HC Deb 16 May 1939 vol 347 cc1338-69

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert: Provided that no such person shall, by-virtue of this Section, be liable 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. This Amendment is the same that we had on the Military Training Bill. The Secretary of State for War gave a guarantee in connection with the militiamen and, if the hon. Gentleman can give us the same guarantee in reference to these men, we shall be satisfied. I am in the awkward position that I do not know whether it is necessary to argue my case or not. The Bill very definitely says that the reserve forces and the Territorials shall be called up only in the case of external danger, and that they are called up specifically for that purpose. In this Clause the Government are asking very great powers indeed, but it does not seem that the Financial Secretary should have any difficulty in giving this guarantee. I would prefer to move the Amendment and, if necessary, speak at a further stage, and my hon. Friend, if need be, will deal with the answer.

10.54 p.m.

Sir V. Warrender

I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment, for a reason which I hope will be convincing. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that under the Bill powers are given to call out the reserves and the auxiliary forces only where external danger is the cause. There really is not a parallel between the position of these Forces and the position of the militiamen who are to be called up to do their six months' compulsory training. The men in these Forces can be called up only in the event of the Realm being threatened from external dangers, but when they have been called up under the machinery of this Bill, they will be in exactly the same position as if they had been called up under powers which exist already. They are, therefore, liable to be used in the aid of the civil power in exactly the same way as officers and men of the Regular Forces are at all times. The men who are in these Forces realise from the terms of their engagement their liability to this extent. There really is nothing new being imposed upon them. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave an undertaking on Friday last that he would take steps to ensure that militiamen who are called up to do their six months' training will not be called upon to do duty in the aid of the civil power in the event of industrial disputes, but I really do not think the hon. Gentleman can maintain, with logic or justice, that the personnel in the Forces which are affected by this Bill are at all a parallel case; and for that reason, I am afraid it is not possible for us to accept the Amendment.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Batey

The answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office must have alarmed every hon. Member on this side. The Government have very wisely accepted a provision of this sort with regard to the militiamen, and it is infinitely more important that these words should be accepted by the Government with regard to the Reserve Forces. The Financial Secretary has said that the Reserve Forces will be called up only when there is external danger. We can say that there is external danger now, and if a strike were to take place at a time such as this, the Government might call up these Forces and use them in order to break the strike. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that we have got conscription through France, and again and again France has used her reserve forces in order to break strikes. There is far more danger in this respect from the Reserve Forces than there would be in using the militiamen. What we want to make absolutely sure about is that the Reserve Forces will not be called out in order to break strikes. We are bound to insist that the Government should accept this Amendment because of the danger that might come from the use of the Reserve Forces to break strikes.

10.59 p.m.

Colonel Nathan

I must confess that I was profoundly startled by the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I cannot believe that on further consideration the hon. Gentleman will persist in the stand he has taken. I say that for a variety of reasons. In the first place, to adopt the position which he has, that Territorial soldiers called out under this Bill are for all purposes in the same position as Regular soldiers, is inconsistent with the speech that was made on the introduction of the Bill, and it is inconsistent with the terms of the preamble to the Bill. So far as the general position is concerned, as related by the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill, it is that as the law stands at present, broadly speaking, the Territorial Army can be embodied only when there is a state of imminent national danger and a proclamation is issued for the purpose. The governing factor is that there shall be imminent national danger from a foreign foe and that the Territorial Army is required to be embodied in order to take part in the defence of the country against that foreign foe.

Now I come to the terms of the Bill itself. It recites as a fact in the Preamble: Whereas a situation has arisen in which it is necessary that His Majesty should be empowered, whenever the service of members of His reserve and auxiliary forces is urgently required for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the realm against any external danger, to call out for service such of them as may be needed. Service in what regard? Service against an external danger. Indeed, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that the point was emphasised more than once from the Treasury Bench during the Second Reading Debate that the words "external danger" were the governing factor in regard to the Bill, and that hon. Members on this side were unduly apprehensive if they thought the Territorial Army could be used under the Bill for any purpose except that of meeting external danger. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the practical implications of the stand that he has taken. The members of the Territorial Army are those who have taken upon themselves special, additional responsibilities beyond those which fall upon citizens who have not voluntarily accepted those special duties. Those duties are to assist in the defence of the realm against a foreign foe. The Bill imposes very onerous obligations upon the Territorial Army, quite unforeseen, either by the Government when they asked the private citizen to become a citizen soldier or by the citizen when he accepted that invitation. He is being asked now, not at a moment of imment national danger, to surrender a month of his time as against the fortnight stipulated when he joined—a month, that is, at any period of the year instead of a fortnight at the holiday season.

It is a very onerous obligation, and is it to be contended by the Government that the private citizen who puts on uniform and puts himself under military discipline for the purpose of training and making himself ready to defend the country shall, let us say, in the anti-aircraft forces, during the month he is called out for training, be liable to be used in support of the civil power in an industrial dispute? I refuse to believe that the Government seriously intend that. Had this Amendment not been placed on the Order Paper, the question would not have arisen, and it would have seemed incredible to the Territorial Army that at this time, when they are called upon to make these sacrifices, these very grave sacrifices, they should be exposed to the liability of being called upon to act as strike-breakers.

I say to the Secretary of State that that is an untenable position. I can imagine few things which would have a more disastrous effect on the moral and feeling of that splendid force, which is willing to undertake any kind of sacrifice directed to the purpose for which it was enlisted, than that it should be told in cold blood, by the spokesman of the Government, that having been called up for military training, to be prepared against an external danger, it might be called upon at the will of the Government to assist the civil power in a strike. I implore the Government to withdraw from that attitude.

11.6 p.m.

Sir J. Nall

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this Bill relates to the Regular Army and Navy Reserves. Only a few nights ago a spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench admitted frankly mat those who joined the Regular Forces know full well that they may be called on to act in aid of the civil power. Therefore, as far as that part of the Bill is concerned, there can be nothing new in the provision that the Regular reserves may be called up.

Mr. Lawson

The hon. Gentleman does not assert that any one here, either on the Front Bench or the back benches, made any such statement on this Bill.

Sir J. Nall

Not on this Bill but on the other Bill. The statement was made, however, from that bench that there is a difference between the Regular and the Territorial forces, and that the man who joins the Regular Service realises when he joins that he may, in certain circumstances, be required to act in aid of the civil power. That view was not disputed by other hon. Members on the Opposition side. That is the case, at present, without this Bill. As explained on Second Reading, this Bill merely facilitates the machinery for mobilising the reserve and auxiliary forces. In Clause 1 provision is made that action taken under the Bill can relate only to circumstances of external danger. The hon. and gallant Gentleman objected that troops mobilised for reasons of external danger might, in certain circumstances, be used in aid of the civil power. As regards Territorial or second-line reserves, surely it is stretching the point to imagine that this Bill would first be invoked to mobilise the reserve forces to meet an external danger, and that the Territorial Army, having been mobilised on that pretext, would thereafter be used in aid of the civil power. There is no analogy between the circumstances in which the undertaking was given on the other Bill and the circumstances which might arise under this Bill.

Clause 1 clearly limits the Bill to circumstances of national emergency and preparedness against external danger. As far as the first-line reserves of the Regular Army and Navy are concerned, it does not alter the law or the conditions under which they can be employed. To suggest that it might conceivably be applied to the Territorial Army in the way suggested is stretching the case beyond the limits of reason. I cannot see that there is any ground for the Amendment.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

It is fortunate that the Secretary of State for War has come in, because, although it is suggested that we are merely continuing a line of policy previously embarked upon, we are in fact embarking upon an entirely new policy if this Amendment is accepted. I would ask the Committee to look at the wording of Clause 1. These provisions are designed for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the Realm against any external danger. It is not a case of imminent external danger but preparedness for defence of the Realm against external danger. That is to say, in every conceivable circumstances in which the Committee of Imperial Defence reported that there was a prospect of external danger, it would be in order for these Proclamations to be issued, and all the classes of troops, Air Force and Naval reserves under Subsection (3) could be called up. That, obviously, gives the Government authority to call up the whole of these forces in circumstances which they consider threaten the realm, however remotely, by external danger.

Why are the words "external danger" put in? In their context they have little or no meaning. Certainly they have no meaning in reference to the troops and the purpose to which those troops may be put when they have been called up. I think it was not a matter generally known to the Committee that once they are called up even the Territorial Army can at present be used for the purpose of aiding the civil power. That is not under the Statute but under Territorial Force Regulations made by the Secretary of State for War in 1906. It seems to me that the wording of Sub-section (3) has been specifically put in in order to give to these sections of troops called up, the status of Regular forces under the Act which entitles them to be used in aid of the civil power. Therefore, the Government is specifically contemplating their use in aid of the civil power. There may be some case for using any of the State forces in aid of the civil power, in the case of some tremendous civil war, riots or commotion, but our Amendment is very moderately drawn. It seeks only to prevent these troops being used in connection with an industrial dispute. That is subject to a very narrow definition by previous Acts of Parliament, and it can in no case be extended to cover riots, civil war or any commotion of that kind.

Therefore, it cannot be alleged against the Amendment by hon. Members opposite that it is a subversive Amendment. Its objective is that the Government shall not use these troops by way of breaking a purely industrial dispute, either in the form of military action against the strikers, who are acting within their rights, or in the form that has been adopted in France, where the troops have been used to operate the services in which the strikers have ceased work. That is the proposal we are making in respect of the whole of the forces covered by Sub-section (3). If, however, the Government feel that they are not able to accept our Amendment in respect of the forces referred to by the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), who tried to establish erroneously that this part of the Bill only dealt with Regular forces, who knew that they were undertaking this obligation—

Sir J. Nall

The hon. Member must not misrepresent me.

Mr. Garro Jones

If the hon. Member did not intend to convey that impression, then I am sure that he will support us.

Sir J. Nall

The hon. Gentleman has no right to misrepresent what I said. I referred to two aspects of the matter, and said that the Bill did not alter the present liability of the Reserves, and that to stretch it, as it has been stretched, into the possible use of the Territorials is grotesque.

Mr. Garro Jones

I am glad, at any rate, to know that the hon. Member recognises that there are two aspects of this matter. The first aspect covers those Regular Forces who, when they enlist, envisaged the possibility at some time or another of being called upon to carry out duties in aid of the civil power. Those duties are not envisaged by soldiers who enlist as members of citizen forces, and, in any case, we are only suggesting that they should not be used in connection with a trade dispute. We do not say "provided that no such person shall by virtue of this Section be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power," and leave it at that. What we say is that they shall not be liable for duty in connection with an industrial dispute.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

While I do not think such a thing will happen again, does the hon. Gentleman make the words "trade dispute" include a general strike?

Mr. Garro Jones

If the hon. Gentleman had spent his time more profitably in the House in recent years than in other directions, he would have known that the House has laid down a definition of what is an industrial dispute and what is not. I shall not presume at short notice to give a precise legal definition, but it is clearly laid down. It was subject to prolonged Debate in the House, in which Debate I participated on many occasions some years ago. However that may be, we are not asking that these troops should in no circumstances be used in aid of the civil power. We are asking—and surely we are on strong ground in asking—that they shall not be used for industrial purposes. If our request is refused it will encourage the suspicion which is being focussed on the Government in certain quarters as to the ultimate objective of these measures of conscription. If the Government meet our request, it will at least be said that none of the Forces called up under this Bill will be used for suppressing an industrial dispute.

I want to say a word more to encourage the Government to accept our proposal. The arm of the State will not be paralysed against disorder if they accept the Amendment, because already, apart from all the Regular Forces, the Government have enormous powers by regulation and by common law to call upon all citizens, including members of the Territorial Force, for aid in suppressing riots and civil commotion. I have looked up some of the regulations made by the Secretary of State for War, Lord Haldane, in 1906. They provided that once men were called up they were under the same obligations as all citizens to use all reasonable endeavours to suppress riots. They may be required by the civil authority to act as special constables, and in such a case they would not be entitled to wear uniform, but would carry a constables staff. In case of serious disturbance the civil authority may require them to use weapons appropriate to the occasion. This is even when they are not being called out in aid of the civil power.

Then it was said that if their stores or armouries were attacked they might combine as an organised force and use arms. I mention that to show that it is not necessary for any reasonable or lawful purpose to give the Minister the power to use these troops in an industrial dispute. We are asking that a clear distinction should be drawn between troops who are a regular part of the forces of the Crown and these forces who are part of the citizen forces. They are different in character and they are entitled to be exempt.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I think it would be appropriate that we should be left under no misapprehension as to the purposes of this Bill or as to the uses to which the powers under the Bill could be put. This Amendment is an unnecessary one, as I shall hope to show to the Committee. In so far as it suggests that troops might be used in an ordinary industrial dispute, that is to say, in a strike or a lock-out, it is a suggestion that we should safeguard ourselves against something which we have no power to do. There is no power to use troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, and, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary under that head. In so far as the Amendment suggests that the forces cannot be used in cases of general disturbance, it is suggesting something quite dangerous, because under the common law every citizen has to aid the civil power when there is public disturbance, riot, or commotion. That is the law. Any fears or apprehensions which hon. Members opposite may have are quite misguided.

Mr. G. Griffiths

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I am trying to give an explanation.

The Chairman

The hon. Member cannot intervene if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Griffiths

He has given way now. If they had not the power to intervene in an industrial dispute, why were the naval ratings sent to my pit when everybody was quiet there?

Mr. Hore-Belisha

If the means of life of a community are affected, if the transport services and the communications of the country and its water supply are interfered with, whether directly or indirectly, as the result of a trade dispute, then the troops have a duty to preserve the life of the community. That is quite a different thing. That is either a common law power or it is a power which is used under the Emergency Powers Act.

Mr. Garro Jones

May I—

Mr. Hore-Belisha

May I finish the sentence? It is difficult to be coherent in an argument if one is interrupted in the middle of a sentence. We are in Committee and any hon. Member can speak more than once. I am ready to give way, but may I be allowed to say that under the Emergency Powers Act, when there is danger to the life of the community, Regulations can be introduced into this House under which the troops can be used to man the pumps in a mine or to restore railway communications or for any other purpose of that kind—but they would be used under the Emergency Powers Act. It therefore is my case that you cannot use the troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, in a strike of a lock-out. You can use them in circumstances which I think are appreciated and respected by hon. Members opposite—in cases of general disturbance. In any event you could not call the troops up under this Bill, and nobody in his senses would endeavour to do so, for such purposes as hon. Members opposite fear. They can only be called up within the terms of this Bill, that is when they are urgently required for ensuring the preparedness of the realm against external dangers.

Mr. G. Griffiths

That was not stated when the Financial Secretary spoke.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I am reading the terms of the Bill. The Financial Secretary read the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Anyhow, I have endeavoured frankly to explain the position. It would be unfortunate if any feeling were stirred up that there was any sinister purpose behind the introduction of the Bill. We are dealing with the reservists, who are part of the Army, and you cannot take advantage of a Bill which is to increase our state of preparedness to change the general military and the general common law. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need have no fear whatever about troops being used in the circumstances which they apprehend.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

In the Amendment are these words: Provided that no such person shall, by virtue of this Section, be liable to take duty. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman has been to prevent us from depleting the War Office of certain powers which they possessed before the introduction of the Bill. Our Amendment would not deplete the War Office of these powers, because it seeks only to add to those powers.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

The Amendment says that no such person shall take civil duty by virtue of a trade dispute. I say that you could not use troops to intervene in an ordinary strike, anyway. If the Amendment was carried it would throw doubt on the whole legal position.

11.27 p.m.

Colonel Nathan

I think there is some confusion of mind on this matter. If the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman had been given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office I should not have risen to my feet at all. The impression left upon my mind by the statement of the Financial Secretary was the reverse of that given to the Committee by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know who is making the authoritative statement, the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary. I feel sure that when those two Ministers read their speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will find that the two statements conflict with each other.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

The Committee will remember that I moved my Amendment formally. I did not expect for a moment that the Government would refuse it, in its limited form. When we spoke from this side on the Second Reading of the Bill those who were present will remember that we were reasonable in our consideration of the Bill, that we were discriminating and that we said we had very great doubt about this Bill at this point. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the right hon. Gentleman has made a different statement from the Financial Secretary, but I do not think that in essence there is any difference. I wonder if the Committee understand what we are being asked to do. The Government are asking for very great powers. They have certain rights under certain Acts, but they are asking Parliament, in certain circumstances, to give up certain old-established rights in exchange for Orders in Council to be placed before Parliament as soon as may be. That is to say, the Government are going to call up masses of men in certain circumstances. We may be, unfortunately, involved in war, and in that case the position would not arise. They may be called up for a limited time for a definite purpose, as stated in the Bill. If this is all that the Government have in mind—speed in calling up the men by getting rid of proclamations and all kinds of difficulties—why should they refuse an Amendment of this kind?

Let us be quite blunt with the right hon. Gentleman. It is well known that, however much soldiers respect the power of Parliament in a time of peace, there are certain of them who, in a situation like this, are apt to try to get powers which go much further than the House would be inclined to allow. You have odd chiefs among the soldiers from time to time who are contemptuous of the civil power. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman asking for certain powers, for some of which he has no need, and I can imagine certain soldiers saying: "While we are dealing with the matter, let us get rid of this too." The right hon. Gentleman has gone further than the Financial Secretary. Can he not give us an undertaking to reconsider the matter, either now or on Report? We on this side, and the Committee as a whole, have been quite ready to consider the need of the country for calling the forces together with speed and without undue noise, but we are not going to give away the rights of industrialists—for these Territorials and reservists are industrialists in the main. We are not going to give without a challenge the right to call these men up when, by a series of circumstances, they may in a few weeks' time he asked to turn upon their own fellows, or some of their own fellows, in the event of an industrial dispute. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. His refusal is not worth while, in view of the Bill for which he is asking.

Mr. Leslie Boyce

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Committee that the Army chiefs have power to override the statute and common law of the realm?

Mr. Lawson

What I suggest is that the history of the past War and other wars shows quite clearly that once you get into such a position there are people who have contempt for the civil power and use their influence to get other powers.

Mr. Boyce

In that case, what are our law courts for?

11.36 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths

We on this side have been dumbfounded by the statement of the Financial Secretary that this reasonable Amendment could not be accepted, after what the Secretary for War said on Friday about the militiamen—I call them Belishamen. The Secretary for War said on Friday that no militiaman—no conscript—would be called up for any trade dispute, and he added that he was prepared to give every man called up a written statement that he would not, in any circumstances, be called up in a trade dispute. We then said to each other, in conversation about this Bill, "Now the Minister will accept our Amendment."

Mr. Baxter

If the Secretary for War gave that assurance, why move this Amendment?

Mr. Griffiths

Apparently the hon. Member does not know anything about either of these Bills. This is a different Bill entirely, and if the Minister is prepared to give the same undertaking on this, that is what we want. The Secretary for War said there was no danger of their being called out. If so, why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Holdsworth

It is not necessary. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member can show me that it is necessary, I will keep quiet.

Mr. Griffiths

You have been quiet since you went over to that side; quieter than when you were on this side.

The Chairman

The hon. Member will have a better chance of being heard if he will address the Chair.

Mr. Griffiths

I will address the Chair, Sir Dennis; and I ask for the protection of the Chair against Members on that side. The Secretary for War has said that these troops cannot be called out except when there is danger to the civil population. Naval ratings were called out in 1921 and 1926, when there was no danger to the civil population. At the pit where I worked they were used to save the colliery company, not the people. They were there to man the pumps, simply to save the pit for the colliery company. The Secretary for War has stated that they can be called out for that purpose now. I ask him whether he thinks that he would have obtained as many volunteers to be Territorials if he had told them before they enlisted that they would be called up in a trade dispute? I want to bring it closer home than that, and I want the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) to listen to this. We have had a trade dispute at the pit where I used to work for the last 12 weeks, and the men are going to tender their notices next Wednesday, 3,500 of them. Some of these men are Territorials and some are Reservists. The Secretary of State for War says, "I can call them up and use them in that dispute."

Mr. Holdsworth

No.

Mr. Griffiths

He said so here to-night. He said that they could call up these men. If there is no danger of this, as he said, we ask him to accept this mild Amendment to the Clause. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat the Reservists and the Territorials in the same way as he has pledged himself to treat the militiamen that are to be called up. If he does not do that, we shall go out into the country and say to the lads and Reservists at my pit, "You will be called up to break the strike here, although you men are fighting for your trade union principles."

Mr. Holdsworth

That will not be true.

Mr. Griffiths

I am telling the truth. I say that it is true. The Secretary of State for War has stated that they could be called up for this purpose. If that is not true, let him accept this Amendment at once.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams

After the statement we have had from the Secretary of State for War to-night, I am certain that all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee believe that we were deceived last week. What is the purpose of giving to an individual who is a militiaman some assurance that he will not be called up during a trade dispute if the statement which the Minister has made to-day is correct? If these men can be called up under the common law, what is the use of an individual statement? The Committee has been deliberately deceived. The language of the Amendment is precisely the same as the Amendment that was put upon the Paper last week and carried, and yet we are told by the Financial Secretary and by the right hon. Gentleman tonight that that statement to be handed to the individual militiaman can be overruled by Order in Council or by common law. The Committee have been completely deceived. There is not a Territorial in my constituency who has voluntarily joined for a period of years and has given of his time who has ever understood that he could be used for the purpose of smashing a trade dispute, or used by his employer in a lock-out to defeat men fighting for their trade union rights. Yet that is what we have had to-night.

Hon. Members on this side feel that, however much we suspected the purpose of the Military Training Bill, the statement that we have heard from the Secretary of State for War to-night has certainly magnified that suspicion. We are informed that on Friday next the trades union executives of this country are to be called together to consider the question of conscription. I am sure that, after the statement we have heard from the Financial Secretary and from the Minister himself, they will realise that the substance of this Bill, and of the other Bill, is a deliberate attack upon trade union rights. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. It was said here last week. We are convinced that there are a large number of Members opposite who would be prepared at any time to use the Forces against the trade unions. [Interruption.] This is an indication of the temper of hon. Members opposite. They have no room for trade unions.

Commander Bower

On a point of Order. Is it right for an hon. Member to make these entirely unsupported accusations against Members on this side of the Committee?

Mr. Williams

Why do you oppose the Amendment?

The Chairman

I did not understand that the hon. Member made any definite accusation against individual hon. Members. It is said to be an offensive statement generally against an undefined group of hon. Members, and although they may disagree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) I cannot rule him out of order.

Commander Bower

May I ask the hon. Member to specify the hon. Members to whom he is referring?

Mr. E. J. Williams

Now that the hon. and gallant Member has had his point of Order I hope he is satisfied.

Commander Bower

I am satisfied that you have not the courage to tell us who the hon. Members are.

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member ought not to make accusations of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I deprecate these interruptions on either side, and the hon. and gallant Member should not invite an hon. Member to do something which I have just indicated would be out of order.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

Is it in order for an hon. and gallant Member to accuse an hon. Member of being a coward?

The Chairman

When that point arises I will deal with it.

Mr. E. J. Williams

I was sure that in making my statement I was getting under the skin of certain individuals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—and the interruptions indicate that they felt it very much. If hon. Members opposite had had the experience which hon. Members on this side have had they would be suspicious of the Minister's intentions after the statement we have had to-night. We have seen naval ratings used in ordinary trade disputes; we have seen soldiers brought in to deal with ordinary trade disputes, and it is quite impossible for us to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Friday as being valid if militiamen, when called up, are to be handed a statement saying that they will not be brought before a court martial for refusing to participate in a trade dispute, when according to the statement of the Minister they can under the common law or by Order in Council be compelled to do anything which the Minister desires. I want the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile the statement he has made to-night with the statement he made last Friday. Is the statement to be given to militiamen to be of any use at all? If not then the Committee has been deceived, and the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment. If he is not prepared to accept it I must say that I was deceived, and I think that most other hon. Members were deceived also.

11.54 P.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

I listened to the statement of the Secretary for War and very largely agree with his statement of the law relating to the use of troops during trade disputes. Subject to the powers which the Government have under the Emergency Powers Act there is no power which would justify the Government using troops during an actual trade dispute. At the same time the powers that the Government seek to obtain are a very important innovation and I am sure that the War Secretary must realise that in the past there have been occasions when trouble has taken place during a trade dispute and armed forces have been called out. There is no dispute about that fact. In view of these two points, first of all the fact that in the Bill the Government are seeking much wider powers than they have enjoyed in the past and, secondly, that the Labour movement, rightly or wrongly, is extremely suspicious of any statutory power given to a Government which might occasion the use of troops during a trade dispute, what is the objection to accepting the Amendment, more especially having regard to the fact that it provides that "no such person shall by virtue of this Section be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power? "In other words, the acceptance of the Amendment would not in any way affect the powers which the Government enjoy under the Emergency Powers Act, but it would be declaratory of the law that would exist if the Bill passed. It would have no effect at all upon the legal position of the Government in relation to civil disturbance, but it would make clear that, as far as the Bill is concerned, apart from any other Statute, it would not be possible to call up or to use the Territorials or the militiamen for use during a trade dispute.

11.53 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely

I think the Government have rather brought this storm on themselves because of the statement of the Secretary of State on the last Bill, which I thought rather surprising at the time, because I had always understood the law to be as he—not the Financial Secretary—explained just now. Of course, if what was said on the other Bill is going to be accepted, it becomes more logical to accept it now, although I do not think the statement made then was of any value really as regards the militiamen being called up, because it was unnecessary as the law stands, but if it was necessary to make that statement, it shows that this is also necessary. When troops and naval ratings have been called up they have been used not to protect property or transport or the people who were carrying out the duties. They took part in the actual pumping of mines or working the transport. I could never see that that was quite right. There is, no doubt, a fear that, now that you are going to have power quickly to embody large numbers of men, you are giving great powers to the Executive to use in case of an industrial dispute. Although, personally, I still believe that it was a mistake to use naval ratings on that occasion, and although I believe that the interpretation given by the Secretary of State is the right one—that the troops could be used for the protection of the State and not for use in an industrial dispute—I am alarmed that the right hon. Gentleman considered it necessary to make that statement on the earlier Bill, and as it has been made, I think we need a great deal of further inquiry into the reason this Amendment cannot be accepted.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge

After the two statements that have been made from the Government Front Bench, I have no doubt as to the intention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel that the first statement of the Financial Secretary indicated that on occasion these people would be used, under this Bill, in industrial disputes. Although some of my hon. Friends feel that there was a difference in the statement made by the Secretary of State, I think his statement made that position more definite. I happen to have had experience of an occasion of this sort, which is illustrative of what might happen in future. What happened was this. The coalowners were trying to get the miners to submit to a reduction of wages and longer hours in 1921. It was not a strike, as no notices were handed in; it was purely and simply a lock-out, or a strike on the part of the owners. The men were compelled to leave the pits or to submit to the owners' conditions. Naval ratings were brought in. While it may be said, as the right hon. Gentleman said in very blunt terms—for although the right hon. Gentleman used very nice language, the sting was there all the same—that those people came to protect communal interests, nevertheless they were protecting the private interests of the colliery owners—

Mr. Boyce

And the future livelihood of the miners.

Mr. Collindridge

I should be prepared—

Mr. Boyce

Is not the hon. Member rather callously neglecting any consideration of the importance of the continuation of the mine after the strike is over from the point of view of the livelihood of the miners?

Mr. Collindridge

I have heard those arguments on many occasions, and I do not suppose it is the last time I shall hear them. The reply is that if there never arose circumstances in which miners and other workers were locked out, we should never have to live through what we experienced in 1921. Then the Naval ratings were brought in for the purpose of protecting the property of the pit, and ultimately the miners lost their case. On this occasion, I should have thought that, in view of the circumstances with which the country is confronted, we should have done away with things of that description. It is stated definitely in the Bill that these measures have been introduced for the purpose of resisting the possibility of external danger. For that reason hon. Members on these benches have joined with hon. Members opposite. We have felt that the working-class people have interests to protect equally with hon. Members opposite. But we can now see, if the Government resist this Amendment, that some of our worst fears will have been justified. A pledge has been given to the conscripts, but of what avail is that to the working class if it is witheld from another section of the Forces?

I appeal to Members on the Government benches to appreciate the seriousness of the position, and I would ask them whether they can expect the voluntary effort for harnessing our people to help against aggression to continue if this pledge cannot be extended in this Bill? We shall have to take a new view if the Government insist on their resistance to the Amendment. There is need for unity against external aggression, but can there be unity if the working-class movement is to be subject to internal attacks in this way? By their resistance to the Amendment the Government are endeavouring to hamstring the trade union movement. I am under no dubiety that while the Financial Secretary was a little wooden in his expressions, the Secretary of State, although talking more blandly and with a little more tone, really meant the same thing. I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to the last.

12.3 a.m.

Colonel Nathan

I want to refer to a statement made on the Second Reading of this Bill on 9th May. I said, speaking earlier in this Amendment, that my recollection was pretty clear that assurances upon the subject matter of the Amendment had been given on Second Reading. I have now refreshed my memory by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would ask the Secretary of State how he can refuse the Amendment in face of these assurances, which were given by the Government spokesman, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. These are the words he used: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members raised the point of whether this Measure could be used in connection with internal disputes. It is not intended to do anything of the sort, and in my belief it could not be so used. I do not know how the Secretary of State reconciles that statement with the state- ment of the Financial Secretary to-day. The matter does not end there, for later in the same speech, dealing with the same point, the Civil Lord, speaking for the Government, said: Hon. Members can rest assured that it is not and never has been the intention to use the Territorial Army or any army of that sort, in industrial disputes in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1939; cols. 377–8, Vol. 347.] The Amendment now before the Committee is designed to put into legal shape, and in my judgment it does, the assurances given by the Government through the mouth of the Civil Lord last Tuesday.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

The quotation which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) has read out is not very different from what I have myself said. You could not use this Measure, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord said, and call up the troops under it for an internal dispute. That is a very different thing from a civil commotion, but even so you could not call up any troops under this Bill for that purpose, and I identify myself completely with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord. But having said that, what did the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) say? He quoted the passage last Friday, and he said: That was a specific assurance, and we were grateful for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1939; col. 893; Vol. 347.] He was perfectly contented with the statement of the law. I am asked to-night by the hon. and learned. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), who agrees with my interpretation of the law, whether I cannot accept this Amendment as declaratory of the law. I am not prepared to do that, for this reason, that it would have exactly the reverse effect from that which he has in mind, because it would suggest that, apart from this Section of the Act, you could use the troops in an ordinary industrial dispute. Therefore, his Amendment, instead of achieving the purpose which he desires, would have exactly the contrary effect.

Mr A. Henderson

I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to two cases. There is, first of all, the Trade Disputes Act, 1927. Although the Government always took the view that a general strike was illegal, they embodied in that Act Section 1, which was declaratory of the law, to the effect that a general strike in certain conditions was illegal. Secondly, in the Regulations issued under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, special provision was made to the effect that it was not in breach of the Regulations for workmen to take part in a trade dispute. If the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward is a good argument, it must mean that, apart from that provision in the Regulations, it is unlawful for workmen to take part in a trade dispute when the Emergency Powers Act comes into operation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I thought the hon. and learned Member accepted my statement of the law.

Mr. Henderson

Yes, certainly, but I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views about this Amendment.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

If that is the law, if I have correctly stated it, and if it is not possible to use troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, why cast doubt on the law by saying that, for the purposes of this one Section of this one Act of Parliament, they cannot be so used?

Mr. Henderson

If the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is now putting forward is sound, why was it necessary that Section 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, should be passed? That could only be casting doubt upon the question whether a general strike was lawful or unlawful.

Mr. Silverman

I noticed that both in his previous speech and just now the right hon. Gentleman referred repeatedly to an "ordinary" trade dispute. I wonder whether he will tell us what is an "ordinary" trade dispute as distinct from another kind of trade dispute. Who is to be the judge of whether or not a trade dispute is an ordinary trade dispute, and what is the position of the troops under this Bill where a trade dispute is not an ordinary one but some other kind?

Mr. Lawson

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has said the last word on this matter? I thought he was going to say something further.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

As I was asked a question, I would say that an ordinary trade dispute in the sense in which I used the term is a dispute resulting in a strike or lock-out, but if the trouble spreads beyond that into civil commotion, then you are beyond the region of an ordinary trade dispute. Hon. Members on that side of the Committee have, I think, admitted in their speeches that in the case of civil commotion it would be proper to use the troops, and indeed it would be proper for civilians to intervene to assure the life of the community.

Mr. Attlee

May I ask whether the learned Attorney-General could not give the Committee the benefit of his views on the point at issue between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson)? The Secretary of State said that putting in these words would have a certain effect, and the opposite view was put by my hon. and learned Friend.

12.12 a.m.

The Attorney-General

I am, of course, willing to give any assistance that I can. I favour, personally, very strongly the argument which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, that to insert these words would necessarily throw doubt on the general principle, recognised on all sides of the Committee, that the obligation undertaken by the soldier under this Bill does not involve him in having to obey an order to take part in an industrial dispute. The hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) said that if that was a good argument, how came it that Section 1 was to be found in the Trade Disputes Act? That may be a question with a good deal of controversy behind it. I have not the Section before me. I am well aware, of course, that a speech was made in this House in those stormy and distressful times by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the legal position of a general strike.—[An HON. MEMBER: "That was incorrect."].—Someone says that that was incorrect, but that just shows that it was not, as this is, the law accepted on all sides of the House, and, therefore, it might well be proper and advisable in those circumstances to insert a provision in an Act of Parliament, not as declaratory, but as laying down something about which there had previously been controversy.

Mr. A. Henderson

It is declaratory.

The Attorney-General

But this proviso does not purport to be declaratory. This is the very root of the argument, which is that if you put into an Act of Parliament a proviso saying that some result will not be attained, you suggest that if you did not have the proviso there, that result would be attained.

Mr. Benn

Is it not dangerous to supply all these militiamen with these declarations that the Secretary of State has been quoting?

The Attorney-General

Not at all, because, obviously, the militiamen are in a different position. They are undergoing a period of compulsory training, but we are dealing in this Bill with the forces of the Crown, quite apart from any compulsory training. I suggest that there is very little dispute about the law, and that the insertion of this proviso would necessarily throw doubt on the very principle which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to uphold. The reasons which they have advanced are all present to us now. This thing would go on the Statute Book, it would be looked at by people who would have no knowledge of this Debate and no knowledge even that it had been inserted as an Amendment in the atmosphere which has developed in our discussion, and they would say that if Parliament inserted this proviso, it must have felt some doubt about the state of the law on the matter. On those grounds, which I think are general, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. A. Henderson

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the second example, namely, the provision in the regulations, that are issued under the Emergency Powers Act, dealing with trade disputes?

The Attorney-General

I do not think that it affects the argument. I am not saying that you may not find that Parliament, either in Acts or in regulations, has adopted what I am suggesting is the unwise course of inserting provisions which throw doubt on principles generally recognised; what I am suggesting is that, in this vital matter that soldiers cannot legally be ordered to take part in industrial disputes, the Committee would be extremely unwise to accept words which, on the face of them, would throw doubt on that generally recognised principle.

Mr. Lawson

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to accepting, on the Report stage, some such words as would make the matter declaratory, as "it is hereby declared"?

12.17 a.m.

The Attorney-General

There would be the objection to the declaratory form that Parliament does not declare things unless there is some doubt about them. When there is a declaratory provision in an Act it is because, although the principle has been accepted, somebody has thrown doubt on it, and it is thought that there may be ground for those doubts. Parliament, therefore, gives the principle statutory effect, and wants to show that doubts have been thrown upon it. Speaking for myself, I desire that this principle should be left as it is, a generally recognised principle, and that neither by the provisions of this Measure or by declaratory provision should there be any suggestion that there is any doubt about it at all.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Stephen

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that there may be some doubt as to the law on this matter. I would say to him that there is no doubt of the law, but what the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War state here to be the law is not necessarily the law. The law will be interpreted by the courts. In 1926, difficulties arose as to what the law was, although it was otherwise regarded as perfectly clear. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to this House and made a speech, and certain action was taken on the Floor of the House; afterwards, it became apparent that the law was very doubtful. I cannot see that the statements of the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War are at all adequate statements of the law on this matter, or why they should object to a declaratory provision.

The Opposition have been very reasonable.

It being one hour and thirty minutes after the conclusion of proceedings on the Military Training Bill, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, as amended by the Order of the House of 15th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. G. Griffiths

On a point of Order I thought we had from 12 O'clock until half-past 1 to discuss this Bill.

The Chairman

The time allotted was an hour a half from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Military Training Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 217.

Division No. 133.] AYES. [12.21 a.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Grenfell, D. R. Parker, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parkinson, J. A.
Ammon, C. G. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pearson, A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Price, M. P.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pritt, D. N.
Banfield, J. W. Harris, Sir P. A. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Barnes, A. J. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Hayday, A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bartlett, C. V. O. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Batey, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Rothschild, J. A. de
Bellenger, F. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Seely, Sir H. M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W Jagger, J. Sexton, T. M.
Bevan, A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Silkin, L.
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Silverman, S. S.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Sloan, A.
Burke, W. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Charleton, H. C. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S. Kirkwood, D. Sorensen, R. W.
Collindridge, F. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Stephen, C.
Cove, W. G. Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Leach, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dalton, H. Leonard, W. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lunn, W. Tinker, J. J.
Dobbie, W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Tomlinson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McEntee, V. La T. Viant, S. P.
Ede, J. C. McGhee, H. G. Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGovern, J. Welsh, J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Foot, D. M. Maxton, J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Frankel, D. Milner, Major J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gallacher, W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Windsor, W. (Hull, G.)
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Garro Jones, G. M. Nathan, Colonel H. L. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Naylor, T. E.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Oliver, G. H. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.
NOES
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Emery, J. F.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Channon, H. Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Errington, E.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Colfox, Major W. P. Findlay, Sir E.
Apsley, Lord Colman, N. C. D. Fleming, E. L.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Colville, Rt. Hon. John Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Craven-Ellis, W. Furness, S. N.
Balniel, Lord Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Baxter, A. Beverley Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Gledhill, G.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Crossley, A. C. Goldie, N. B.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Crowder, J. F. E. Gower, Sir R. V.
Beechman, N. A. Cruddas, Col. B. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Blair, Sir R. Culverwell, C. T. Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Bossom, A. C. De Chair, S. S. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Boulton, W. W. De la Bère, R. Gridley, Sir A. B.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Denville, Alfred Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie Dodd, J. S Grimston, R. V.
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) Doland, G. F. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Brass, Sir W. Donner, P. W. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Hambro, A. V.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Duggan, H. J. Hammersley, S. S.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Duncan, J. A. L. Hannah, I. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Dunglass, Lord Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Eastwood, J. F. Harbord, A.
Bull, B. B. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Burghley, Lord Ellis, Sir G. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Butcher, H. W. Elliston, Capt. G. S. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Hepworth, J. Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Higgs, W. F. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Holdsworth, H. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Munro, P. Snadden, W. McN.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Nall, Sir J. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Hunter, T. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hutchinson, G. C. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
James, Wins-Commander A. W. H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Jarvis, Sir J. J. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Palmer, G. E. H. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Kimball, L. Patrick, C. M. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Perkins, W. R. D. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Peters, Dr. S. J. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Lancaster, Captain C. G. Petherick, M. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.) Pilkington, R. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Turton, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Porritt, R W. Wakefield, W. W.
Liddall, W. S. Procter, Major H. A. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M. Radford, E. A. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Lipson, D. L. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Ramsbotham, H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Loftus, P. C. Rankin, Sir R. Warrender, Sir V.
Lyons, A. M. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Rayner, Major R. H. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Wayland, Sir W. A
M'Connell, Sir J. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Wells, Sir Sydney
McCorquodale, M. S. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
McKie, J. H. Ropner, Colonel L. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Wise, A. R.
Magnay, T. Rowlands, G. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Maitland, Sir Adam Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Wragg, H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Markham, S. F. Salt, E. W. York, C.
Marsden, Commander A. Sandys, E. D. Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Scott, Lord William
Medlicott, F. Selley, H. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Shakespeare, G. H. Captain Dugdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Shepperson, Sir E. W.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 224 Noes, 100.

Division No. 134.] AYES. [12.30 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Duggan, H. J.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Bull, B. B. Duncan, J. A. L.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Burghley, Lord Dunglass, Lord
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Butcher, H. W. Eastwood, J. F.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Apsley, Lord Channon, H. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Aske, Sir R. W. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Ellis, Sir G.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Emery, J. F.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Colfox, Major W. P. Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Balniel, Lord Colman, N. C. D. Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Bartlett, C. V. 0. Colville, Rt. Hon. John Errington, E.
Baxter, A. Beverley Conant, Captain R. J. E. Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Craven-Ellis, W. Findlay, Sir E.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Fleming, E. L.
Beechman, N. A. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Foot, D. M.
Blair, Sir R. Crossley, A. C. Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Bossom, A. C. Crowder, J. F. E. Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Boulton, W. W. Cruddas, Col. B. Furness, S. N.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Culverwell, C. T. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Boyce, H. Leslie De Chair, S. S. Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) De la Bère, R. Gledhill, G.
Brass, Sir W. Denville, Alfred Goldie, N. B.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Dodd, J. S. Gower, Sir R. V.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Doland, G. F. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Donner, P. W. Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Magnay, T. Scott, Lord William
Gridley, Sir A. B. Maitland, Sir Adam Seely, Sir H. M.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Selley, H. R.
Grimston, R. V. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Shakespeare, G. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Markham, S. F Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Marsden, Commander A. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Hambro, A. V. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Hammersley, S. S. Medlicott, F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Hannah, I. C. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Harbord, A. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Snadden, W. McN.
Harris, Sir P. A. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswiek) Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Nall, Sir J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hepwerth, J. Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Higgs, W. F. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Holdsworth, H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Hunter, T. Palmer, G. E. H. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hutchinson, G. C. Patrick, C. M. Tree, A. R. L. F.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Perkins, W. R. D. Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J. Petherick, M. Turton, R. H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pilkington, R. Wakefield, W. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Porritt, R. W. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Kimball, L. Procter, Major H. A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Radford, E. A. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Warrender, Sir V.
Lancaster, Captain C. G. Ramsbotham, H. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.) Rankin, Sir R. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Wells, Sir Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Rayner, Major R. H. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Liddall, W. S. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Lindsay, K. M. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Lipson, D. L. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Wise, A. R.
Loftus, P. C. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Lyons, A. M. Ropner, Colonel L. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Wragg, H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Rothschild, J. A. de Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
M'Connell, Sir J. Rowlands, G. York, C.
McCorquodale, M. S. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
McKie, J. H. Salt, E. W. Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J. Sandys, E. D.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Parker, J.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Grenfell, D. R. Parkinson, J. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Pearson, A.
Ammon, C. G. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Price, M. P.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N) Pritt, D. N.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Banfield, J. W. Hayday, A. Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Barr, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Batey, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Sexton, T. M.
Bellenger, F. J. Jagger, J. Silkin, L.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Silverman, S. S.
Bevan, A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sloan, A.
Bromfield, W. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Burke, W. A. Kirkwood, D. Sorensen, R. W.
Charleton, H. C Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Stephen, C.
Cocks, F. S. Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Collindridge, F. Leach, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Mcrpeth)
Dalton, H. Lunn, W. Tinker, J. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Tomlinson, G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McEntee, V. La T. Viant, S. P.
Dobbie, W. McGhee, H. G. Watson, W. McL.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McGovern, J. Welsh, J C.
Ede, J. C. Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Maxton, J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H Milner, Major J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Frankel, D. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Gallacher, W. Naylor, T. E. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Garro Jones, G. M. Oliver, G. H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.