
§ himself entitled, he may appeal to a soldiers' committee elected by ballot each in his regiment, consisting of five soldiers, who shall have power, if they consider his complaint justified, to complain to the Army Council, who are hereby required to examine into such complaint, and (if so required by the soldiers' committee) through a Secretary of State to make their report to the Commons House of Parliament in 963 order to receive the direction of that House thereon."—[Mr. Stephen.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 1.39 a.m.
§ Mr. Stephen
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
During the discussion on the last Clause there were many hon. Members of the Committee who seemed to be asleep. It is very unfortunate that at this time of the morning we should be considering this important matter. I would point out to the Committee that the Army Act has to do with the life and fortune of all the thousands of soldiers who are in the Army. Their reputation and honour are at the mercy of the Army Act, and it is very wrong indeed that there should not be a better opportunity of discussing the position of the soldiers under the Army Act than is provided in this way. The Clause I am moving appears to me to be a very important one indeed. I think that it is practically impossible to get the consideration which it ought to have had at this hour of the morning. There are other Clauses on the Paper, but the Government are treating this question as one of very little importance, and all we can do is to make a protest on behalf of the Army. The Clause which has just been discussed was largely due to what had happened to an officer, but the rank and file have even less opportunity with regard to the wrongs they may sustain. The purpose of this Clause is to try to bring more of a balance into the treatment of the rank and file of the Army as compared with the officers than has been the case hitherto. A great deal has happened since 1881. The position with regard to the private soldier should have changed a great deal since 1881, and I do not wonder that there are these desperate efforts being made in order to try to get men to join the Army when this inadequate Army Act is still the Act under which they are called upon to serve. Surely the time has come for treating these men as if they were intelligent people who should have as full rights as the rest of us.
I have had the interesting experience of reading through the Army Act from the beginning to the end. I do not think there are many Members of the Committee who have undertaken that job, and I would say to them that it would be worth their while to read through the 964 Act from start to finish. Anyone doing so will find that the ordinary soldiers in the various paragraphs are treated as though they were mental defectives, or very weak-minded people or robots. The purpose of this Clause is to put an end to that, and I believe there is a need for a complete change with regard to the treatment both of the men and the officers. I hope that the Secretary of State for War is going to have an open mind with regard to this Clause, and is really going to see the need for a great improvement on the present position. He has already indicated that he would consider the possibility of appeal, and I am suggesting to him in moving this Clause that there should be a committee now appointed to go into the whole question, so that we would have a new Army Act that is really modern and up to date.
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is proposed under this Clause to set up in each regiment a committee of five who would advise the soldier as to the wrong under which he is suffering, and who can have an opportunity of bringing that wrong to the Army Council. I know it may be said that this is to Bolshevise the Army as has been said on a previous occasion, but I believe that it is good to have in every regiment a soldiers' committee who would be free to see things were run properly in the regiment from the point of view of the ordinary soldier. The machinery that is provided in the new Clause is to enable these committees to go to the Army Council. I do not suppose that the present Secretary of State for War or his assistant on the Treasury bench would believe that in putting forward this Clause I am expecting the Army Council to become an instrument of revolution in this country. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the Clause. I think it would mark a real step on the part of the Secretary of State to get things put right in the Army and it would make the working-class people of this country have far more respect for the control of the Army. I believe that something like this has got to come and that the ordinary rank and file soldiers are entitled to much greater consideration than they have had in the past. We are therefore not asking too much when we suggest that in every regiment there should be a committee of the ordinary soldiers who will 965 he able to put forward their grievances, and see those grievances are met. Members of this House claim it is the great home of democracy, and if that is so, then there is no reason why the soldier should not have a full opportunity for grievances to be removed and to get justice.
§ 1.48 a.m.
§ Mr. Ede
I regret that at this stage the Committee has not the advantage of the assistance of the Lord President of the Council. I am sure that on this issue he could, out of the depth of his experience, tender to the Secretary of State for War advice likely to be far more acceptable to the hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause than that likely to be whispered in his ear by the Patronage Secretary. I recall, just after the 10 days that shook the world, being in the field in France and finding that the Lord President of the Council, who was not then holding that office—nor can I imagine him thinking that he would be holding it in the present company—taking a great interest in the welfare of the Army and the discipline of the various battalions and regiments. I recall we read with some astonishment that he had gone to Leeds and had there moved a resolution calling for the establishment of soldiers' and workmen's councils in this country. I think we are entitled to know, if the Government propose to reject this Clause, whether they carry with them the Lord President of the Council? I noticed that earlier in the evening he was present in one division, gaily apparelled, apparently having been at some banquet or other. I really think that on an issue so important as this we might have had the advantage of his presence this evening. After all he is one of the learned representatives of the country and I have no doubt that as representing a University he might desire to give us some expression of his views on this subject. It is a matter of regret that we have to take this matter at an hour of the morning when he is not here.
I personally do not find myself able to support this new Clause. For instance, even if I favoured the principle, the wording of the Clause makes it quite impossible. There are to be five soldiers in a regiment. The regiment to which I used to belong had at least two battalions and I can well imagine that you might get a sergeant and regimental ser- 966 geant-major in one battalion chosen to deal with the grievances of the troops, when the second battalion was in India or not on Home service, and when the five men supposed to be looking after you were with the other battalion. You might even get five men chosen, one from each of the Service battalions and three more from the Territorial battalions, and how this particular council is to meet in those circumstances I really cannot imagine. I suggest that the proper thing to do is to provide the Army with the kind of structure that will enable a far greater amount of discipline to be obtained in circumstances very different from those which are enshrined in this Act, which was framed to deal with an Army very different from the one which we have to-day. I do not think the Army Council have ever realised the difference in the mental and intellectual calibre of the men they get in the Army to-day.
I well recall that when I was in the ranks somebody came down from the brigade headquarters to complain that there was not enough crime in the particular unit to which I was attached, and suggesting to the officers that really more use ought to be made of the crime sheet than had been made hitherto in that particular unit. The whole conception of the Army Council in regard to this matter is wrong. I do not believe the solution is that put forward by my hon. Friends below the Gangway but I do hope that one suggestion made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will appeal to the Secretary of State for War, and that we shall get some inquiry by the Army Council into the present methods of maintaining discipline in the Army with a view to bringing them into line with the requirements of the material which is now going into the Army.
§ 1.54 a.m.
§ Sir V. Warrender
I rise only to say that as we were unable to accept the first Amendment which was moved tonight, hon. Members will hardly be surprised if I say that we are unable to accept this new Clause. Although my right hon. Friend's promise that he would look into the desirability of reviewing the conditions of appeal from courts-martial has really nothing to do with this particular Clause, I may say in passing that any inquiries under that head would apply to courts-martial affecting other ranks 967 just as much as to officers. My chief objection to the Clause now moved is its complete impracticability, apart from the fact that it would really be aiming a disastrous blow at the whole system of discipline in the Army. Perhaps I might briefly remind the Committee of the statutory rights which the soldier enjoys to-day in getting redress for any grievances from which he feels he is suffering. First of all he has the right to complain to his captain or company commander, and through him to his commanding officer; through him to the brigadier and through him to the general officer commanding. If the general officer commanding has any doubts in his own mind as to the rights or wrongs of a soldier it is the invariable custom to take the case to the War Office and get proper legal advice.
So there is no justification for saying that there is no machinery whereby the wrongs which a soldier feels himself suffering from do not receive adequate consideration. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite realised what he would involve the House in by the terms of his Clause. I do not suppose he would be content to leave this system to the Army. He would not want to Bolshevise the forces but rather to Sovietise the forces. There would be the Navy and the Air Force as well, and if all the grievances which men of the fighting Services felt themselves suffering from were to be considered eventually by this House not only would our deliberations alter very much in character but the length of the session would be very much extended. My chief quarrel with this particular Clause is, however, that it is quite impracticable, and I hope with this short explanation the Committee will agree with me that it is not one which the Government could possibly be expected to accept.
§ 1.59 a.m.
§ Mr. Lawson
I share the regret that we are not in a position at this hour to debate not only this Clause but many others of the Amendments which have been put down, with some of which I agree. I agree with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that there is need for the democratisation of the Army, and the members of this party have made practical suggestions to that end from time to time. It is for that reason that I 968 regret that some of the Amendments which are on the Paper are not to be considered this morning. The object of moving this new Clause is not merely that a committee shall be established but to say that an aggrieved soldier, if the committee agrees, shall have the right to go to the Army Council. That is, that under the Section we are dealing with, Section 43, if a soldier is wrong, he may complain to his captain. If he does not get satisfaction he complains to his commanding officer, and if he does not get satisfaction there he can go to the higher command, but he cannot get any further. The officer, of course, can appeal to the Army Council; the soldier cannot.
That state of things was dealt with in a previous Amendment which has not been moved, and with that I have a good deal of sympathy—placing a soldier in the same position as an officer. But now it is asked that there shall be five soldiers appointed as a committee and that the aggrieved soldier shall appeal to them, and that they shall have power, if they consider his complaint justified, to complain to the Army Council. I prefer the soldier to go direct to the Army Council rather than have five soldiers appointed to stand between him and the Army Council. For the purposes for which it is supposed to be justified it does not meet the need at all. To state the case shortly, I feel that I would not be doing justice to the party on this side of the Committee if I just deal with this matter from the technical point of view. It is quite true that there are many things in the Army which are quite undemocratic and undesirable. As a matter of fact I hoped that we were going to have an opportunity of dealing with dismissal with ignominy from the Army. That is one of the archaic and somewhat cruel things, and I did not like the experience I had of seeing a man dismissed from the Army and the method of dismissal. But this new Clause has wider implications than appear in the form in which it is put down, and has wider implications than were stated by the hon. Gentleman who moved it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) ha pointed out some of the implications of the soldiers' councils—not that I think my hon. Friends would apply those wider things to that—but there are wider cases which, taken logically, affect even the most 969 democratic Army and its discipline. Every soldier has a right to the functions of the citizen. He has a right to read his newspapers and to discuss freely, and we on this side have always taken a definite stand on that matter. But one thing we cannot stand for, and I think the Committee would not stand for—I do not think my hon. Friend meant it, but the implications are there—and that is indiscipline in the Army, and for that reason I feel I must say definitely that we on this side are against this new Clause, and if it goes to a Division I personally—my hon. Friends can please themselves, but I believe they are of the same opinion—should not like to give a silent vote or even to be neutral. I should certainly vote against this new Clause.
§ 2.5 a.m.
§ Mr. Maxton
I am not proposing to try to argue the case for this new Clause at this hour of the morning. I think the Committee has been kept too long already. That is not my fault, but I would like to say that I enjoyed the facetious speech of the hon. Gentleman from the point of view of its facetiousness and his references to the Lord President of the Council. The speech I have just listened to from the hon. Member was in contradiction of all his ordinary philosophy with regard to the working class. We have introduced committees into all sorts of workshops without indiscipline. We stand for them in every branch of the Civil Service, and we go on the assumption that these are reasonable men and that these five men in the regiment would not be an agency for indiscipline but an agency for that best of all discipline, self-imposed discipline, on the basis that justice is secured by the judgment of their peers. The Under-Secretary seemed to me to say the most foolish thing when he said we did not realise that this would be imposing on the House of Commons, but every man's grievances can be brought to this House —in the Post Office, the Army and the Navy. Any day I can ask a question about the grievances of soldiers and sailors and airmen, and the House would not be cluttered up with individual cases if the men had a council of their own.
I shall not quarrel with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the definition of a regiment. Obviously we think in terms of what he terms a battalion, a group of men who are opera- 970 ting together and are living under one general control, living together, working together and performing the same operations together. You would have a group of five men representative of the rank and file—let my hon. Friends call it a soviet or anything else, but let me call it a workshop committee, a local branch of a trade union. That is what we are asking for here, not attempting to make them equal to, let alone be a substitute for, the discipline of the ordinary officers or the Army Council. We are asking for an agency through which men can voice their grievances with men of their own rank, so that they can be discussed by men of their own rank who see their grievances in the same way. Everyone who has had any experience knows that the responsible man inside the works is the man who treats the most frivolous grievances in the most drastic fashion. A committee of five rank-and-file workers will not listen to nonsensical and silly grievances. Where there is a genuine grievance they would be an agency which can carry it forward with greater authority and effect than the individual who feels himself aggrieved. That is all we are asking. The issue of revolution does not arise on this new Clause. If at some future time a revolutionary situation has to be confronted in this country, it will not then be within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he is going to have soldiers' committees or not.
§ 2.9 a.m.
Mr. J. J. Davidson
I want to make a very few remarks with reference to the reply of the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government. Speaking as an ex-soldier and an N.C.O. during the War I may say that I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman make the statement that the setting up of a committee in a regiment or a battalion, or one from each platoon representing a battalion, was an impracticable suggestion. Hon. Members must be fully aware of the fact that there have been, and are, already in existence in many battalions committees of soldiers performing different types of work. You have canteen and concert committees. You have committees of rank-and-file soldiers doing particular types of work in the Army, and it must be well within the range of the remembrance of hon. and gallant Members of this House that 971 soldiers' committees were set up during the demobilisation riots in France. Many of these committees did operate very successfully and obtained the demobilisation of men who would not otherwise have been demobilised for a considerable time. I think that it is unwise for hon. Members to look upon a suggestion which has been accepted in workshops and other parts of working-class life as something which would not be good for the discipline of the Army or the morale of the soldier. We all know perfectly well, particularly those who have served in the ranks, that regimental and battalion pride is something which counts very much with the soldier to-day. I would have preferred four of a committee. They would be as anxious and as worried about the honour and individuality of their battalion or regiment as any other section of the Army.
There is another point with regard to grievances. I have myself been before company officers for various offences, and we must all recognise that company officers and other officers of the Army are very often not competent to deal with the cases that come before them with regard to discipline and other such things. I know perfectly well that the life of officers to-day, or during the War, did not fit them to take the position of judges or juries with regard to privates or N.C.Os.
§ We are told that the soldier can appeal from the company officer to the battalion commander and the brigadier. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has tried it? I wonder if he knows the experience of many men who have tried to make a complaint even with regard to the "grub" served. Whilst fairness and justice may be done in some respects, in other respects fairness and justice cannot be done unless placed before those who understand the soldier's life. I asked a question as to whether soldiers in barracks would be allowed to hear Parliamentary candidates during the election. Even that right was refused. Obviously it was a revolutionary proposal. The setting up of these committees is not a revolutionary proposal. It is a well-established practice of working-class life. It is a practice which has always worked successfully. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War, recognises that the intelligence of the private and N.C.O. may be higher than that of the average officer, and they ought to have their companions to state their case before the Army Council. I fully support the case which has been made by the hon. Member.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 147.973
|Division No. 138.]||AYES.||[2.15 a.m.|
|Barr, J.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cassells, T.||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Tinker, J. J.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Mathers, G.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Maxton, J.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Potts, J.|
|Leonard, W.||Silverman, S. S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Stephen and Mr. Buchanan.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Christie, J. A.||Fyfe, D. P. M.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Garro Jones, G. M.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)||Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Gluckstein, L. H.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs)||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Crowder, J. F. E.||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Cruddas, Col. B.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Culverwell, C. T.||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Drewe, C.||Guinness, T. L. E. B.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Gunston, Capt. D. W.|
|Beit, Sir A. L.||Dugdale, Major T. L.||Guy, J. C. M.|
|Blindell, Sir J.||Duggan, H. J.||Hannah, I. C.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Ede, J. C.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Harbord, A.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Emery, J. F.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-|
|Bull. D. B.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Cartland, J. R. H.||Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Holdsworth, H.|
|Cary, R. A.||Everard, W. L.||Holmes, J. S.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Fleming, E. L.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Foot, D. M.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Channon, H.||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Hunter, T.||Moreing, A. C.||Southby, Commander A. P J.|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Spens, W. P.|
|Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Palmer, G. E. H.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Peake, O.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Penny, Sir G.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Parkins, W. R. D.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Lawson, J. J.||Porritt, R. W.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Leckie, J. A.||Price, M. P.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Liddall, W. S.||Procter, Major H. A.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Lindsay, K. M.||Radford, E. A.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Ramsden, Sir E.||Turton, R. H.|
|Lloyd, G. W.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Loftus, P. C.||Rayner, Major R. H.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Lyons, A. M.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Warrender, Sir V.|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Rowlands, G.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Markham, S. F.||Salt, E. W.||Wragg, H.|
|Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J,||Samuel, M. R. A.||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Milner, Major J.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Moore, Lieut.-Col, T. C. R.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Major Sir George Davies and|
Resolution agreed to.
§ Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.