Orders of the Day — VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords.] – in the House of Commons on 7th March 1933.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words:
other than proceedings instituted by writ of habeas corpus.
The question raised by this Amendment standing in the name of myself and some other hon. Members has already been discussed in this House and another place, and is one which I regard as of the most profound importance. The Bill in its first Clause makes provision with respect to the discipline and internal administration of military, naval or air forces which may come to this country from the Dominions. The object of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is to take away from the courts in this country any power whatsoever of reviewing any of the proceedings of those courts-martial or of reviewing the circumstances under which any prisoner remains in prison as the result of a sentence by such court-martial. The reason for inserting the Amendment is to preserve what has hitherto been con-
sidered to be the inalienable right of every person in this country to challenge the cause for their imprisonment. The clause as it stands is presumably designed particularly to take away that right which at present exists. The writ of Habeas Corpus, as all hon. Members know, is a very ancient prerogative writ which was devised for the defence of the liberty of the subject. It has been described many times, in very profound language, as being the great bulwark of the liberties of the people. If I may quote two passages from 17th and 18th century lawyers, it is a writ:
Of such a sovereign and transcendent authority that no privilege or person can stand against it.
Of course, the colonel of the visiting forces will be able to do so in future if this Bill goes through in its present form. The reason for the writ of Habeas Corpus is stated to be:
For that the King ought to have account rendered to him concerning the liberties of his subjects and the restraints thereof.
It is because we want means by which the restraints of persons in this country should be brought before some competent court that we desire to insert this Amendment. If the Bill is passed the position will be as follows, as I see it—the courts of this country will have no power at all to inquire into the legality or illegality of imprisonment of members of the visiting forces, and similarly the courts of the Dominions from which they come will have no power whatsoever to inquire into the legality or illegality, because writs from the Dominion courts cannot run in this country. Up till the year 1862 the writs of Habeas Corpus from the High Court here could run in any part of the King's Dominions, in any colony or any dominion. There were cases right up to 1861 when writs were issued. There was one particular case in 1861 where a writ issued to Canada, and the reason that right was discontinued was because adequate provisions had been, made in the Dominions that the writ should issue out of the local courts. The words of the Act which made it no longer possible to issue a writ from these courts were that the courts in the Dominions
Had authority to pursue the- writ and ensure its due execution throughout their territory.
That basis, so far as these particular persons are concerned, does not exist. These persons, though they are brought by this Bill under the jurisdiction of what are foreign courts so far as this Bill is concerned, that is the particular service courts of the Dominions, will not be persons to whom Dominion writs of habeas corpus can run. They will be left in a position of having no remedy here, because the remedy is expressly taken away by this Bill, and no remedy in the Dominion courts, because that remedy is not given by this Bill.
They will, therefore, be left in a position in which no other person in this country can possibly be left, be he foreign or British. Every person in this country has a right to go to the courts and demand A writ of habeas corpus and to challenge the reason why he remains under restraint. These persons who, one would think, were persons that this Government and the Dominion Governments were particularly desirous to protect, being fellow-citizens of the British Empire, alone of all people are to be deprived of this right. I can hardly imagine any circumstances which could possibly justify such a deprivation. It might be that some overpowering argument might be brought forward for the purpose of justification, but, so far as I have been able to appreciate the Debates that have so far taken place, there has been no argument in support of this most extraordinary provision.
It was suggested on one occasion by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that the courts in this country would have difficulty in administering Colonial or Dominion law. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. If he will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT I am sure that he will find what I have referred to. I agree with him as to the value of the argument. It is an impossible argument to put forward. The courts of this country are perfectly competent to decide matters of habeas corpus. The law throughout the Colonies and the Dominions is exactly the same as the law of this country. It is all derived from the old common law of this country, and is no different in its application here and in the Colonies and Dominions. The questions that arise in cases of this sort are no more difficult for a court to decide here than a question of habeas corpus which would arise out of a court-martial held here. It is precisely the same sort of case.
Then there was some vague suggestion that a matter of international or inter-Imperial law arises. No such question arises here. This is purely and simply a question of domestic law, a question of the rights and privileges of persons resident in this country, and the reason why they can be and are entitled to get this form of protection, which is inherent in the English common law, is that they are in this country, upon British soil. It does not depend upon nationality or international comity, or anything else. It is inherent in the right of a person who comes within the protection of the British Crown. We say that no argument based upon international or inter-Dominion law can in any way shake that fundamental right. It may be said that this is a convenient course, and that it does not very much matter. I have no doubt that that is what was said at some convention or at some meeting, when this matter was arranged between the Dominions as a matter of convenience between naval and military experts. This was thought to be a handy way to deal with it. It may be convenient, but, surely, liberty is more important than convenience, and there can be no force in any argument which suggests that, because it may be convenient, this great right which belongs to everyone in this country should be taken away.
There is another aspect of the argument. It may be that, if this fear of interference in the case of improperly constituted courts, or improper procedure in courts, is removed entirely, it will make court-martial among the Dominion forces in this country a very slack sort of procedure. It will be a temptation to people to ignore all rules, to say that it does not matter since they cannot be challenged, and to go forward in a somewhat slapdash manner. I have put as shortly as I can most of the main points which we must take into account in considering this matter. It is really a matter having nothing to do with any party consideration. It has to do with one of the great basic conceptions of our constitutional liberty. I ask the House to rise up as the protectors of that liberty, and, although it may seem to be a small thing in itself, to prevent what it is now sought to do for the first time in our history, namely, to select a particular class of people and deprive them of this right which for centuries every person in this country has always enjoyed.
I have added my name to the Amendment which has been placed on the Order Paper by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and should like to speak briefly in support of his argument. He has raised a point which, as he says, is not trifling or insignificant, hut brings up for review a grave question of principle. Lord Buckmaster, an ex-Lord Chancellor, has stated, in opposing the provision in the Bill as it now stands, that this is one of the gravest matters with which he has ever had to deal; and one of the most distinguished Law Lords, Lord Atkin, writing to the "Times" on this very point, has said that the matter is one of great constitutional importance affecting the liberty of the subject. Hitherto, in these Debates, only members of the legal profession have taken part, either in the one House or in the other, and it is with some diffidence that I venture to intervene. But, after all, on a matter of this kind laymen have also a right to be heard, for the question touches all our fellow subjects.
It is odd that although, in the Debates which have taken place in both Houses, many lawyers have taken part, belonging to many parties, all are of one mind except those who are members of the Government. Every legal authority in this House or in the other has expressed objections to this Bill precisely on the ground that has been put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. I hope that the Solicitor-General, when he replies, will not say that I am estopped from criticising on the ground that the Bill may have been approved in principle by the Cabinet when I was recently a member of it. It was regarded, of course, as a purely departmental matter. This point had not been drawn to our attention by anyone, and I cannot regard myself as being debarred from criticism on the ground that it was introduced some time ago when, it may be, I was a member of the Government, though I am not sure that it passed the Cabinet at that time.
That the Bill as a whole is needed, no one denies. There must be a Bill of this character. Neither the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol nor anyone else in either House has objected to the necessity of the Bill. It is made necessary by the Statute of Westminster and, if such legislation were not put upon the Statute Book, there would be no military law and no discipline for any forces visiting this country from Dominions which had adopted the Statute of Westminster. But the point is simply whether or not a court-martial established by one of these visiting forces should be absolute in its determination, and its decision not open to review even under a writ of habeas corpus. It has been said in previous Debates that cases in any event will be exceedingly few, and hardly ever is a writ of habeas corpus issued in connection with a court-martial. That may be true, but it is also perhaps the fact that the possibility of such a writ being issued keeps courts-martial up to the mark. Recourse may be had to the civil courts, and the courts-martial are aware of that fact. If recourse to the civil courts is abolished, a right which is thought to be unimportant may have become most urgently needed. If in any given ease it is said that there are few appeals, or practically none, from the lower to a higher court and, therefore, appeals may be abolished, that is obviously a most unsound and illogical argument. It may be because there is a right of appeal that few appeals, in fact, become necessary.
Let it be remembered that a military court may consist of a single commanding officer. These visiting detachments will often be small detachments. There will not be all the organisation and paraphernalia of an army and of military courts on a large scale. These may be very small and not highly organised tribunals. It is very possible that one of these courts might stray outside the confines of military law, not purposely but through lack of knowledge, military officers not being trained lawyers. Mark the provisions of the Sub-section against which criticism is offered. The Bill says:
For the purposes of any legal proceedings within the United Kingdom the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted,
and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court and in accordance with the law of that part of the Commonwealth, and if executed according to the tenor thereof shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed, and any member of a visiting force who is detained in custody in pursuance of any such sentence, shall be deemed to be in legal custody.
No one has a power of review. We are asked to enact that. The only matter in which there is a power of review is whether or not a particular person was, in fact, a member of that force and, if that is not challenged—if he was admittedly a member of the force—anything that the military court does is to be deemed to have been rightly done and no one is empowered to challenge it under a writ of habeas corpus. It goes on to say:
For the purposes of any such proceedings as aforesaid a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding a visiting force that a member of that force is being detained for either of the causes aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence of the cause of his detention, and a certificate under the hand of such an officer that the persons specified in the certificate sat as a service court of that part of the Commonwealth to which the force belongs shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
So that a single officer has the right to sign a certificate to say that he has sat as a court, that he has taken such and such action, that he has arrived at such and such a conclusion, that he has sentenced such and such a person to such and such a sentence, and no one can challenge any of those facts. The Bill states that all the proceedings of the court shall be deemed to have been properly conducted. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is a provision which this House ought not to be asked to enact. An individual may have a legitimate grievance. You cannot assume that an error of judgment is never made. A grievance may not be trivial. It may be right. He can get no redress in this country. A British soldier in exactly the same position sentenced by a British court-martial can, in a proper case, sue for a writ of habeas corpus and the civil courts can intervene. The Dominion soldier cannot, if the Bill is passed, have the same rights as the British soldier in this country, He will have no effective rights also in his own courts, for, in the first place, in those Dominions, some of which are distant, it might take a very long
time to set them in motion, and while they are being set in motion the sentence may be completed and served. Even if Dominion courts were to take action, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, their writ will not run in this country, and therefore they cannot give him any effective redress.
There is another point which appeals to me very much as having been Home Secretary recently and at an earlier period. The Home Secretary is responsible for the prisons in this country. Everyone confined in a prison is under his supervision and the guardianship of the Prison Commissioners who come under his authority. These soldiers in the Dominion forces may be sentenced, and if they are sentenced they may be confined in a British prison in this country under the supervision of the Home Secretary, or in detention barracks. Clause 2 (2) states that His Majesty's Government may by Order in Council 20 provide, and it is obviously intended that there should be such provision. If a Service court such as has been described sentenced any soldier to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention, he may be confined during the whole or part of his time in prison in the United Kingdom or in detention barracks of the War Office or the Admiralty. The Home Secretary would have no right to advise the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and to release such a man even if he were convinced that injustice had been done. He would have to be detained under the powers of this court and under this Statute. It could only be by moving the Dominion Government that anything could perhaps be done. Therefore, the Home Secretary might conceivably be in a most unenviable position into which, I submit, he should not be placed, and he would know that no recourse could be had, either under his direction or initiative to a court of civil justice in this country to determine whether the man was rightly imprisoned or not.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office in a previous Debate said that we were not concerned with all this, and that it was a matter simply for the Dominions. If they were willing to run the risk of such things happening that was their business and not ours. He used these words:
So far as rights hitherto enjoyed by British subjects living in those Dominions are concerned, it will in future be their own funeral to look after those rights and to see that they are preserved. Therefore, when members of the British Empire coming from South Africa visit this country, it will be for them and for their own nation to look after their liberty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1932; col. 1092, Vol. 270.]
In the first place, I do not think that we can accept that as sound doctrine. Someone ought to look after the liberty of British subjects living in this country sentenced within these territories, and perhaps confined in a prison for which this House provides the charge and which is supervised by a British Minister of the United Kingdom. There is another reason. This is part of a reciprocal arrangement. What is being done for Dominion forces here is to be done for United Kingdom visiting forces in the Dominions. That, to use the hon. Gentleman's colloquial phrase, is our funeral. We have to look after the liberties of our United Kingdom soldiers who may be in the Dominions. If what he says is true, that, if there is any derogation of responsibility, it is the Dominion's concern and not ours, it is very definitely our concern to take cognisance of all these facts, in view of the circumstances that this precise provision is to apply in Dominion legislation and that United Kingdom soldiers visiting South Africa or Canada, or wherever it may be, are ultimately to be deprived of all recourse to the civil courts of the Dominions which hitherto they have always enjoyed.
Until now a British soldier sentenced by a court-martial in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, if there is reason to think that the court has overstepped its jurisdiction or acted wrongly, has a right through habeas corpus to appeal to the civil court. That is to be taken away not only from Dominion soldiers here but from United Kingdom soldiers in the Dominions. Therefore, it is a matter which affects us very closely in this House to-night. It is not derogatory to the Dominions to say that we wish to maintain the right of habeas corpus here. It is said that the Dominions wish it to be done in this way, that they object to their soldiers having recourse to United Kingdom courts, and that it would be derogatory to insist on our civil courts having the right to intervene. It might be derogatory if it were one-sided, but if we are ready to accept a decision of the Dominions courts in exactly the same way that we have done hitherto when our soldiers are visiting the Dominions and are sentenced by a military court, there is nothing derogatory, and the Dominions and the United Kingdom will be on precisely the same footing in law and in practice, as the Statute of Westminster requires.
Therefore, it appears to me that the matter should be reconsidered. It is true that an arrangement has been made but perhaps these considerations were not prominently before the minds of those who were engaged when the mutual arrangement was made. The Dominion of South Africa has passed legislation on these lines, but that legislation could very easily be modified by an amending Bill passed through the Dominion Legislature to modify their Measure by embodying the small alteration which the late Solicitor-General has now brought before this Parliament. It is far better that that should be done than that we should consider ourselves bound by the fact that South Africa—the only one of the Dominions so far to do it—has passed legislation in this way, to do what is obviously a wrong thing.
Habeas corpus is a fundamental right of the subject and always has been so regarded. A soldier is still a citizen. He has the obligations and the immunities of the civil law. A soldier who, when taking military action, is ordered by his commanding officer to fire on a crowd, and does it wrongly, is amenable to the civil law. He cannot claim military privilege; he is a citizen. According to the ancient Constitution of Britain the civil law is supreme over the military, and they have and should have the right of recourse to the civil law and to any protection that it can give. United Kingdom soldiers in this country are protected in this way. Dominion soldiers in their own country are protected in this way, and it is wrong: that Dominion soldiers in the United' Kingdom and United Kingdom soldiers, in the Dominions should be deprived of this protection. When we remember that an ex-Lord Chancellor, an ex-Lord Chief Justice, Lord Reading, and one of the most distinguished of our Law Lords, Lord Atkin, should have stated in Parliament and out of it, by speech or vote, that they consider this provision wrong, and that the right of habeas corpus should be maintained, I hope the House will support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) said that this was a point of the most profound importance. I must remind him that when we were debating the Second Reading of the Bill, although he was in the House and speaking a few moments before the Bill came on, he left us to our deliberations unassisted. The hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) was a Member of the Select Committee. He has put his name to the Amendment, but he did not attend the Select Committee. But the fact that the Amendment has been put down has enabled a new protagonist to enter the lists in the person of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He has this advantage over me, that I have already spoken twice on the subject and I cannot expect to say anything new about it. But I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol that this is a matter of profound importance. The whole question is what is the point that is of profound importance. If I am asked whether the Clause as it now stands does make an exception in the Habeas Corpus Act I say at once that it does. I admit that now if a Canadian soldier comes to this country with a detachment from Canada he could theoretically invoke the Habeas Corpus Act if any court martial exceeded its jurisdiction, and I admit that after the Bill is passed he will not be able to do so.
But, as I ventured to remind the House on Second Reading, during the last 50 years or more since the Army Act has existed in its present form no single successful application for a writ of habeas corpus has been applied for. I agree that that may not in itself be 'an overwhelming argument, but I would invite the Committee to consider it as showing the sort of area in which we are discussing the importance of these habeas corpus proceedings. The point of constitutional importance, as I see it, is quite a different one. It is the propriety of acceding to the request of the self- governing Dominions, whose constitutional status, after all, is recognised rather than granted by the 'Statute of Westminster, that the same privileges should be accorded to their visiting forces as are by the comity of nations accorded as between Sovereign States. That is the real principle, as I see it, involved in these discussions, and I am bound to say that I was amazed to hear the hon. and learned Member use phrases like this, "This is a purely domestic matter," "No question of international consideration comes into it at all," "It is the first time in our history that any person resident in this country has been deprived of the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus."
I profoundly disagree with him. By the comity of nations any foreign troops coming here by the invitation of our Sovereign are accorded exclusive jurisdiction over their own discipline. I am not going to weary the Committee with detailed extracts, but will they allow me to quote one passage from a judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, of the United States of America, on this very point over 100 years ago, which I understand has been acknowledged to be the law by international comity ever since? He pointed out that there were three main exceptions to the sovereign power of any State within its own territory. The first is that the person of a foreign Sovereign visiting a, State is immune from any arrest or anything of that sort, and the second that the diplomats, the ambassadors, of a foreign Sovereign on the same principle are immune; and then he goes on, if I may read a couple of sentences:
The third case in which a Sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction is where he allows the troops of a foreign Prince to pass through his Dominions. In such cases, without any express declaration waiving jurisdiction over the army to which this right of passage has been granted, the Sovereign who should attempt to exercise it would certainly be considered as violating his faith.
Then, after another passage which does not matter, he says:
The grant of a free passage, therefore, implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage, and permits a foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require.
Writers on international law make it quite clear that in those cases, particu-
larly in the case of a warship, there is no question of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the commander of a ship or anyone in the ship. When it is said that no one resident in this country has ever been deprived before of the right of applying for a writ of habeas corpus, the same thing is true if some foreigner who is imprisoned in the embassy of his country were to complain that he was illegally imprisoned and invoked the Habeas Corpus Act; our courts would not entertain the claim at all. After all, it is said that this was only used in this country in connection with the American troops during the War. But this very principle was at the foundation of the jurisdiction of our own Army in the War to manage the affairs of the British Expeditionary Force in France. We did not require any new law to enable our own people to run their own courts-martial entirely without any sanction from French law, and the same thing applied to other nations during the War. That being so, I venture to submit to the House that the principle with which we are concerned is this: Of course the Dominions which are asking us to pass this Bill are not and do not wish to be regarded as foreign countries; of course not. But we have already accorded to them a constitutional status which, as far as practical matters are concerned, is in many respects indistinguishable from that which foreign sovereign States enjoy. For example, they have got complete fiscal independence and complete control over immigration into their country. Similarly they raise their Forces and they pay for their Forces, and if any portion of their Forces comes on a visit to this country, it comes here on our invitation and not by our orders, in precisely the same way as a French force might come to take part in some tournament or whatever it might be. In that respect they are on exactly the same practical footing as if they were a foreign Force.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to suggest that any visiting soldier or sailor, from whatever place he came, who had committed an offence would not be triable?
If the hon. Gentleman means that if one soldier or one sailor, straying away from the force of which he is a, member, committed an offence against our laws, he would be triable, certainly; yes; but as long as he is here as a member of a visiting force and remains a part of that force, that force has exclusive jurisdiction over him. That is precisely what the self-governing Dominions are asking shall be the case in regard to their forces. We are talking only about organised bodies who come to this country in order to take part in tournaments and so on, and they have asked for themselves that the same status shall be accorded to them as is accorded, by universal international law, in the case of French or German troops in the same circumstances. I am bound to submit to the House that the propriety of granting that request, when we have granted everything else to the Dominions, seems to me to outweigh altogether what, after all, is a very small infraction of the principle underlying the Habeas Corpus Act.
May I say one word in answer to the Solicitor-General? As I understand it, his argument in the first place was directed to endeavouring to persuade the House to believe that this Bill ought to pass because it was suggested that the point was but a little one. That seems the sort of argument that is often advanced—if I may say so without any intention of offending the hon. and learned Gentleman—when a pettifogging thief in any sessional court in the country pleads that the particular breach was but a little one. In point of fact, the breach which is being made in this inherent right is indeed a most serious one, and it is remarkable that the National Government should be the first to attempt to make that breach.
The second point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that foreign forces were accorded exclusive jurisdiction over their own forces in this country. As I understand it, with very few exceptions —and the question of the immunity of an ambassador is one of them for very obvious and special reasons—any foreigner or alien in this country to-day can ask for a writ of habeas corpus and bring the matter before the courts. Are we going to permit worse treatment to be given to soldiers from British Dominions overseas than we grant to foreigners and aliens in this country? Are we going to refuse the protection we have always given to foreigners in this country—as we shall if we pass this Bill to-night—to our own Dominion soldiers coming to us from overseas and are we going to take any part or lot in taking away that protection from our own soldiers of our own forces visiting the Dominions I suggest this is a most serious matter and one which deserves the very full and earnest consideration of all the Members of this House. Certainly it should not be passed without some modifying phrase or Amendment such as is suggested. Just before I came into the House I looked up Blackstone's Commentaries, and I saw there that the right of a person to a writ of habeas corpus and the right of personal liberty is defined as a doctrine coeval with the first rudiments of the English constitution, handed down to us from our ancestors, asserted after the Conquest, reaffirmed by the Conqueror himself and established on a firm basis by the provisions of Magna Charta and a long succession of Statutes since. I hope that the House will uphold those rights, privileges and traditions which have been handed down over that long period of time.
With all respect, I do not think the contention of the Solicitor-General on the point of international law can be upheld. If a foreign force were passing through this country, or were quartered in this country; if a member of that force were imprisoned by a court-martial, acting in excess of jurisdiction, and if a friend of the imprisoned man were to apply to the High Court for a, writ of habeas corpus, is it to be supposed for one moment that the Judges would refuse to issue that writ on any ground of international law? I quote the best authority I can find—Lord Birkenhead—who in his monumental work
on international law says that "probably the British practice is accurately stated in the two following propositions." The first which bears directly on this question is:
International law is not administered by municipal tribunals unless it has been adopted by the State legislature and such adoption will not be presumed.
It seems to be clear that the courts would not for a moment listen to this argument about international law, if a foreign soldier were to apply for a writ of habeas corpus in the circumstances which I have described. Secondly, what is this doctrine of international law upon which so much stress is laid? I read closely the Debates on this subject in another place, and I have listened to the Debates in this House, and I think that this argument about international law is practically the only serious argument which has been advanced in resisting Amendments to the Bill. As I understand the principle of international law, it is simply that if a foreign army is quartered in this country, a member of that army is subject exclusively to his own military tribunal in respect of what may be termed camp offences, that is, offences committed when he is within a camp or fortress or actually on duty as a soldier. But suppose he goes on a day's leave outside the area of the camp or fortress and commits an offence, then he is amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil courts of this country. It is complete nonsense to talk about exclusive jurisdiction belonging to his own military courts.
|Division No. 72.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Browne, Captain A. C.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Burghley, Lord|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kant, Dover)||Bllndell, James||Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslle|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Boulton, W. W.||Burnett, John George|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Cadogan, Hon. Edward|
|Balniel, Lord||Braithwaite, J. Q. (Hillsborough)||Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley),|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm|
|Bateman, A. L.||Broadbent, Colonel John||Caporn, Arthur Cecil|
|Carver, Major William H.||Jamleson, Douglas||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Jennings, Roland||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh||Ker, J. Campbell||Ratclifle, Arthur|
|Choriton, Alan Ernest Leolric||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Ray, Sir William|
|Christie, James Archibald||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Kimball, Lawrence||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Remer, John R.|
|Col man, N. C. D.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Conant, R. J, E.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rosbotham, Sir Samuel|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Liddall, Walter S.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Copeland, Ida||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Salt, Edward W.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cross, R. H.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||McKie, John Hamilton||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Selley, Harry R.|
|Drewe, Cedric||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell).|
|Dunglass, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Manning ham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Martin, Thomas B.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clara||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Soper, Richard|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Mitcheson, G. G.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Moreing, Adrian C.||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Morgan, Robert H.||Stevenson, James|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Storey, Samuel|
|Gibson, Charles Granville||Morrison, William Shepherd||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Nail, Sir Joseph||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Templeton, William P.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Graves, Marjorie||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Greene, William P. C.||North, Captain Edward T.||Train, John|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Nunn, William||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Grimston, R. V.||O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Wallace. John (Dunfermline)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Palmer, Francis Noel||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Patrick, Colin M.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Harbord, Arthur||Pearson, William G.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Penny, Sir George||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Percy, Lord Eustace||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Hornby, Frank||Petherick, M.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)||Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada||Womersley, Walter James|
|Hume, Sir George Hop wood||Pike, Cecil F.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Hutchison, W. D. (Essex. Romford)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward|
|and Commander Southby.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Daggar, George||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)|
|Banfield, John William||Dobbie, William||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Batey, Joseph||Edwards, Charles||Hirst, George Henry|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Janner, Barnett|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton).|
|Buchanan, George||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Cape, Thomas||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Cove, William G.||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Kirkwood, David|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)||Knight, Holford|
|Curry, A. C.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lawson, John James||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Stones, James|
|Leonard, William||Maxton, James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Milner, Major James||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah|
|Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Lunn, William||Parkinson, John Allen||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||Price, Gabriel||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|McGovern, John||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|McKeag, William||Rea, Walter Russell||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot||Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)||Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.|
|Mender, Geoffrey le M.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Graham.|
|Division No. 73.]||AYES.||[11.9 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Griffith, F. Kingslay (Middlesbro'.W.)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot|
|Adams. D. M. (Poplar, Sooth)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Banfield, John William||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Maxton, James|
|Batey, Joseph||Hanbury, Cecil||Milner, Major James|
|Sevan, Anourln (Ebbw Vale)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Nail, Sir Joseph|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Hirst, George Henry||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Holdsworth,,Herbert||Price, Gabriel|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Manifield)||Janner, Barnett||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Buchanan, George||Jennings, Roland||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merieneth)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Curry, A. C.||Kirkwood, David||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Daggar, George||Knight, Holford||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Wedgwood Rt. Hon. Joslah|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawson, John James||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Dobble, William||Leonard, William||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Edwards, Charles||Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lunn, William|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||McEntee, Valentine L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McGovern, John||Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||McKeag, William||Graham.|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Magnay, Thomas|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Gibson, Charles Granville|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Gillett, Sir George Masterman|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.I||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Christie, James Archibald||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Clayton, Dr. George C.||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)|
|Alton, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Graves, Marjorle|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Colman, N. C. D.||Greene, William P. C.|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Balniel, Lord||Conant, R. J. E.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Cook, Thomas A.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Bateman, A. L.||Cooper, A. Duff||Guy, J. C. Morrison|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Copeland, Ida||Hanley, Dennis A.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Harbord, Arthur|
|Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Bennett, Capt Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Craven-Ellis, William||Hellgers. Captain F. F. A.|
|Birchalt, Major Sir John Dearman||Crooke, J. Smedley||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hornby, Frank|
|Blinded, James||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Boulton, W. W.||Cross, R. H.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Cruddas, Lieut. Colonel Bernard||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Briscoe, Capt Richard George||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Drewe, Cedric||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Duggan, Hubert John||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Jamleson, Douglas|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Dunglass, Lord||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)|
|Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Eastwood, John Francis||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Burghley, Lord||Eillston, Captain George Sampson||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Elmley. Viscount||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Burnett, John George||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Kimball, Lawrence|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Campbell, Edward Taswsll (Bromley)||Essenhigh, Reginald Clara||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Carver, Major William H.||Fox, Sir Gifford||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Fremantle, Sir Francis||Leighton, Major B. G. P.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ganzonl, Sir John||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Patrick, Colin M.||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Pearson, William G.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Lockwood, John c. (Hackney, C.)||Penny, Sir George||Smithers, Waldron|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Percy, Lord Eustace||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Somervile, Annesley A (Windsor)|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Patrick)||Patherick, M.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Soper, Richard|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n,Bllst'n)||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Pike, Cecil F.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|McLean, Major Sir Alan||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradaston)||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Stevenson, James|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Storey, Samuel|
|Makine, Brigadier-General Ernest||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Ramsden, Sir Eugene||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Ratcliffe, Arthur||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Ray, Sir William||Templeton, William P.|
|Martin, Thomas B.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Reiner, John R,||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Merriman, Sir F, Boyd||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Train, John|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)-||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Mitcheson, G. G.||Rosbotham, Sir Samuel||Wallace, John (Dunlermline)|
|Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Ross, Ronald D.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Morgan, Robert H.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Runge, Norah Cecil||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Morrison, William Shephard||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Muirhead, Major A. J.||Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)||Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Whyte, Jar dine Bell|
|Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Salmon, Sir Isidore||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Salt, Edward w.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|North, Captain Edward T.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Womersley, Walter James|
|O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Selley, Harry R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Palmer, Francis Noel||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward|
|and Lord Erskine.|