Commons Sitting of 8 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill.
Lords Amendments considered.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Amendments in this case are all of a drafting nature, and affect only a protective Clause.
Lords Amendments agreed to.
Mumbles Pier Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Walsall Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Royal Wanstead School Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the St. Helens Corporation Act, 1921, relating to St. Helens Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin
  2
  Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1926, relating to Southend-on-Sea Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of trades unions, including federations, borne on the registers of India, as at the last convenient date?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I regret that I have no figure later than that which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's question of 23rd May, 1938.
    Mr. Day: How often are these figures forwarded to England?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The administration of the India Trades Union Act is now, of course, a matter for the provincial Governments. My Noble Friend will not normally get the information.
    Mr. Day: Do I understand that no information is supplied by the provincial Governments?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It is not customary for information in the hands of the provincial Governments referring to these matters to be supplied.

    FILM CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India in what ways the censorship of films has altered in British India during the previous three years; and what reports has he received of films that have been prohibited from exhibition during the same period?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Since 1st April, 1937, film censorship in India is exercised by Ministers, and as the hon. Member is aware, my Noble Friend does not in general receive official reports from them in regard to matters which fall within the authority of autonomous Provincial Governments. I am not in a position, therefore, to give the information asked for.
    Mr. Day: Do I understand that the Minister has no information about the changes that have taken place with regard to censorship?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There are, of course, certain changes in connection with the Government of India Act, 1935. Previously it was a provincial transferred subject, and now the question of film censorship is one of those which are in the hands of the provincial ministries.

    FEDERATION.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he can make any statement on the position as regards the proposals for federation; and in particular regarding the attitude taken by the Committee of Ministers of the Indian States to this question?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Since the reply given on 19th December to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), proposed terms of accession to the federation have been communicated to the Rulers of Indian States. The correspondence between the Crown representative and the Rulers is confidential and my Noble Friend is not in a position to make any statement on the report of the committee referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement on the position?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking with regard to that.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. R. Morganasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the new Japanese proposal to establish a central currency bank in China, with its headquarters at Nanking; and whether steps will be taken to safeguard British trade in respect of a currency which traders as a whole do not recognise?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The new bank, whose head office is at Shanghai, was established on 1st May to issue notes which, it is stated, will be legal tender in the area governed by the so-called Reformed Government at Nanking. His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Japanese Government on the subject referred to in the second part of the question.
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether British business firms and owners of property in Nanking are now able to return to that city; and, if not, what action he has taken to protect their interests in their absence and to secure the return of those who wish to go back?
  Mr. Butler: A limited number of passes have been granted to British subjects to return to Nanking and frequent representations are made to the Japanese authorities both on the number of passes required and the conditions under which they are issued. His Majesty's Government consider that the Japanese military authorities, who are in effective control, must be held responsible for the safety of British property in Nanking, while British interests are watched over by a resident Consular officer.
  Captain Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as the result of his recent visit to Tsingtao relating to the difficulties which British residents are encountering in carrying on their business in the face of

  5
  Japanese obstruction; and what recommendations the Ambassador has made in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: No special report nor recommendations have been received from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as a result of his brief visit to Tsingtao on 17th February, but His Majesty's Government have been kept fully informed of the situation and there is a resident Consul-General at that port.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo on the demands made by the Japanese Government for an alteration in the constitution of the Shanghai Municipal Council; whether these demands have been simultaneously presented to all the other Treaty Powers; and whether he will make it plain to the Japanese Government that no modification of the Shanghai Municipal Council or of the land regulations can be entertained without a joint conference of all the Treaty Powers and of China?
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that His Majesty's Government decline to consider any change in the constitution of the Shanghai Municipal Council so long as the Japanese military authorities are in occupation of the Hongkew and Yangtzepoo districts and British subjects are debarred from the lawful enjoyment of their property in those districts?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has not yet received the full text of the statement expressing the Japanese desire for constitutional and administrative changes in the International Settlement at Shanghai which include changes in the constitution of the Municipal Council. I understand that a similar communication has been made to the United States Ambassador in Tokyo and to the Shanghai Municipal Council. In the meantime I should explain that the constitution of the Shanghai Municipal Council is fixed by the land regulations, which are in effect an agreement between the Chinese Government and the interested foreign Powers. No changes in the land regulations are legally valid without the assent of the Chinese Government, nor would His Majesty's Government concur in any such changes without full con-
  6
  sultation with all the other parties concerned.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I take it from the reply of my right hon. Friend that, if the Japanese should press for changes in the Municipal Council at Shanghai which will in fact bring it partly under the domination of the Japanese Government, the British Government will assist the Council to resist such a proposal?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Government would not agree to any changes without full consultation with all the other Powers concerned.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. John Morganasked the Prime Minister what is the appropriate machinery for enabling the question of the future status and administration of Danzig to be made the subject of arbitration before an international tribunal; and whether the Government are prepared to take steps to promote such a treatment of this grave problem?
  Mr. Butler: The status of Danzig is regulated by Treaty. The question of any change in that status is in practice a matter in the first instance for the parties most directly interested in the Treaty settlement, and it is for them to agree upon the methods by which they should proceed. It has been repeatedly made clear that His Majesty's Government stand for the settlement of international differences by friendly negotiation, arbitration, or other peaceful means, and they are at all times ready to lend their good offices at the request of the interested parties.
  Mr. Morgan: In the event of these direct negotiations breaking down, or reaching a stage when they look like breaking down, have His Majesty's Government any machinery in mind for dealing with such a situation?
  Mr. Butler: I said that we are at all times ready to lend our good offices at the request of the interested parties. If we received such a request we should naturally lend our good offices.
  Mr. Morgan: Good offices are not exactly machinery. Is there any machine available in international law which would enable such arbitration to be effective?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it any use attempting to set up such a tribunal until one has some assurance that both parties to the dispute are prepared to abide by the verdict?
  Mr. Butler: In answer to the direct question of the hon. Member, I think that this case could be covered by the terms of the Locarno arbitration treaty.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the re-fortification of the Aaland islands in the Baltic Sea?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) on 15th February last. I understand that the proposals of the Finnish and Swedish Governments have now been accepted in principle by the other interested Governments, except the Soviet Government, who have not yet replied to them.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the concentration of German armed forces in the territory of Memel?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has no confirmation of any reports to this effect.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind a possible analogy in the concentration of troops at Bari before Easter?
  Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Prime Minister whether at the time of the British guarantee to Poland on 31st March, 1939, any advice was tendered to Poland regarding the desirability of her entering into immediate negotiations or discussions with the German Reich for an amicable settlement of the future control and status of Danzig, and reasonable communications between the Reich and East Prussia; and whether, in view of the danger to the peace of the world involved in the present state of affairs in the Danzig area, he can impress upon the Polish Government the necessity of satisfying British public opinion that every reasonable proposal for an equitable settlement will be welcomed?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless have read the speech made by the Polish
  8
  Foreign Minister on 5th May, from which it is apparent that these questions were already under discussion between the Polish and German Governments before the date of His Majesty's Government's assurance to Poland. The Polish Government are, of course, aware that His. Majesty's Government would welcome an amicable settlement, and I have no reason to doubt that they are alive to the importance of the consideration contained in the second part of the question.
  Mr. J. Morgan: Is the Prime Minister ready to avail himself of any likely breakdown to offer his good services?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already answered that question.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the new non- aggression pacts now being offered by the German Government to certain Powers, that Government have informed His Majesty's Government that they have denounced the Briand-Kellogg pact of Paris for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, Germany's adherence to which was specifically confirmed by Herr Hitler in 1933?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: What is the use of these pacts being proposed by Herr Hitler in view of the way in which he treated the much more important obligations of the Kellogg Pact?
  Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether, and when, he will be able to issue a White Paper detailing the pledges which have been given by His Majesty's Government to the Governments of Poland, Rumania, and Greece?
  Mr. Butler: The House was given full particulars about these pledges in the statements of the Prime Minister on 31st March, 6th April, and 13th April. Under the circumstances, the issue of a special White Paper would not appear to be justified.
  Mr. Riley: Would it not be advisable that Members of this House should know the details of those agreements? Have there been any reciprocal pledges?
  Mr. Butler: The latter question has been answered, and there is a further question down to-day. In reply to the

  9
  hon. Member's point about the White Paper, perhaps he would consider the statement of the Prime Minister. If he is not satisfied then, perhaps he would have a word with me and see whether he wishes to pursue his view.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is there any written agreement between the countries concerned?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think so—no.
  Mr. Bateyasked the Prime Minister the date when negotiations were opened with Russia for a military alliance?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has asked for or received any assurance that Russian foreign policy, as regards the negotiations for the formation of a peace bloc, remains unaffected by the change of foreign secretaries?
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether in the event of a comprehensive pact of mutual assistance proving impracticable, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with the Governments of France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received by His Majesty's Government to the communication recently addressed to the Soviet Government; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Soviet negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: A further expression of the views of His Majesty's Government has been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow for communication to the Soviet Government. While these diplomatic exchanges are proceeding, hon. Members will readily appreciate that it would not be right for me to make a public statement on the points raised in these questions.
  Mr. Batey: Cannot the Prime Minister say on what date the negotiations were initiated, because the impression is that the negotiations have taken an extraordinarily long time, and we ought to know where the blame lies?
  The Prime Minister: I have given the Ion. Member further information.
  Mr. Boothby: Is the Prime Minister aware that the great majority of the people in this country are in favour of a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union; and, in view of the guarantees now given by this country to Poland and Rumania, and of the increasing anxiety with regard to our policy to take steps to implement them, will he give an assurance to do everything in his power to conclude an Anglo-French-Soviet pact at the earliest possible moment?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the public of this country have had an opportunity of expressing such an opinion, and I am not aware what authority the hon. Member has for making such a statement.
  Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House may take it that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to secure the fullest degree of co-operation with Russia, in endeavouring to establish a system based on mutual guarantees with the object of resisting aggression from wherever it may come?
  The Prime Minister: It is the purpose of His Majesty's Government to obtain the fullest co-operation with Russia in the policy which they are pursuing.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the Prime Minister state whether the Russian proposals of 16th April have remained unaffected by the change of Russian Foreign Secretary?
  The Prime Minister: I am not really in a position to give a positive answer to that question.
  Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not dissociate himself absolutely from the statement made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).
  Mr. Attlee: Does not the Prime Minister realise that public opinion is disturbed by the contrast between the rapidity of the acceptance of onerous obligations by this country and the dilatory methods in seeking collateral security?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree that there has been any delay.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend think that negotiations are helped by mischievous questions?
  Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. As the first question to which the Prime Minister replied to-day was my question, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether that was a mischievous question?
  Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman opposite is the most mischievous man in the House.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the hon. Member who asked about the date on which these negotiations began entitled to an answer; and is it not the fact that the Russians first made proposals about the middle of March?
  Mr. Shinwell: May I direct attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred to the policy of the Government and stated that the negotiations with Russia were based on the policy of the Government; and are not we entitled in this House to have some information as to the nature of the policy of the Government? [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, as you are the only person in this House to whom we can appeal for protection, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to state the nature of the policy of the Government, what redress is open to the Opposition?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows quite well that, while I am always ready to give protection in this House to any hon. Member, it is not my business to deal with Government policy.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the Polish Foreign Minister's proposals for the setttlement of present differences between Germany and Poland?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government welcome the terms at once firm and conciliatory of the speech recently addressed by the Polish Foreign Minister to the Seym, and they have taken due note of the proposals made by him therein.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement on the question of the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Government of Mexico; and what are the
  12
  obstacles which stand in the way of such recognition?
  Mr. Butler: As I said in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 2nd November, His Majesty's Government cannot regard the restoration of diplomatic relations with the Mexican Government as practicable and likely to benefit British interests until that Government are disposed to reconsider their attitude towards the British oil properties which they expropriated. In reply to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) on 24th April I stated that preliminary negotiations had taken place between the Mexican Government and a representative of the expropriated oil companies. These conversations have proceeded further. It is naturally to be hoped that they will result in a situation which will enable His Majesty's Government to reconsider their policy.
  Mr. Bellenger: Are His Majesty's Government taking a direct part in the negotiations on the oil question?
  Mr. Butler: Negotiations are being carried on by representatives of the oil companies and the Mexican Government.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: Are they still proceeding?
  Mr. Butler: Yes; they have proceeded further.
  Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as being of more importance to continue friendly diplomatic negotiations with Germany than with Mexico?

  ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL AGREEMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make a statement concerning the denunciation by Germany of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?
  The Prime Minister: The situation created by the denunciation of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement is being considered in all its aspects, and a communication will in due course be made to the German Government.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Was there any consultation by Germany with His

  13
  Majesty's Government before this Agreement was denounced; and, if not, is it not very unusual for a Government to denounce an agreement without either notice or negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COMMERCIAL DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS.
    Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will constitute some of his overseas commercial counsellors as permanent selling agencies in Finland and other Scandinavian centres for obtaining orders for British goods on the spot in cases where British firms do not maintain permanent British representatives in those countries for the purpose of developing British export trade?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. While it is the duty of commercial diplomatic officers to assist British traders in their endeavours to sell United Kingdom goods, it would be improper for such officers to enter into commercial transactions themselves.

    SELLING METHODS, OVERSEAS MARKETS.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether during his recent trade investigations, he has found any methods of British exporting firms need alteration in the interests of British industry; whether, for the guidance of all concerned, he will take an early opportunity of indicating if we are failing to secure trade because of wrong methods of individual firms; and, if so, how, and in what direction, these methods should be improved or altered?
    Mr. Cross: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on 24th April to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) and West (Sir J. Leech). The Department takes every opportunity to discuss with trade organisations and individual firms the many aspects of selling methods in overseas markets—a subject which is
    14
    also dealt with in the reports by its overseas officers published by the Department. As conditions differ widely, both as to countries and industries, they can more suitably be dealt with in this manner than in a general memorandum.

    EXPORT CREDITS (TEXTILES).
    Mr. Hepworthasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any of the export credits recently sanctioned by Parliament are likely to assist the manufacture of heavy textiles; and whether, in the course of any trade arrangements with countries where such manufactures are most useful, he will consider giving all possible assistance to the trade in question?
    Mr. Cross: The Export Guarantees Act, 1939, extended the powers of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to give guarantees in connection with exports from the United Kingdom. These guarantees are available for the export of textiles in any case where the Department's Advisory Council are satisfied that the risk involved is reasonable. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information about the 200,000 tons of surplus sugar in Cuba; whether he is aware that the price of sugar will be increased on Monday by ¼d. per lb. due to a shortage of sugar; and to what extent he intends to exercise control of the Sugar Council?
    Mr. Cross: I understand that on the basis of the export quotas for Cuban sugar at present fixed for the United States market and those authorised for the world market by the International Sugar Council, Cuba is likely to have surplus stocks of sugar of the order mentioned by the hon. Member at the end of the year. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that the Retailers' Sugar Association have recommended an increase of ¼d. per lb. in the retail price of sugar to operate from today. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) on Friday last, a copy of which I am sending to him.
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary, realise that this is a serious matter for this country, because as a consequence of the Budget there is a ¼d. increase in the lb. and now this increase means another ¼d. a lb. which is a ½d. per lb. on sugar? That means a lot to many thousands of homes in this country.
    Mr. Cross: The position is that there has recently been quite an abnormal demand for sugar, and the quotas which are at present authorised by the International Sugar Council will not be sufficient. The attention of the Council has been drawn to the matter by the Government and a meeting of the executive committee is being called for this week.
    Mr. Thorne: Have the Government any power to compel these people to release a major part of this sugar in order to bring prices down?
    Mr. Cross: There are no compulsory powers because this is an international body, but all the Governments participating have certain rights, and His Majesty's Government have certain rights, of withdrawing from the Council if, after an abnormal rise in world prices, the Government request the Council to take steps to remedy the situation, and the Council fails to do so.
    Captain Arthur Evans: Have His Majesty's Government any reason for believing that Cuba has already refused to release any additional amount?
    Mr. Cross: I should require notice of that question.

  GERMANY (WAR MATERIALS).
  Mr. Marcus Samuelasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what orders have been refused during the last six months by Germany and German dependencies for the supply of war materials and materials suitable for use for war purposes?
  Mr. Cross: I understand that the Department of Overseas Trade is unable to supply the details asked for by my hon. Friend.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FEEDING STUFFS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, since big firms of exporters of wheat offals and cattle foods
    16
    sell direct to Continental farmers' organisations, he will take steps to assist in ensuring similar supplies being available to farmers' organisations in this country?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I would remind my hon. Friend that the quantities of wheat offals exported to Continental countries from the United Kingdom during the past year or two have been insignificant and that, generally, shipments of cattle foods to such countries from the United Kingdom are relatively small. As regards sales of the kind indicated, I understand that direct sales of feeding stuffs to farmers' co-operative societies in this country constitute a normal feature of the trade.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the advantages enjoyed by the fanners in the Scandinavian countries, and will he once again confer with his Department, as the amount involved is not negligible?

    SHEEP, OATS AND BARLEY.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to sheep, oats and barley?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I hope to be in a position to make a statement next week.

    MILK.
    Sir Charles Cayzerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that no recommendation for a reduction in the price of milk sold to manufacturers of processed milk was made on the grounds that it is hoped that an arrangement will be reached at an early date for the effective control of supplies and prices of such processed milk; what is the present position with regard to the arrangements referred to; and whether, in view of the difficult circumstances of the milk manufacturing industry in this country, he will give an assurance that some arrangement will be reached within the next two months?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware of the terms of the award to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer him to the reply given on 4th May by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin-Webb).

    LABOURERS
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture the total increase of agricultural labourers employed on the land during the last three months; and what further steps the Government are taking to augment this increase?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I regret that information is not available to enable me to reply to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, it is one of the objects of the Government's policy of assistance to the industry to check the decline which has taken place in recent years.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the most important question of the day? Is he aware that his whole arable scheme will fall to the ground if the necessary labour is not available, and that you may multiply the most modern machines and adopt the most modern methods, but the human element, the farm labourer, is the most important of all?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am well aware of that.
    Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been any increase in agricultural labour?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is impossible for my Department to say, inasmuch as our returns have not come in.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that you will not get the men back until they get a decent wage?
    Mr. de Rothschild: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any increase in agricultural labour?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have said that I cannot give any official figures.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Without official figures, can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of an increase in the last few months?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It would be difficult to do that without trying to give some figures. I cannot give figures for the last three months.
    Mr. De la Bère: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    SHEEP GRAZING (GOLF COURSES).
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Agriculture the total area of golf courses in England and Wales; the number of sheep carried thereon; and is he proposing to encourage golf clubs to revert to the old practice of pasturing sheep on their courses?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I regret that the information asked for in the first and second parts of the question is not available. As regards the third part, I think that such bodies may be relied upon, in suitable circumstances, to utilise the grazing on their courses for the feeding of sheep.
    Mr. Gibson: In the event of an emergency such as the right hon. Gentleman had in view when he formulated his scheme, with regard to pasture land, would it not be well to keep this possible source for pasturage in view?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is kept in view.
    Mr. Gibson: Then what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member had better put down another question?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that a lot of sheep on the other side want these golf courses for themselves?

    WHEAT AND OATS.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Agriculture the average price per cwt. of British wheat and oats for the year 1938, and the first four months of 1939?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The average prices per cwt. of British wheat and oats during 1938, according to the returns received under the Corn Returns Act, were 6s. 9d. and 7s. 7d. respectively. The corresponding average prices for the first four months of 1939 were 4s. 3d. per cwt. for wheat and 6s. Id. per cwt. for oats.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in framing the new oat legislation, he will bear in mind the fact that the market has consistently assessed oats at a price per cwt. which is not lower than that of wheat; and whether he will give a much-needed

    19
    stimulus to mixed farming in districts where oats are the basic cereal crop by giving due regard to the need for cereal parity?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I have been asked to reply. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind in framing legislation in regard to oats. I hope that the additional assistance proposed for growers of oats will have a stimulating effect on mixed farming, both generally and in the districts to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: While thanking the hon. Member for the reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that the justification for the wheat quota payments is that they give a measure of price assurance to the Englishman's basic cereal crop, and does he not think that in the interests of the land itself the Scotsman ought to receive the same measure of assurance for his oats?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think that is very well put.
    Mr. T. Williams: If the same legislation which applies to wheat ought to apply to oats, will the hon. Member not agree that if the Government are to provide a guaranteed price they should also control the selling of the oats so that the Treasury will not be let down?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That is another question.

    IMPORTED EGGS.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered a resolution carried by the Atherton and Leigh Poultry Society asking that steps should be taken to examine the position of the importation of foreign eggs; and how he proposes to deal with this matter?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have received a copy of the resolution mentioned by the hon. Member and I would refer him to the provisions of Clause 17 of the Poultry Industry Bill in which power is sought to regulate imports of eggs and poultry in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave uneasiness, and will he be prepared to meet a deputation so that they can put their point of view?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am very well aware of the uneasiness and I should be pleased to consider seeing a deputation.

  COUNTY WAR AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
  Mr. Owen Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the chairmen of the county war agricultural executive committees will be paid officials of the Ministry; how, and by whom, members of the committees will be appointed; whether he will assure himself that they will consist of practical progressive farmers in the respective areas; and whether the powers of the committees will be sufficiently broad to take full account of local conditions of agriculture?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The chairmen of the county war agricultural executive committees will act in an honorary capacity. The members will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and will of course include practical and progressive farmers. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. Evans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the names will be announced?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Not until the unfortunate eventuality of war arises.
  Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the basis on which these county agricultural committees are to be selected?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Trying to get the most suitable men to do the work.
  Mr. Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the information collected by the agricultural departments, and prepared in a suitable form for the proposed executive committees, will also be made available generally for use of farmers?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The information in question will be required by the committees in connection with the duties proposed to be entrusted to them in the event of war, and will not be of use to individual farmers.
  Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that information of this character would be most valuable to practical farmers in carrying out the job?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is a different type of information.
  Mr. Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that millions of acres are greatly under-farmed and that their fertility can only be recovered by drastic and intensive treatment, he will consider the advisability of constituting the executive committees at the earliest possible moment, with authority to make a survey of land within their respective areas and with adequate powers to cause the necessary steps to be taken quickly by landlords and farmers to bring about the desired improvements?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The suggestion underlying the hon. Member's question seems to be that the agricultural industry should be immediately placed on a wartime basis. This, in the Government's view should be unnecessary and undesirable from many points of view. I would, however, remind the hon. Member of the announcement which I made in the House on 3rd May, as regards the Government's immediate plans.
  Mr. Evans: Inasmuch as the Government have decided to place the country on a war footing by the adoption of conscription, is it not now necessary to put the country on a war footing in regard to the production of food?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is a distinction between the two.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Has there been any survey of the land which is suitable for ploughing up?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I announced the other day, there is a mass of information as regards what has happened since the last War and the present moment, and that information will be made available.

  HERRING INDUSTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  Mr. Loftusasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Herring Industry Advisory Council to be set up under Section 2 of the Herring Industry Act, 1938, as soon as may be after the appointed day has been appointed; and, if so, whether he would state the names and qualifications of the members of the council?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Invitations to serve on the Herring Industry Advisory
  22
  Council are being sent out this week, and I anticipate, therefore, that it will be possible to announce the constitution of the council in the very near future.
  Mr. Loftus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that summer fishing will be in full force in two or three weeks time, and in view of that fact, will he expedite the appointment of this council?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The invitations are actually being sent out this week.

  POST OFFICE (CASH-ON-DELIVERY SYSTEM).
  Mr. Dayasked the Postmaster-General particulars of the number of parcels despatched on the cash-on-delivery system that have not been delivered at the first attempt?
  The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I regret that no information is available as to the number of cash-on-delivery parcels which are not delivered at the first attempt.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the postmen have instructions to endeavour to deliver on the second delivery?
  Major Tryon: They are normally sent out again, except in cases where delivery has been obviously impossible.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND BRANCH OFFICES (MANAGERS' REMUNERATION).
  Mr. Hely-Hutchinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether the remuneration of managers of Employment Exchanges and of branch offices is based upon the number of persons on their live registers of unemployed?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): Managers of Employment Exchanges are civil servants on fixed scales of salary. The managers of branch offices are not permanent officers but are in the position of contractors, and I am sending the hon. Member a memorandum explaining their conditions of service. Their remuneration is based on a scale related to the volume of work at their offices, including that of filling vacancies from the registers.

  DEFENCE FORCES (CLOTH CONTRACTS).
  Mr. Burkeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the strong resentment felt by the manufacturers in Lancashire owing to the fact that orders for millions of yards of cotton cloth for the fighting and air-raid precautions services have been placed, not with the producers, but through agents; and whether he can give any reason for this procedure and state the average amount of commission charged by the agents for passing on the orders?
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the Cotton Manufacturers Association has made strong complaints of the fact that Government orders for uniforms for the defence forces are being placed through agents instead of direct through the manufacturers; that such agents make large sums out of these transactions, although the persons concerned have no connection with the cotton industry; and why the respective contracts departments of the forces have taken this course?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have made inquiry of the Service contracting departments as to the points raised in these questions. As I understand the matter, the general practice is to order from makers and not through agents. The various operations in the cotton industry are, however, very complicated and performed by different sections of the industry and orders for cotton fabrics are placed after competitive tenders in which both manufacturers and merchant manufacturers may be included. It has long been the practice to deal with recognised merchant manufacturers on the same basis as with manufacturers, the former, by the custom of the trade and because of their technical knowledge of the operations, being admitted to tender in competition with the latter. There is no reason to suppose that the cotton trade takes any exception to this and it would not I think be in the public interest to exclude such concerns from Government business. It is not known what commission is charged by the merchant manufacturers but as I have stated orders are placed after competitive tendering in which both manufacturers and merchant manufacturers participate.
  Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Cotton Manufacturers' Association are at present making inquiries about this matter; that the numbers have been screwed down to 20,000,000 square yards and that £15,000 commission is being unnecessarily paid by the Government merely for the handling of that order; and that the Cotton Manufacturers' Association some time ago had a census and gave the Government information as to how it could deal direct?
  Mr. Morrison: As I have said, the general practice is to invite merchants and manufacturers to tender, and the lowest tender is always accepted. If the hon. Member has any information of any particular transaction to which he wishes to draw my attention, I shall be obliged if he will give me the particulars.
  Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these agents are not even merchants or manufacturers' agents? They are people who do not manufacture and do not handle the cloth, but merely pass it on, and it costs the Government £15,000.
  Mr. Morrison: My inquiry shows that the general practice is to deal with the manufacturer or the merchant manufacturer. If the hon. Member has cases of the other kind to which he wishes to draw my attention, I shall be glad to investigate them.
  Mr. Silverman: May I ask what steps, if any, are taken to secure that these orders are equitably distributed among the hard-hit parts of the county?
  Mr. Morrison: The practice followed in placing these orders is to put them up for open tender. That is a general practice in all Government tenders.
  Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only way of placing these orders is with the manufacturers, and that if other men are allowed to come in it results in exorbitant commission?
  Mr. Morrison: That is not always the case, because there are many manufacturers who are weavers who do not tender for the cloth in what is called the grey; and all subsequent proceedings done by other people have to be brought together by the merchant, and it is for him to tender.
  Mr. Burke(for Mr. Lawson) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an order was recently given for 2,000,000 yards of Royal Air Force blue cloth, for which an agent was paid a large sum; and whether it is now the practice of the contracts department to place orders through agents instead of direct with the manufacturers?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I am unable to identify the order to which the hon. Member refers. The most recent order for blue cloth placed by my Department was one for 142,500 yards, placed after competitive tendering with eight firms all of whom are manufacturers. It is the policy of my Department to buy on the most economical terms and, generally, it has been found that these are obtained by dealing direct with manufacturers.

  ECONOMIC POLICY.
  Mr. R. Aclandasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to convincing our own people and the people of Europe, particularly those of Germany, that he has introduced conscription in order to promote world interest and not in order to defend this country's own economic advantage, he will make an announcement of our early intention to abandon the Ottawa policy?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Acland: Are not any economic advantages which may be gained from this policy completely out-weighed by the moral disadvantage of pursuing it?
  The Prime Minister: It seems to me a very far cry from Ottawa to conscription.
  Mr. Acland: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that anybody will believe that we are going in for conscription for world purposes if we are to pursue a policy of developing our Empire as a private concern?
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. Turton: Will not great harm be done in Europe, particularly in Germany, if they learn that there are some Liberal Members who are anxious to abandon the Empire?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (HANGARS, CAMOUFLAGE).
  Mr. Graham Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to diminish the conspicuousness of existing hangars by making full use of the biological principles of camouflage; and whether he will take steps, when advisable, to replace the existing hangars by others constructed in accordance with these principles?
  Captain Balfour: My hon Friend may rest assured that very close attention is being given by my Department to the question of camouflage, and the importance of the application of the principles to which he refers is fully realised. Hangars must be built for the main purpose required, but due regard is paid to the camouflage aspect.
  Mr. Kerr: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the conspicuousness of existing hangars demonstrates either a profound ignorance of the scientific principles of camouflage or their deliberate defiance?
  Captain Balfour: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I would point out that there are two sorts of camouflage, one which is permanent and the other a form which it would not pay to put in now, but in a comparatively short time before emergency arises.
  Viscountess Astor: A committee was set up in December to deal with camouflage. Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether it has a policy or not, as there is grave concern about this matter among those who know most?
  Captain Balfour: The committee which has been studying this matter has done good work, but one of the troubles is that there are many diffierent schools of technical thought as to how best to apply camouflage. If the Department adopted one particular school it might well be closing the door to other new forms of development and, therefore, we are pursuing several different lines of investigation.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (NURSES UNIFORMS).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health whether uniforms will be provided

  27
  free to women who are willing to volunteer for training as nurses under the National Service Scheme?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Yes, Sir. An overall and cap will be provided free to all women who take the short course of training for enrolment as nursing auxiliaries in the Civil Nursing Reserve.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FIVE-YEAR PROGRAMMES).
  Mr. Erringtonasked the Minister of Health whether the estimates from local authorities for the five-year programme have been obtained; and what amount is the aggregate proposed cost thereof?
  Mr. Bernays: By 4th May returns showing provisional programmes of capital expenditure covering the five years commencing 1st April, 1938, had been received from 1,752 local authorities, representing nearly three-fourths of the whole. The estimated capital cost of the works provisionally included in these programmes would be about £778,000,000.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the hon. Member say to what useful purpose the Ministry are going to apply all this information now that they have got it?

  OPEN SPACES, OXFORD (LAND ACQUISITION).
  Mr. MacLarenasked the Minister of Health whether the Oxford City Council, following the recommendation of its special open spaces committee, have now acquired, and at what price, the following lands: from Christ Church, approximately 20.272 acres adjoining Cutteslowe Park; from Brasenose College, III.221 acres at Marston; from the Head-ington United Charities, approximately 5.2 acres known as the Peat Moors, The Slade; what protests were made in the council against paying the prices at which any of these sites were offered; and whether he will state the net rateable value of each while the committee of the council was negotiating purchase?
  Mr. Bernays: Loans have been sanctioned for the purchase of 17.844 acres adjoining Cuttleslowe Park for £1,570 and of III.221 acres at Marston for £9,500. I
  28
  have no information with respect to these loans of the protests referred to in the second part of the question. The lands being agricultural were de-rated. The 5.2 acres known as Peat Moors have not yet been acquired by the council, who have applied for confirmation by my right hon. Friend of a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land.

  PALESTINE (STEAMSHIP "ASSIMI"):
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has inquired into the complaints that the steamship "Assimi," containing would-be illegal immigrants into Palestine, was sent to sea from Haifa on 23rd April, despite appalling sanitary conditions and with only two days' food on board; and with what results?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Yes, Sir. I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting this entirely inaccurate report. The High Commissioner has informed me that the "Assimi" was thoroughly disinfected before leaving the harbour, that the sanitary arrangements on board were considered adequate by the public health authorities, and that food was supplied by the Palestine Government and the Jewish community sufficient for at least seven days, together with 150–200 tons of fresh water.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Sir John Mellorasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, after consultation with the medical profession, he will make special arrangements for a supply of gasmasks to be available to hospitals and practitioners of the type found most convenient for surgical operations?
  Captain Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has arranged, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, that all medical and nursing personnel in hospitals or first aid posts in vulnerable areas shall be supplied with the civilian duty type of respirator.
  Sir J. Mellor: Do recent experiments confirm that this type is the best for the purpose?
  Captain Dugdale: So I am given to understand.
  Mr. Erringtonasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of workers for the erection of air-raid precautions shelters in Liverpool and Bootle, respectively, are obtained from the local Employment Exchanges?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In Liverpool, arrangements recently made provide that any contractor, for each of his own men whom he employs, should engage one man through the exchange. Up to 5th May, 279 vacancies had been notified and filled through the Employment Exchange for this work. Work has not yet started on the erection of shelters at Bootle, but it is estimated that about 100 men may be required by the corporation and all engagements will be made through the Employment Exchange.
  Mr. Errington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the contractors are getting men, not through the Employment Exchanges but from other sources?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that has been remedied.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (CALLING UP).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the anxiety caused amongst professional and business men in the Territorial Army and employers of officers and men in that Force by the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill that it may be necessary under existing circumstances to take steps at any time to call up for service all persons constituting such Forces, and including the Territorial Army; and whether he can give some assurance that the Territorial Force will not be called up for service unless a condition of imminent national danger of great emergency actually arises?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject which was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26th April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will deal with this matter in his statement on the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill to-morrow.

    RECRUITS (NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Secretary of State for War the proportion of recruits in relation to population in Northern Ireland for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938; and how this compares with recruiting in other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Sir V. Warrender: The proportions of recruits finally approved for the Regular Army, in relation to the total population in Northern Ireland, for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, were .0751 per cent., 0878 per cent., and .1035 per cent., respectively. The corresponding figures for the rest of the United Kingdom are, .0466 per cent., .0534 per cent., and .0799 per cent., respectively.
    Sir R. Ross: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that Northern Ireland is always prepared to do her share in defence?
    Sir V. Warrender: That is another point.

  NAZI ORGANISATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of German subjects requested to leave this country during recent weeks and in what circumstances?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 4th instant to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether it is the case that no German is expelled from this country except for misconduct and abuse of our hospitality, and whether it is also the case that the German Government have been able to allege no misconduct of any sort against the British subjects expelled from Germany by way of retaliation?
  Mr. Peake: The only answer I can give to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that it is against public policy for us to state the reasons for asking any German subject to leave this country.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my supplementary question—whether

  31
  any misconduct has been alleged against British subjects who have been expelled from Germany by way of retaliation?
  Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I should require notice of that question.

  COMMISSIONERS OF CHURCH TEMPORALITIES, WALES.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Home Secretary what are the present duties of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales in view of the passage of the Tithes Act; and what salaries are paid to the Commissioners?
  Mr. Peake: The duties of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales are those laid down in the Welsh Church Acts, 1914 and 1919, with which my hon. Friend is no doubt familiar. The only effect of the Tithe Act, 1936, upon those duties was to relieve the Commissioners of the collection of certain tithe rent-charges in Wales and Monmouthshire which was mainly carried out by agents, but on the other hand other duties were thrown upon them by that Act and other recent legislation. One Commissioner is in receipt of a salary of £1,500 a year. The only other Commissioner has never drawn the salary to which he is entitled.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to what are the functions of the Commissioners?
  Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot. As I pointed out in my answer, the new duties thrown upon the Commissioners are those imposed by the legislation to which I have referred.

  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (OUTRAGES).
  Mr. Erringtonasked the Home Secretary how many outrages have been traced to Irish Republican Army sources; the approximate amount of damage sustained thereby and how many convictions have been obtained?
  Mr. Peake: Between 16th January and 5th May there have been about 100 outrages or attempted outrages, which are attributed to the activities of the Irish Republican Army. During the same period the number of persons connected
  32
  with such activities who have been convicted on various charges is 38. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the total cost of making good the damage caused.
  Mr. Errington: Is my hon. Friend prepared to take any steps in regard to the registration or otherwise of people who come from Southern Ireland to this country?
  Mr. Peake: That question raises very big questions of policy in regard to which I should have to refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) on 2nd February?
  Sir Hugh Seely: How many are still awaiting trial?
  Mr. Peake: Thirty-eight have already been convicted. There are some other cases still awaiting trial.

  ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (LIMITATION OF PROFITS).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce legislation to limit the profits of firms engaged mainly in armament production, as promised in the Resolution of the House of 27th April on compulsory military training?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): An early opportunity will be taken to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as the scheme has been completed, but I cannot at present name a date.
  Mr. Thorne: Are the Government considering the advisability of having Government auditors in every one of these establishments so as to find out the amount of profits made?
  Captain Crookshank: That is another question.
  Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister announced, when introducing the Resolution in connection with military training, that he would submit a proposal for the taxation of all armaments profits? May I ask why that proposal was not made at the same time as the Military Training Bill was introduced?

  OMNIBUSES, BIRMINGHAM (CHILDREN).
  Sir Smedley Crookeasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at the recent meeting of the Birmingham City Council objecting to his decision to change the maximum age for travelling for children; whether he is aware of the hardship caused to parents in Birmingham who hitherto have had free travel on the omnibuses for their children up to the age of five years and who now are to be charged fares for the children over three years of age; and whether he will give further consideration to the matter?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I have seen a Press report of the proceedings of the Birmingham City Council on 2nd May, 1939. My right hon. Friend's predecessor had before him certain appeals made under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, from decisions of Area Traffic Commissioners on the question of the maximum age for free travel in public service vehicles. Having regard to the varying practice which was prevailing in different parts of the country, he decided in the first instance to arrange for a full independent public inquiry into the general question of this age limit. The advice tendered to him as a result of that inquiry was that the age limit for the free carriage of children under the road service licences forming the subject of the appeals should be three years. After subsequent careful consideration, he accepted this advice and gave his decision accordingly. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the letter conveying the decision. The appeals having thus been determined in accordance with the provisions of the statute, my right hon. Friend has no power to re-open the matter.
  Sir S. Crooke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend have a copy of that report placed in the Library?
  Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Cartland: Would it be possible for my hon. and gallant Friend to make special arrangements for corporations which have the maximum age limit to apply it?
  Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend has to deal with this matter under the Act in a quasi-judicial position. After having the Inquiry, the matter came for his decision, and he cannot now alter it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to sit late to-night on the Money Resolution in connection with the Military Training Bill, or whether it would not be possible to take that Resolution at a more opportune hour to-morrow?
The Prime Minister: We are taking the Second Reading of the Military Training Bill to-day, and it is very important that we should get it through as soon as possible. I think, in the circumstances, it will be necessary to take the Money Resolution to-night.
Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister will realise the undesirability of establishing the practice of making an important Money Resolution on a major Bill a matter to be taken after 11 o'clock at night.
The Prime Minister: I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think the circumstances are exceptional in this case.
Mr. Attlee: I have no idea of how long this Debate will be prolonged. If it is seen to be running late will it be possible to consider whether it would not be more convenient to take the Money Resolution to-morrow? There is not so very much to-morrow.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the extent of the business which we have to-morrow. We are taking the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill and the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Military Training [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 105.

Division No. 95.]

AYES.

[3.43 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Errington, E.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Albery, Sir Irving

Fleming, E. L.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Furness, S. N.

Munro, P.

Anderson, Sir A. Garratt (C. of Ldn.)

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Gledhill, G.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Assheton, R.

Gluckstein, L. H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Goldie, N. B.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Actor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Patrick, C. M.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

Peake, O.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Pilkington, R.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Procter, Major H. A.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Purbrick, R.

Bernays, R. H.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hambro, A. V.

Ramsbotham, H.

Bossom, A. C.

Hammersley, S. S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Boulton, W. W.

Hannah, I. C.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Harbord, A.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Brass, Sir W.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Remer, J. R.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Bull, B. B.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hepworth, J.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Butcher, H. W.

Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Hopkinson, A.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Horsbrugh, Florence

Salmon, Sir I.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Salt, E. W.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Cary, R. A.

Hunter, T.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hutchinson, G. C.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

Sandys, E. D.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Keeling, E. H.

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Scott, Lord William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Channon, H.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S,

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Colfox, Major W. P.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Colman, N. C. D.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Spears, Brigadier-General E L.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Levy, T.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)

Lewis, O.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Lindsay, K. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Lipson, D. L.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lloyd, G. W.

Tasker, Sir R. 1.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Loftus. P. C.

Tate, Mavis C.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Lyons, A. M.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Cross, R. H.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Crossley, A. C.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Crowder, J. F. E.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Culverwell, C. T.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Touche, G. C.

Davidson, Viscountess

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Davison, Sir W. H.

McKie, J. H.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

De la B&#x00E8re, R.

Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Denville, Alfred

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Turton, R. H.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Wakefield, W. W.

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

Marsden, Commander A.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Duggan, H. J.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Medlicott, F.

Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

Dunglass, Lord

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Eastwood, J. F.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Wells, Sir Sydney

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Mills. Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Ellis, Sir G.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Moreing, A. C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

36

37

Womersley, Sir W. J.

York, C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Grimston.

Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Owen, Major G.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Pearson, A.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Adamson, W. M.

Grenfell, D. R.

Pritt, D. N.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Riley, B.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Groves, T. E.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Banfield, J. W.

Hardie, Agnes

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Barnes, A. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Sanders, W. S.

Batey, J.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Sexton, T. M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Shinwell, E.

Bevan, A.

Hicks, E. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Burke, W. A.

Jagger, J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cluse, W. S.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cocks, F. S.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Collindridge, F.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Stephen, C.

Cove, W. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lathan, G.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Daggar, G.

Leach, W.

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Logan, D. G.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lunn, W.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Viant, S. P.

Day, H.

McGovern, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Dobbie, W.

MacLaren, A.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Maclean, N.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Marshall, F.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Maxton, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Foot, D. M.

Messer, F.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Gallacher, W.

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

Gardner, B. W.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [4th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "whilst resolutely determined to take all necessary steps to defend the country and to fulfil its international obligations, and confident that the necessary man-power can be provided by voluntary recruitment, this House regrets that His Majesty's Government, having grossly mismanaged foreign policy, exhibited grave incompetence in organising the national resources for defence, and failed to limit profits or prevent the amassing of large fortunes, have now, in violation of repeated pledges, introduced a Measure of conscription."—[Mr. Lees-Smith.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  3.54 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Amendment which I rise to support covers a number of grounds on which we object to this Bill, but it will be observed from the Debate that there is complete unanimity in all parts of the House and in the country on this, that we are as anxious as any, deeply anxious and concerned, that our country should be made strong to maintain the ideals for which it has always stood. If I may return a compliment which is sometimes condescendingly offered to us from the other side, we believe that hon. Members opposite are quite as patriotic as hon. Members on this side. The reason advanced for this Bill is that the country finds itself in a serious situation, and that certainly is true. For the purposes of comparison, I will take the short period of the last two years, taking the time from when the Prime Minister assumed control of State affairs. Two years ago, speaking of ourselves and our friends and allies, France had a peaceful frontier on the Pyrenees, she had free access for her soldiers to her North African territories, our own rock of Gibraltar was safe and unthreatened, there were no bases for possible hostile submarines in Spanish ports, in the centre of Europe a peaceful, democratic and friendly State barred the way to aggression, she had arsenals not only for the
  46
  supply of herself but for the supply of her friends, and Geneva was still, if not alive, at least not dead, All that has altered in the last two years. The situation certainly has become serious, and it is not sufficient to say that those resources are absent, for many of those forces have passed over to the service of our potential enemies.
  I must, in speaking of the state of insecurity of our country and of our allies, say a word about the Soviet Union, because I believe that the anxiety of the country is very great about our relations with the Soviet. Five years ago the Russian Government made a remarkable change in policy. When the Germans adopted conscription, the Russians decided to join the League of Nations, and from that date onwards, by their official organs, by the mouth of M. Litvinov, by the mouth of M. Maisky, and even by the mouth of M. Stalin himself, came repeated pleas for an effective system of co-operative collective security. To all of this hitherto we have turned a deaf ear, and as far as we know from the Prime Minister's speech to-day, we still turn a deaf ear. We understand that Portuguese susceptibilities make it difficult for us to consider a trifle like the 12,000,000 of the Russian Army. Some say that there is mistrust of this country in Moscow. If one casts one's eyes over the last few years, it will be seen that they have not much to thank us for. We made a naval treaty with the Germans which gave them predominance in the Baltic; we went to Montreux and did our best to thwart Russian plans and to force German ships into the Black Sea; we went to the Brussels Conference and froze the Russians out of the committee which was dealing with relations with China; we persuaded M. Benes to abandon his alliance with the Russians; and we excluded Russia from the Munich Conference. We have not exactly, as you might say, been very matey with Moscow. And we do not think this is an accident at all. We think it is because, behind the Prime Minister, sit men who are determined that we shall not be friends with the Soviet Union.
  I need only take words from so weighty lips as those of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in speaking of this matter, said, "With a squeamish face that we do it, but we do not like accepting this

  47
  help, but we are constrained to do so," or words to that effect. When the Government of the Prime Minister was strengthened, it was done, not in the way which had been canvassed or suggested from so many quarters, but by the addition of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen), who was, I believe, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Conservative party. I have only heard him speak once, and now his lips are sealed for ever, for he has become a Whip. The only remark that he made was to get up in his place there and say, "Is not the Prime Minister aware that many of us would rather have Russia as an enemy than as a friend?" Therefore, we are entitled to say that there is great concern, not only among Members of our party, but throughout the country generally, as to whether the safety of the country is not being endangered by the reluctance of the Government to come to an understanding with Russia, and whether perhaps this Measure is not intended as some sort of counterbalance to the absence of an understanding with Soviet Russia. And there is this very ominous thought: there is another choice open to the Kremlin. The Treaty of Rapallo reminds us that they need not confine their attention to democratic States.
  It is in this grave situation that the Government come forward with their Bill, their considered proposals, fully considered, fully planned. They have been explained to us already by the Secretary of State for War and by the Prime Minister. What are their proposals? They are that by the end of this year we are to have 150,000 boys trained, in addition to what we have at the present time. There are 310,000 in the age class, but we have to deduct those who are engaged in reserved occupations, the conscientious objectors, and also those who are unfit which—it is a national shame—some authority has put as high as 50 per cent. of the number who will be called. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) asserted the other day that these boys could easily have been secured by voluntary means if the Government had offered favourable terms and pay and provided for them in a proper way. I heard the speech of the Minister of Labour, but he never dealt
  48
  with that point, any more than he dealt with other points. I say that as long as no one will answer this question, "Could you get these boys by offering them decent terms and inviting them to join voluntarily?" then that principle holds the field as far as this Government proposal is concerned.
  We are told that we must accept this Bill because foreign opinion, especially French opinion, demands it. If we are a little tardy in accepting a revolutionary change in our national practice, we have at least this excuse, that we are following the Prime Minister. He gave the most explicit all-in pledge to France and yet he remained a voluntaryist. We were pledged to the hilt to put all our resources at the disposal of France. We were told that the French Ministers had made no suggestion for conscription. The right hon. Gentleman said that our pledges were to be met by the voluntary system, and, as far as I am aware, only 10 days or a fortnight ago Conservative candidates and Members were going to their constituencies and saying that the voluntary system was fully able to supply the needs of National Defence. But it is said that Continental opinion, and more particularly French opinion, demands this change. I would like to put a question to those who say that. I will put it to the right hon. Member for the St. George's Division (Mr. Duff Cooper). He made a speech in Paris. He told the French that he thought a revolution was coming in this direction in this country. His prophecy has been fulfilled. I ask him, will he be prepared to go back to Paris and say to the French, "We shall have 150,000 half-trained boys ready by Christmas. We have fulfilled our pledge?" Of course not. What a ridiculous thing it would be to offer that when the French say, or the Continental nations say, "We would like to see conscription in England." They are thinking of conscription in their sense of the word—a massed rising of millions of men under arms, and of all age classes. To offer them this Bill is either deceiving them, or else this Bill is not all; it is the beginning of something else.
  Mr. Duff Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. I am going back to Paris next week, and I shall say, not that we have fulfilled our pledge, because we never gave a pledge, but that we have shown that we are prepared to

  49
  revolutionise our whole policy by adopting a principle which we were all against for generations, and that we do so in order to prepare ourselves for an emergency and to give them our full support.
  Mr. Benn: I never would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of cowardice. I am sure he will go back to Paris, but I am equally certain that French public opinion will not be satisfied with 150,000 men this year and then 800,000 at the end of three years. Is he going to tell the French that this is a temporary and partial measure? Of course he will tell them nothing of the kind. He says it is a revolution. How can you have a revolution which is going to re-revolve?
  Again, I do not believe that this is the full truth about Continental opinion. I do not believe that opinion on the Continent, even in the highest quarters, is instructed as to the contribution made by the British Navy and Army and Air Force and the money power and the manufacturing power of this country; it thinks merely in terms of millions of conscripts. Nor is that the whole story. We must all be guided by personal experience, and I will say something of my own. Formerly I have spoken to audiences in Eastern Europe for the British Council. What was the reaction of those intelligent audiences? It was this: "First of all we love Great Britain because we believe the British have no axe to grind so far as we are concerned; and, secondly, we wish to see Great Britain strong because we think that potentially she is a friend of ours and a friend of justice." One was constantly given warnings as to what one might say and might not say, but at the same time there was no doubt about the audiences. What the audiences wanted to hear was that Britain was free. That is the thing that binds the Continent of Europe to this country. At Zagreb I was even asked the question whether other States might be admitted to the British Commonwealth. Why? Because we are free. Take the case of Greece. Everyone knows that Greek public opinion is like that in Yugoslavia and in other countries. We are loved and admired because we are free, and if we sacrifice our freedom, pro tanto we diminish the influence of our country.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is not France free?
  Mr. Benn: So far as that question is relevant I answer it by replying, yes. I may be asked, what did strike a blow at our influence on the Continent of Europe? My answer is, Munich. That was the thing that chilled the hearts of the friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course. Every little country knew that it was not safe, because a country specially protected by alliances and friends had been betrayed. Of course, it was Munich that diminished the influence of this country abroad.
  The fact of the matter is that this Measure is proposed in order, as has been said, to get a principle accepted. What are the circumstances of the change? It is all done in a hurry. The House was suddenly told, "There is the Resolution on the Paper. It must be accepted by Thursday night." Lord Stanhope, in one of his speeches not subject to a D notice, told us that it was because Herr Hitler was going to make a speech. We were time-tabled here by what was happeneing at the Kroll Opera House. We could not even suspend the 11 o'clock Rule. All was hurriedly done and a momentous decision was made, at the instigation of a group of Members who, for years, have been pressing for this thing. Can anyone say that it was the promise to Rumania and Greece that made the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) into a conscriptionist?
  Mr. Amery: It was the sheer necessity of the case.
  Mr. Benn: This necessity has existed, in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, for at least 10 years.
  Mr. Amery: No.
  Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman compromise on eight years?
  Mr. Amery: I pointed out during the Debate on Munich that this would become necessary.
  Mr. Benn: Then I see, this is one of the fruits of Munich. For the Fifth Column, Britain's extremity is their opportunity. They have seized it. They have compelled a supple and harassed, and possibly frightened Prime Minister, to turn Britain, a free country, into a conscript country. They have done it because they say it is fair, because they say the principle is so fair. I would like to know

  51
  what fairness there is in an assemblage of elderly gentlemen, not one of whom is going to be affected by this Bill, not one of whom has a voter who is going to be affected by the Bill, passing such a Measure. I say it is disgusting.
  Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: I and many other hon. Members on this side of the House have sons who are 20 years of age and who have expressed their willingness to serve.
  Mr. Benn: I, too, have a son. My son said to me, "I want to be a volunteer." Am I going to sit here to-night and send boys into the Service without being able to go myself, on the ground that it is fair and just? It may be necessary in an hour of national extremity, but no one can claim that it is fair for us to sit here and force other people.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is sitting here and sending children compulsorily to education?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Member is a most obliging interlocutor. The question he puts is easily answered. The answer is in the affirmative. Have hon. Members thought of the position of the boys themselves and how they stand in their opportunity for employment? Let me read a letter put into my hands by an hon. Friend of mine. It is as follows:
  "Dear Sir, it seems that I am a victim already of the conscripton scheme. I am just turned 20 and have been working for about three years. My work has always been found satisfactory, but to-day the foreman came to me and asked my age. Soon after I was discharged without being given any reason. They know that shortly I shall be called up to do six months' service, and sooner than wait till then and risk a fine they sack me now. This seems a very despicable trick. What firm will employ me now, knowing that I am 20? So I must hang about for some months until I am called up. And after that, what? Can anything be done?"
  Hon. Members: Give the name of the firm.
  Mr. Benn: I cannot do that without consulting the parties concerned. I am making a general proposition, and it is that boys who are verging on 20 will find it very difficult to secure employment. That is true in the general application. It is said that the voluntary principle is unfair and that the principle of conscription is the only principle that is fair all round.
  52
  Yet we are to maintain the voluntary principle in the recruitment for our major forces; therefore, the recruits for our major forces will be volunteers suffering under this sense of unfairness which is supposed to characterise the voluntary system.
  The fact of the matter is that if this way is taken it will drive out the free offering of service. Bad money will drive out good money. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it will make the Territorial Force in a few years' time, with few exceptions, a conscript force. So really what we are adopting is not a temporary and partial Bill at all. It is a Bill which will, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Westminster, rightly said, revolutionise our attitude to national defence. The point of view from which we approach it is this. Will it give us the best for the protection of our country? Men's bodies are not everything; there are manufacturing power, brains, good will and ideals. All these things are necessary in the national defence. Take the question of brains. You cannot conscript brains. You may conscript a man who has brains, but you cannot conscript brains. Take, for example, the men who are of importance for national defence, namely, those who are manufacturing the means of defence. You cannot conscript them. You must have the voluntary system for the whole of the munitions organisation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook says that everything must be docketed, ticketed, ordered and arranged. Can he conceive taking a dozen engineers and saying, "You are called up to make so many parts at so much a day"? Of course he would not get the results, because you cannot get the results once intelligence and good will have to be conscripted. You cannot get the results unless they are offering their services freely. There is a type of mind which thinks simply in terms of numbers and thinks that if only you can get sufficient men on the parade ground, with "the middle finger resting lightly on the seam of the trouser," the safety of the British Empire is complete. We all know this type. Anybody who served in the War knows the type and knows what a public danger it is. Every hon. and gallant Member who is in contact with a Territorial unit to-day must know, unless experience has vastly changed in the last 20 years, what

  53
  I am speaking of and the waste that it causes.
  In my own squadron in Egypt there was a man doing some trifling job—a mess orderly or something of that sort—who was a professor of mathematics. He had been enrolled by some unimaginative commanding officer. My Noble Friend, Lord Addison, gave me a very good example of this waste. Once you get the recruiting sergeant on the job his idea is to get his man. He does not care what sort of man. The story which Lord Addison told me was that in the middle of the War there was a strike in a munitions shop, and he found that the men were out because the key man had been taken. He insisted on the return of the man, and they found him—this key man of a Sheffield factory—duly arrayed in khaki and with a stick with a point on it picking up pieces of paper on Wimbledon Common. I am speaking quite sincerely when I say that if we are to mobilise the full strength of this country in defence of our ideals it cannot be done on this mechanical system. Well I remember the Anzacs at Suvla Bay. They were splendid fellows and hard working. Certainly they were not very respectful; they would call one "Cocky" although one had two pips on the shoulder straps. How they worked and made roads and piers, and how they fought! I shall never forget what my dear old General, now with God, said about them—"They are magnificent fighting men, but you will never turn them into soldiers."
  Sir Edward Grigg: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the Anzacs were the product of compulsory military service?
  Mr. Benn: I have not forgotten that the Australian Government polled the Anzacs who were volunteers, and the majority voted against conscription. Lest I should be unwise or extreme in anything I might say, let me read the opinion of the man who had actual experience in putting through the only scheme of conscription we have ever had in this country:
  "With, perhaps, more knowledge than most of the working of conscription in this country, I hold the fully matured opinion that, on balance, the imposition of military conscription added little if anything to the effective sum of our war effort … If I were Chief of Staff of a foreign Power contemplating war against this country, I should spend money
  54
  lavishly to stimulate British 'patriotic' societies to demand conscription."
  Those were the words of Sir Auckland Geddes. In a word, what Briand said is true—" War is too serious to be left to soldiers."
  Finally, the objection we feel to the Bill is this. It is a substitute for a cause. You can have a nation in arms if you will make the right appeal. If you have this scheme you need not make any appeal at all. You need only send out a million Belisha post cards. Napoleon said that in war morale was to physical strength as three to one. Old Bill had the same idea. The people of this country do respond to ideals. "This chap Hitler has got to be stopped" represents a great philosophy for very many people. We want the cause put before the country. Then we shall get the men. It seems very irksome, however, for this Government to state any case at all. In order to test whether the strength of the country depends on the cause presented to it, I will take the most difficult case of all, that of the Irish. The Prime Minister has rightly left Northern Ireland out of this Bill for it would, no doubt, have made great difficulties for him. The Irish are a wonderful race and have a marvellous record in our military history. Is it necessary for the estrangement to continue? Let me read what happened in September last when it was believed that this country was going to champion the cause of a small democracy in Central Europe. This is from the "Times" at a moment in the Czech crisis when it was believed we were going to make a stand. The Dublin correspondent of the "Times" wrote:
  "For the first time on record the common people of this country feel themselves absolutely at one with Great Britain. … If war should break out in Europe at present, large numbers of young Irishmen would flock to join the British Army, and while most people here would prefer that they should serve in their own Army, public sympathy for once would be on the side of those who join the British forces."
  That is the effect of presenting a cause to the people. To-day the Government try to impose this mechanical system and they are met with the dangerous difficulties which have necessitated Clause 15 being left out of the Bill. I do not wish to speak with too much feeling, but I do feel very deeply, that this Bill is an insult to this country. We believe that

  55
  if you give the people an ideal to fight for they will fight. We must all go by our own experience. Up there on those benches there sat the Irishmen—rebels who were here to destroy the operation of this Parliament and who prided themselves in being rebels. They saw a cause to fight for. Where the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) now sits there sat Mr. Redmond who went out, a middle-aged man, and died. There, too, was Tom Kettle, another rebel. He volunteered and he died. He wrote a book about the War and he put in it an inscription which I have never forgotten:
  "Know that we fools now with the foolish dead,
  Fought not for Flag, nor King, nor Emperor,
  But for a dream, born in a herdsman's shed
  And for the secret scripture of the poor."
  Yes, and Rupert Brooke's:
  "Now God be thanked who has matched us with this hour."
  That is what you are killing by conscription. The most that we can hope for from this Measure in Europe is the uneasy equilibrium of rival chain-gangs. You are destroying, as I believe, the spirit of these people. You are thrusting your clumsy fingers into the main springs of human action and damming the richest source of the nation's power.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): We have listened to a very vivacious, far reaching and I think I may say, enjoyable speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn). That it should be far-ranging was inevitable in view of the fact that two-thirds of the Amendment he was supporting is composed of matter extraneous to this Bill, such as foreign affairs and other considerations, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had to devote a certain measure of his time to matters which it is difficult to regard as being strictly relevant to the Question before the House. I think the conclusion at which he arrived was that by introducing this Measure of compulsory military training we were killing idealism. Is there no idealism in France, in Holland and in the other democratic countries of Europe which have been under a compulsory system for many years and yet have been the
  56
  homes of some of the most forward and idealistic conceptions that have ever been preached in Europe? It cannot be said that a Measure of this sort can have those far-reaching effects. To my mind, it will have just the very opposite effect in this country, and outside it.
  I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the realm of foreign policy. There have been many occasions for debating those matters. No amount of iteration and assertion and cross-assertion across the Floor of the House will finally decide that matter, but I think a great number of people in this country do feel that the fact that we are at peace to-day is the best justification of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. Those of us who have heard debates on the subject and have heard counsels put forward by the other side, put forward honestly and sincerely, which would have had a different effect, who have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government denounced for not taking certain forward steps as they were called at that time—when all these things are considered I feel that the country is quite able to make up its own mind on the Government's foreign policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed to find some difficulty in voting in a Measure of this character. It seems to me that when the right hon. Gentleman feels a tenderness at voting on a matter of this sort, and yet has had no hesitation in urging causes which would have precipitated war earlier, he is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I think the best thing I can do for the House is to try to run over some of the arguments which have been put forward against the Bill being now read a Second time and in support of the Amendment. I am sure that I am right in saying that the first point on which hon. Members opposite and the House require enlightenment is the necessity for this Measure. That is an issue which I propose to face and to give the reasons why I think it is necessary. I will deal, first of all, with home defence, not that home defence is the sole consideration for this Measure. We have recently entered into a number of commitments which make the matter important from every point of view as well as that of home defence. We have had a number of interesting criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

  57
  the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and others have all founded their criticisms—first of all—on an assertion with which it is not possible to disagree, namely, the great success which the Territorial Army has had in recruiting and the way in which men are nocking to the Colours. They point to the vigour and strength of the voluntary principle in this country and say that, therefore, all we have to do is to sit back and depend upon the voluntary principle—
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Why not equip them first before you sit back?
  Mr. Morrison:—which in itself would be quite sufficient for the problems of home defence. I join with hon. Members opposite in saying that the world ought to know how great is our achievement in voluntary recruiting. There is probably nothing quite like it in the world, and we ought to acquaint the world with the fact that we have this large and growing Territorial Army; but before we can be satisfied that the mere numbers and valour of the Territorial Army can secure us in present conditions other factors have to be taken into consideration. We have to examine the nature and the constitution of the Territorial and other auxiliary forces, and to take into account, also, the whole domestic background of the ordinary Territorial soldier. Until we have done that, and satisfied ourselves that that force is adequate to meet present conditions, we have not given an answer merely by proclaiming—quite properly—the extent to which the recruiting has been triumphantly successful.
  Let us look at the men of the Territorial Army. They are men who are undertaking the task, the privilege, of training themselves for the defence of their country, perhaps the only male privilege left, but on top of that they are following their ordinary avocation. The fact that they are going to drills and training at night does not relieve them from the burden, common to most of us, of providing by their exertions for their dependants. With that point in mind, it is just and inevitable that the contract of service which these men have with the State should take account of their other obligations and the whole background against which they serve. In the past it
  58
  has never been thought just by Parliament to ask them to give up their work and their homes and become full-time soldiers except in what is called a state of emergency, when a Proclamation has been issued by His Majesty declaring that a state of emergency exists. This Proclamation, when it is made, is made at a time when war is imminent, and carries with it many other implications additional to the embodiment of the Territorial Force. The responsibility of advising His Majesty to make such a Proclamation is a very grave one, and it is not one to be lightly undertaken. Our methods of mobilisation are well known abroad, and such a Proclamation, coming at a time of tension in international affairs, if wrongly timed might have the effect of precipitating grave events which otherwise might be avoided. And yet without it the Territorial Force cannot be embodied. The first point, therefore, that I would make is that we cannot simply take the total of the Territorial Army and the vitality of that patriotic fervour which is urging men to enlist to-day and say that that force is sufficient for our present defensive needs until we have examined the speed with which it can be mobilised and the background of the men who compose it.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Are you not speaking of to-morrow's Bill?
  Mr. Morrison: No, I am coming to that. The fact is that the Territorial Army is an instrument which was framed in times when we could expect comparatively long notice of any attack upon this country, but we have seen recently sudden attacks, unheralded, which have extinguished the independence of countries. Those countries were smaller and less formidable than our own, but, still, it is evident that to-day we must take account of the new element of speed of attack, and must ask ourselves whether this instrument, created under different assumptions, is adequate for the task we have to face. What I have said about the necessity of speed in mobilising might appear to be more germane to another Bill than this, but in reality the two work together in a coordinated and concerted plan of defence. Suppose we have some easier method of calling out the auxiliary forces and suppose that a time of tension is prolonged and we call up under it some part of the Territorial Army. That means that we

  59
  are asking men to leave their homes and their work and to accept a soldier's life not in time of war, when they have bargained to do so, but in times technically described as peace times.
  In war, of course, the situation is different. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about this, but I think it will be clearly appreciated that if there is a war the whole atmosphere is changed, because then all of us would be asked to do our part in securing victory; but in times like the present, when ordinary pursuits and pleasures are uncurtailed, it would seem to be asking of the Territorial soldier something for which he never bargained if he should be called up and other people are to go free. This country cannot rest its defence upon an unfair assumption that men who have volunteered for something so different should bear this burden alone. The real problem of home defence in the times in which we live seems to be this: in recent years we have always proceeded on two assumptions, first, that we are secure from invasion because of our sea power and our command of the sea, and, second, that we shall always have adequate and reasonable notice of the possibility of any attack. Neither of those two assumptions is as true as it used to be. Our Navy holds the sea as never before, but the aeroplane is a new and a swift weapon. Recent experience has shown how swiftly attacks can be launched. There is need to-day, in these conditions, for a force which can be permanently on duty if we are to be satisfied with our defences.
  But these two factors are only new on a very short view of our history as a nation. Our nation has made headway and preserved its peculiar liberties on an ever-broadening basis through years in which it was never possible to say that we were absolutely secure from invasion or that we should always have knowledge of attack. From the days of King Alfred, to go no further back, right up to the Battle of Trafalgar, we were never sure for long that we should be free from invasion, but all the time when that danger did exist in one form or another the obligation of compulsory service with the Militia was a part of the constitution of this country. I hope hon. Members will not press me to say how far back into our history the conception of the Militia goes, but in all times of danger
  60
  when invasion was possible one of the mainstays of the security of this country and one of the best guardians of its liberties has been the Militia.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is old enough to remember the obloquy with which Militiamen used to be discussed up to very recent times?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not remember that. When I was a boy there were many of my neighbours and friends in the Militia, and it was not regarded as a cause of obloquy. It was merely following out one of the primary duties when the need comes, to defend our country- It was only as late as 1921 that the obligation to ballot for the Militia was finally done away with by this House.
  To put it in another way: To secure the safety of this country we have to mould our defences to meet modern conditions, and we can no longer afford to think of peace on the one hand and war on the other without making some preparation for a period of tension which may not lead to war, but which is not accurately described either as peace or as war. We are making that provision for our defences, and to meet that new problem, by creating a force in a form which has never yet failed to do its duty to the country in a time of danger to our liberties. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, have propounded other ways of meeting this difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley drew attention to our resources of ex-service men and suggested that we could call upon them to form this permanent-duty guard. I have every sympathy with such suggestions, and I have no doubt at all that if those men were called upon they would come; but two considerations seem to militate against the idea.
  I suppose it is true to say that every man who fought in the last War feels today that if the necessity came he would do the same again, and I have no doubt that if matters came to the push these men would do so. We feel that we could drop back 25 years of our lives and again put ourselves to school to learn these new and strange weapons that have evolved since our day. There is no doubt that in any general trouble ex-service men would play a great part in the country's safety,

  61
  but the idea of employing them for the purpose that has been suggested is chastened in my mind by the recollection of the, so to speak, affectionate pity with which, in 1914, we regarded those old dug-outs of 45 to 55 years of age, who so incongruously, as we thought in our ignorance, intruded themselves into our Tanks at that time; and however fit we may ourselves feel now, we must remember that we have 25 years less in which to be of service to our country than we had in 1914. The future is undoubtedly with the young men, and it is their valour and enterprise which will preserve our country after the right hon. Gentleman and I have suffered that imperceptible dissolution which, they say, is the not unhappy fate of old soldiers.
  Mr. Attlee: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite addressed himself to one specific point that I put, which was that older men, apart from their fitness for general service, should do the more sedentary tasks associated with anti-aircraft defence.
  Mr. Morrison: That was a point put by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am suggesting to him that we have not to ask for the older men to train for this new form of warfare with these new weapons. We have to ask the young to do so, because it is upon them that the duty of defending their country will fall in the future.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: What about the ex-Territorials?
  Mr. Morrison: Undoubtedly there are reserves of trained men there which can be used in an emergency, but it is wrong to face this position by asking those ex-Territorials to come up and stay night and day for this work when they are perhaps, as older men, responsible heads of families. I believe that there is no way which is both just and efficient of meeting this new problem save the one which we are proposing to the House.
  I have dealt with the matter from the point of view of home defence, but that is only one side of it. I am not going to elaborate upon the other side because that has been put to the House very often. In regard to our difficulties in foreign affairs, the power to assist our friends is closely related to the problem of home defence, but our base must be secured if that power is to be brought
  62
  into action. With regard to the effect abroad, there is no doubt that our proposal has done more than anything to remove doubts, induced perhaps by propaganda, that we mean exactly what our guarantee says and that all the other measures of a defensive character that we are taking are putting our country in a position to fulfil those pledges in the letter and in the spirit. It is right and proper for hon. Members to draw attention to the immense forces of other kinds that we have, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, but it so happens that in many foreign countries the touchstone of the real resolution of a nation to defend itself from aggression is taken, over most of the world, to lie in the question, "Are you prepared to subject yourselves to compulsory military training or not?" That is how the matter is regarded abroad, and we, therefore, cannot be surprised that this Measure has had the effect of encouraging and stabilising the determination of those who, with us, reject that impossible and intolerable conception of a world dominated by force or by threats of force. Surely a Measure like this, which I hope I have shown is necessary, and which has had a great effect in encouraging those friends of a just and fearless Europe, is sufficiently justified. I have no doubt that it has the support of the country as a whole.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. George Griffiths: We have been out in the country these two week-ends.
  Mr. Morrison: I am sure that it has the support of the young men. Many a young men who will come up under this proposal would not have come up otherwise, although he may be as patriotic as any volunteer. Many a man says that as the Government have asked him to come, he is very willing to do so. The truth is that our voluntary system very frequently confronts young men with an extremely difficult conflict of loyalties in their own minds. They are as anxious to serve the country as anyone, but they have been brought up to have regard to other kinds of call upon their honour and their integrity, and it is very difficult for a young man sometimes to see which way his duty lies in a question of this sort.
  I remember quite well during the War how sick I sometimes used to get at a lot of ignorant persecution by public opinion

  63
  of the men who, in the voluntary days, did not clearly see their way to join up. It was very easy to criticise them, but unless you could get into their minds and see how they had weighed up one thing against another, you were in no position to judge them. I believe that such people often suffered agonies of mind, and when I put myself in their place I used to wonder whether, while it was very easy for me to volunteer, I should have acted in a different way if I had been situated as they were. I cannot say as to that, but I do feel that it will be rendering this country a very great service if the House says: "We desire to give everyone within the stated ages an opportunity to undergo military training. There will be no exceptions on grounds of wealth or any other distinction. We will look after your jobs and your dependants." I believe the House will in that way be resolving many a painful conflict of decision and will, curiously enough, make these young men free and equal to do what they want to do, which is to serve the country in its hour of need.
  In the minds of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley and others there has been the fear that, somehow or other, the passing of this Measure would affect that code of civil liberties of which the position of the trade unions is one very important feature. I can well understand those fears, and I have done my best to appreciate the point of view that is put; but I am bound to express my conviction that there is absolutely nothing in those fears in regard to the present Measure. In general, authoritarian régimes abroad, and the consequent extinction of trade union privileges, have not risen as a result only of conscription; they have been the work of political parties, and very often with private armies to enforce their decisions. The danger to liberty and to the trade unions is not from the public army which is under democratic control, but is from the private army or the party army, and I, therefore, say to those who hold those fears that the arguments, when the matter is examined, seem to be all the other way. The stronger, in reason, the force under democratic control, the less chance there is for the private army or the party army to rear its ugly head in our country. Mutual good faith is the basis of our society, and is the only thing that tan make the force of democracy strong.
  64
  Owing to something, I know not what it is, in our nature, some trait of, individual reserve, perhaps accentuated by the intense specialisation of the arts and crafts of our complicated and complex civilisation, our education in each other's point of view—I have found this to be the case—is deficient, particularly in the years when lessons are most eagerly learned and when they are most vital. I can conceive of nothing better to fill this blank in our education than the Bill which is now before us, because it will bring together young men of the same age who will be treated in exactly the same way in regard to housing, clothing, and food. They will have ample leisure in which they can get to know each other, in that spirit of comradeship which never fails to animate a body of British men when brought together. That is most valuable in creating a keen spirit of mutual understanding of each other's point of view and respect for each other's opinions, and often of affection for each other, which is, after all, the basis of our nation. I hope that for these reasons I may commend the Bill to the House.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Lloyd George: It is with a feeling of personal regret that I find myself differing from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but I have a deep conviction which is the result of a good many years' experience and represents a conclusion that I came to many years ago when I was a Minister of the Crown even before the last War. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House had constantly taunted the Government with shirking great responsibilities, and had urged the Government boldly to face those responsibilities what ever the consequences. I am one of those who took part in those reproaches. I do not regret them; I do not apologise for them; for my part, I am prepared to follow them right through to their logical consequences. We have repeatedly urged the Government to stand up to the marauding States that were tearing up and devouring independent and free communities which were friends of ours; and when they ask for powers and means which, in my judgment, are essential for that purpose, I feel in duty bound to support them.

  65
  I shall certainly criticise the Measure in detail. I have been firmly of the opinion, from the moment when the Prime Minister, in reply to my question, gave the actual numbers of those who were summoned, that it was grossly inadequate to the emergency. I am not sure that that will reconcile me any the more to the criticisms of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but I am bound to express that opinion. So far as I have followed the discussion, there is no challenge on the principle; the challenge is on the question whether it is essential at this stage to put it into operation, and there is a very considerable challenge in regard to the method in which it was introduced. From all I have heard in the country—I am not quoting the fact that I have had communications from my own friends; they are pretty tolerant of one who has represented them for nearly half a century, and, therefore, I am not quoting my own friends, but I have heard from others—there is no strong feeling manifest. On the principle of the right of the State to call upon citizens to sacrifice wealth, property, comfort, amenity and even life when its honour was involved, or when there was a question of international right, freedom and the ideals of civilisation, there was no criticism of that right.
  In the only case I have heard of where there was a very strong feeling of objection, it was on two grounds.
  The first was that the method in which it was introduced involved a charge of breach of faith—that my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House had never been consulted before the decision was taken. Although they had been consulted before with regard to armaments, and appealed to to help in every way, as the representatives of trade unions in this country can, on this occasion they were never invited until the actual decision was taken. That was resented very bitterly, and I feel that it is a great misfortune that the Measure should have been introduced in such a way as rather to exacerbate a controversy which I believe would never have been seriously raised but for that. The second objection—it was rather an apprehension.—was that it would lead to industrial conscription. These were the two objections that I have heard.
  As far as the principle is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out,
  66
  every democratic country on the Continent of Europe has adopted it. It is not a Conservative Measure. The largest conscript army in Europe—in the world—is a Communist army. The French Army, which is probably the finest conscript army in the world, was more or less founded by Liberal statesmen, some of them moderate, some of them very advanced. They worked it up into the magnificent condition in which it is at the present moment. The army which corresponds most nearly to the one which will be created by the Measure of the Government is in a country which is un-challengeably democratic, which has had Socialist Governments, which had as its Prime Minister one of the greatest Socialists I have ever met, Mr. Branting, the Socialist Prime Minister of Sweden, and which, I believe, has a Socialist Government at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] From such observation as I have been able to make, and such information as I have derived from the events of the last War, I do not agree that the conscript does not fight just as well as the volunteer. One of the greatest defences ever made in the world, the defence of Verdun, was conducted by a conscript army. It was an army mainly of conscripts that checked the terrific attack which the German Army made upon us in March, 1918. Many of them were raw recruits. My right hon. Friend was with me on the quay at Boulogne, where we saw a number of young fellows of 18½ marching to battle. They played a magnificent part in withstanding the victorious veterans of Germany, and they stopped them. It was a conscript army that stormed the Hindenburg Line, the most formidable fortifications ever erected on a battlefield. There is no justification for suggesting that conscripts cannot fight for ideals just as well as volunteers. Therefore, I take the line that it is my duty to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  You have to defend freedom, which has been challenged—the freedom of the world. We all accepted that statement, and we were very glad to hear it made; it was an acknowledgment and confirmation of the position we had taken up. But you cannot defend the freedom of the world to the limit of the Super-tax and then let it drop. You cannot even do it to the limit of those who are willing, unless you are going to abandon the part

  67
  which a great country like this is bound to play in the civilisation of mankind. We have not voted against rearmament. From the moment that we accepted the position that it was essential, not merely for the security of this country but for the safety of civilisation, from the moment that we accepted the position that it was necessary for us to embark on the greatest programme of rearmament that this country has ever contemplated—from that moment we accepted also the necessity for taking measures to secure a sufficient number of men to handle those armaments. Voluntary effort could not do it; it certainly could not do it in time. One criticism of voluntary effort—it goes beyond this Bill—is that it is only successful after the emergency has arisen, when there is no time for training. In quiet times, you cannot recruit a sufficient number of men by voluntary means. Take what happened before, and even after, the emergency arose last year. The Regular Army was under strength, and the Territorials, even though their establishment had been reduced in comparison with the pre-war period—that is my recollection—were far below strength, and an adequate number of men could not be secured. It is only when a country is frightened that you can get a flow of volunteers to the flag, but it is too late then to train them.
  I should be the last man in the world to disparage the part which the Territorials took in the last War. Their valour did them the utmost credit, considering that they were, on the whole, amateurs compared with armies that had received two years' training, and a good deal more. What was the result? Their chances of victory were halved, their casualties were doubled. They flung themselves with dauntless gallantry at barbed wire and deep entrenchments. They never failed, but a great many fell; and many more fell than would have been the case if they had had a sufficient training to take full advantage of what a trained soldier is educated to do. Take the battle of the Somme. We should not have dared to put the Territorials into the Battle of Ypres, which was the first great battle of the War. The Channel ports depended on the result of that battle. We had not enough men, and, luckily, the Germans had not. We fought each other to a standstill. But we could not
  68
  put the Territorials in to fight; it would not have been fair. That was two months after the War began. The first great battle in which they took a considerable part was about 10 months after the War began. The first battle where the volunteers predominated over the old Army was very nearly two years after the War began. It is worth while considering whether, if the world is to remain in the threatening condition that it is in now, we ought not to reconsider altogether the policy of training for war. I put forward certain proposals in 1911. They were more or less on the lines of this Bill. They had the acceptance of the late Mr. Asquith, who was my chief then, and of the principal leaders of the Liberal party. With the consent of Mr. Asquith, I submitted them to Mr. Balfour, who was the leader of the Conservative party then. The whole story is told in the life of the Prime Minister's brother.
  Mr. Benn: And it was totally unknown to the party itself.
  Mr. Lloyd George: But the leaders of the party were consulted on the subject; and, with the consent of the Prime Minister of the day, I sent the proposals along to Mr. Balfour for consideration by the leaders of his party. At any rate then, they were favourably inclined, but unfortunately they consulted men who were very important inside their own party, but not outside—pure party men—and the result was that the proposals did not go through, but were referred back for further consideration. If they had gone through, we should have had 1,500,000 trained men in August, 1914, and rifles, the necessary officers, and guns. However, there it is.
  It is now too late to effect any change in the military position. I wish it were possible to think that we had three years to spare for reconsideration of that problem. The issue will be decided, one way or the other, before that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Saturday:
  "We must be ready in the first hour."
  When did he discover that? Since when has it been his policy? In September, the first hour of a terrific conflict very nearly struck. We were all expecting it. We thought it was inevitable. Were we ready for that first hour when it came? We had not the necessary aeroplanes to

  69
  protect our capital from destruction; we had not the necessary pilots for those aeroplanes that we had; we had no antiaircraft guns, if we had had enough men. We could save the situation only by throwing the independence of Czechoslovakia into the works to prevent the clock striking.
  It has been rather indicated that we were better prepared than in 1914. Let us face that issue, because it has a great deal to do with this Bill. In 1914 we had discussed with France, and, through France, with Russia—because they had military arrangements between them—the part we were to play. I heard that part expounded before the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1911, three years before the War began. We were contemplating a war with Austria and Germany. The French Army was to tackle Germany on the eastern boundaries of France. We were to send an expeditionary force, which was to number 150,000—that is all. Russia was to put 800,000 on the other front of Germany. Every detail was worked out three years before the War.
  Mr. MacLaren: The cats are coming out of the bags to-day.
  Mr. McGovern: Did you know that Belgium was to be invaded?
  Mr. Lloyd George: That did not make any difference. It was a question of war against Germany if she were to attack on her western front. Not only that, but the expeditionary force was ready. When the clock struck they went across the seas; they were not a moment behind. The same could not be stated about the position five or six months ago; there were no preparations then. In 1914, we were to take command of the seas. That was left to us, with such support as the French Navy could afford to us. We discharged our obligations in every particular, and a great deal more. When Belgium collapsed, when the French Army also collapsed and was overthrown, then we had to reconsider the whole man-power problem; but we had Russia there, holding the fort until we were ready.
  I should like to know—and I think the whole of the present situation depends upon this—upon what basis of assumption the Government have put these figures into their Bill? I know quite well that
  70
  the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should not discuss foreign affairs, and I believe, if I may say so, Sir, that it would be quite out of order to discuss the merits of our foreign affairs. But foreign affairs are essential as a basis of any plan of operation. To that extent, we are entitled to discuss them without discussing the merits. I am going to ask, what is the assumption upon which we are framing our plans. It is vital that we should know. In 1914, we knew what forces were marshalled on both sides. Turkey had not come in on one side; Italy had not come in on our side. They came into the war later. They disturbed the calculations; but the calculations upon which all the Governments on both sides had framed their plans, their schemes, and their estimates was that the Central Powers would be confronted by France, ourselves and Russia. We had the command of the Seas: we had a dominant Navy; we had a small Army. The others were quite satisfied with that. France and Russia between them had a greater number of trained men than the Central Powers.
  What is the position now? I am taking it exactly as it is, Russia being out. Russia is out. The Prime Minister and his Government have guaranteed to go to the aid of Poland, Rumania and Greece. If Herr Hitler were to strike to-morrow, what would be the forces ranged on both sides? I ask the House in all gravity to consider that situation. We should have France ready, with a very great Army, highly trained, well equipped, brilliantly led. Then there would be Poland. I do not want to disparage the Poles, but nobody will say that theirs is as good an army, even in quality, as the French. Their equipment is not as good as the French. Ourselves, I doubt whether we could send to the Continent the same force as we did in 1914: certainly not more, when we have to take into account the reserves we have to keep at home to fill up the gaps. What have you got on the other side? You have got the immense army of Germany. You have got the Army of Italy which, according to all accounts—and I have asked French officers who have seen it—is twice as powerful an army as it was in 1915. It is more numerous, better disciplined, better trained, more experienced, and its equipment, which was not good then, is infinitely better now.

  71
  That is not the end of it. I do hope that the Government have taken these facts into account. Germany and Italy have not merely completed a military alliance: they have announced it. It is a challenge. Their staffs have been meeting. That is not the first meeting of their staffs. There have been others. One or two have been announced. They have got their plans made. Then there is Spain. We were told Spain would have nothing whatever to do with the Axis, that she will be seeking the finance of Great Britain, that she will be more friendly to us. She has joined the Axis. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] She has joined the Axis and has announced it like the others. Take the first two nations. They have concluded a military alliance. The number of men at their disposal is twice that which France and Poland and ourselves could put into the field. If Spain does not come in actively, is there a French Minister that would dare treat her as if she were a friendly or even a reliable neutral? Is there a French general who would not, in the arrangements of his forces, have to take into account that there was a potential enemy on the Pyrenees, even if Spain did not actively come in? France would have to defend herself on the Italian frontier and get considerable forces to protect her on her southern flank, and she would only have 150,000 men to support her attack on Germany to relieve Poland.
  And Russia is out. I ventured a short time ago—I am sorry to say that it annoyed some of my Friends opposite, but I felt bound to do it—to say that without Russia that was an impossible guarantee. Without Russia those three guarantees to Poland, to Rumania and to Greece are the most reckless commitments that any country has ever entered into. I will say more. They are demented pledges that cannot be redeemed with this enormous deficiency, this great gap between the forces arrayed on the other side and the forces which at the present moment we could put in. What do we offer? To build more armaments, and to provide 200,000 conscripts in leisurely instalments of 50,000. It is madness. I now challenge the Secretary of State for War—[An HON. MEMBER: "Leave him alone!"] I challenge the Secretary of State for War to tell the House this: Did the General Staff advise the Govern-
  72
  ment before they entered into these commitments that they were safe, that they were redeemable and that there was the slightest chance of achieving victory? If they ever did, they ought to be removed from the War Office and confined to a lunatic asylum. They are utterly impossible without Russia.
  We are not at the end of the things that we have to consider, and I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat this with the seriousness which they may discover it is worthy of receiving. We leave out the East as if it will not count in the least in our computations. Japan has said, "We are not concerned with Europe. We are not going to send forces to help the Axis. All we are interested in is the East." This was hailed with great glee by people who never gave a thought to what it meant. I ask those who may have a spare moment and would like to study what I am saying to them now to take down a map of Asia. I will tell you what they will find. Let them follow through the Japanese march from the north, pointing like a spearhead down towards our frontiers. They have marched, since the present Government came into power—I do not mean merely the right hon. Gentleman but I am talking about the reign of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—nearly 2,000 miles towards the frontier of India. They have got the Yangtse. It is navigable hundreds of miles beyond the point which they have reached. They are not so far away.
  Their only interest is in the East. They do not want to help Germany or Italy. What do they care about Poland? They are one of the dictator countries, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, who are out for dominance, and they mean to dominate the East. The last time we were at war we had the reinforcement of one million from India. We were practically able to leave to them the defence of our interests in Egypt, in Palestine, and in Mesopotamia. As to the French, the Japanese are within a few square miles of their frontier. Nobody is taking much notice. The French last time had half a million men from their Indo-China Empire helping them. How are you going to fill these graps? Russia out, and Japan out, an enemy marching straight down in that direction. It is the greatest menace we have ever had to our Empire in the East. How are we going

  73
  to fill that gap? By a conscript army of 200,000 men which you will start calling up in a short time in packets of 50,000. I beg of the Government—I did it once before—to remember that in a great war it is a question of arraying on your side as many forces as you possibly can from every quarter of the globe. My hon. Friend behind says they do not want them.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: I said: "They did not want them."
  Mr. Lloyd George: You need Russia, but you do not want Russia. Without her, there are two alternatives. If you are called upon to redeem these pledges, maybe in a few days or perhaps in a few weeks, you have two alternatives—to face certain disaster or to skulk from your pledge as you did before. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The pledge to guarantee the frontiers of Czechoslovakia. Have you already forgotten Munich, which was said to be a great triumph for the Government? Why all this tarry when the hour may arrive immediately? Why do we linger? Why do we loiter? Why do we chatter as if we were in a bazaar, when the need is so urgent? Why, I ask?
  The right hon. Gentleman behind me, in his speech the week before last, talked about dawdling. Yes, they are dawdling. They dawdled over the rebuilding of our Air Fleet and over armaments. They dawdled with the Ministry of Supply, which everybody realises is an essential part of any great scheme of rearmament. They dawdled for three years before they accepted it. They are dawdling now over Russia, and yet they could not spare one day to consult men who had been supporting them loyally in their programme of rearmament. My hon. Friends below the Gangway at any rate represent 1,750,000 voters. The Government had no time. They broke the pledge without even discussing the matter, when it was important to get real national unity and to secure behind them those powerful interests which I know from experience could in the last War have wrecked our efforts if they had legitimate ground for disgruntlement. The Prime Minister could not spend a day on that. But he flew to Berchtesgaden. He flew to Munich, but he had no time even to consult Czecho-Slovakia whether she would like to be exterminated. To adapt a
  74
  phrase used about a Prime Minister of the eighteenth century he is "Often in a hurry, always late, and entirely inadequate." His own supporters have driven him out of the position that he has stubbornly defended.
  I cannot see any sign at the present time that the Government have worked out this problem. Who is with them? What force can they put into the field? How can they get them there? What would happen if the Straits of Gibraltar were blocked? On the other side they know exactly how we are situated. Hitler and Mussolini have never been taken in by the optimistic slosh which has been ladled out for several years and accepted by hon. Members in this House as satisfactory. They know all these facts. I ask the Government now whether they will complete the only combination which would give us a chance of triumph, which would give us a chance of carrying out the engagements the Government have entered into; a combination which would secure a triumph if it were effected wholeheartedly, and without the sort of suggestion: "Well, we rather dislike having anything to do with you."
  The Prime Minister is very critical when he is questioned. The time came for the abandonment of appeasement; but there are signs of a resurrection and not a glorious one. The "Times" has once more been mobilised. Letters are coming in, preaching appeasement. My old friend, Sir John Marriott, with ingenuousness, makes it quite clear that he has written a letter at the request of private friends. There are other appearances of the usual work-up. Had we not better carry through our engagements and take the necessary measures to do so effectively? The Prime Minister is very angry when questions are put. He is petulant and, as far as I can see from reading his answers, he is rather peevish. He has no right to object. He attacked me for even asking a question about the numbers to be conscripted. I am a little personally offensive myself at times, and I am the last one to complain of the right hon. Gentleman; but he reminded me that it is a very long time since I held office, and suggested that that may have affected my views. Well, the public memory is notoriously short, and the Prime Minister has good reason to congratulate himself that there has been enough time to forget our

  75
  respective contributions in the last great emergency.
  I can assure the Prime Minister that when my hon. and right hon. Friends behind me ask questions, they represent a good deal more than their own party. They represent a very deep anxiety in the country. They represent a very deep dubiety. There is not quite the same confidence in the Prime Minister as a man who gets things done, as there was before. He has no diplomatic triumph in his record but he has several very bad failures, and when we ask questions on behalf of millions of very anxious people in this country let him remember that this country is ours as well as his.
  5.50 p.m.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I followed the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) with great interest. I wish I had his eloquence to tell quite a different tale. I should like to tell him that for the last 30 years I have been an ardent advocate of compulsory national service and training for young men. I followed the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I would say at the outset that he will be remembered in history for the determination and will to win which he displayed in the last years of the Great War. I believe also that he will be remembered in history for what will be regarded as the very dangerous speech he has delivered to-day. If that speech means what he undoubtedly intended it to mean, it is an argument for conscription on a far wider scale than is intended in this Bill.
  I believe that this Bill will be a landmark in the history of our people, and that when they see how greatly the young men benefit in body and spirit by training and discipline, it will dawn on the nation that national training is an obligation that should be shared by all the community. When this state of emergency has passed, I hope the value of the proposition which I made in this House some time ago will be recognised, namely, that on leaving school every boy who has not gained his proficiency certificate in an officers' training corps should be given six months' physical and military training before entering civil life. This would provide a splendid groundwork for intensive military training, should it be necessary to
  76
  call upon them to defend their country in case of emergency. Whether they subsequently wish to join the Army or to go into civil life, they will have benefited greatly by the training, and will be far better equipped than they otherwise would have been.
  I welcome the Bill as a first step towards real national training and service on the basis of equality of sacrifice for all. Since it establishes an obligation on the part of every youth of 20 to 21 to fit himself to fight for the security of his country, if need be, the principle of national service for all citizens is accepted, and I hope that a national register will now be undertaken in order that men and women may know what they will be expected to do if they are called up for service in time of emergency, and so that they may be trained as soon as possible for the duties they will have to perform. During the past two years the Government have made great efforts to restore our defences, but the building of ships and the production of aircraft, guns, mechanised weapons and munitions are not enough unless the whole manhood of the country is organised to provide the necessary trained men and women for our defensive forces, our civil defence services, our mines, our agricultural and other essential industries.
  There is no dearth of excellent men for the Navy and the Royal Air Force, but it is necessary to have a Territorial Army for home defence, a Regular Army for the defence of our outposts, and since, with the approval of the whole country and the loyal support of the Opposition, we are pledged to carry out the guarantees that we have given, against aggression, we need an expeditionary force, with adequate reserves. Some hon. Members may recollect the great difficulty we had during the South African war in providing enough troops to bring that war to a successful issue. They will remember the expedients to which the Government of the day were forced in order to raise sufficient troops. Regiments of yeomanry, consisting of immature boys and young men, were raised and went out to fight alongside Regular seasoned soldiers, who received one-third or one-fourth of the pay which the Yeomanry were receiving. That was not satisfactory. After the South African war a Royal Commission was appointed

  77
  and it is appropriate at this present juncture that I should read an extract from the report which was laid before both Houses of Parliament in 1904:
  "The principles which have been adopted, since the distressing failure of older methods, by every great State of the European Continent, are, that as far as possible the whole able-bodied male population should be trained to arms, and that the training should be given in a period of continuous service with the Colours, not necessarily in barracks.
  Later on the Commission say:
  "We are convinced that only by the adoption of these principles, an Army for home defence adequate in strength and military efficiency to defeat an invader can be raised and maintained in the United Kingdom."
  If that was necessary then, how much more necessary is it now when we have given guarantees to Continental nations which we are in honour bound to fulfil? There is no doubt that immunity for generations from defeat on sea has bred in our island a sense of security which the advent of air power has undoubtedly dispelled. Down the centuries Great Britain has almost invariably been drawn into a Continental war. Lord Roberts, alive to the lessons of history, spent the last years of his life in advocating compulsory national training for young men. How infinitely better we should have been if our rulers in those days had also had the vision of the danger of war which nearly overwhelmed us in 1914. If our young men had been trained, if we had had armies to take the field at once instead of having to devote several months to their training before they were fit to go to the assistance of the hard-pressed little army which, short of guns and ammunition, was almost overwhelmed in the first months of the War and which suffered incredible hardships as a consequence, how much better prepared we should have been.
  Compulsory military training had to be resorted to many years ago by Continental nations after the distressing failure of older methods in order to protect their frontiers. After a long period of immunity, thanks to our insular position and to our sea power, we are now being driven by modern and swift methods of warfare to adopt the principles recommended by the Royal Commission in 1904, if we are to survive and preserve the freedom and liberties which the people of this country enjoy to a greater extent than any other
  78
  European nation. It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Socialist and Liberal Oppositions. Ever since I have been in the House they have talked about collective security and advocated action which could only lead to war, in which a weak Britain could not have collected any armed allies. Until last year they resisted rearmament with which our fighting services could have fought a war only under terrible disadvantages. I am reminded by an hon. Friend that Members of the Liberal party did not resist rearmament, but certainly the Socialists did. Now, when we have collected allies, they are resisting and impeding the only possible way to make rearmament effective, the only way in which to convince our allies and our enemies that Great Britain is prepared to play her part in collective action, and be able to take action immediately, instead of being ready only some months after the declaration of war and after those countries in the neighbourhood of the aggressors had been overwhelmed and destroyed.
  At a time when France was apparently torn with internal strife Signor Mussolini threatened her, and made outrageous claims upon her. But France, seeing the red light of danger, swept aside all political differences and took steps to organise her industries and man-power, which fortunately for her had already been trained under conscription, to defend France and enable her to fulfil her guarantees. Is it surprising that we should be expected to implement our guarantees by introducing compulsory military training, or that some of the small nations, whose man-power is conscripted and who live in mortal fear of their aggressor neighbours, should hesitate to link their fate with ours until we are in a position to go to their help before they are overwhelmed? I am surprised that the Opposition cannot realise what a sorry spectacle they are presenting to the country and to the world by opposing this essential Measure. They tell us that all the men we require can be got by the voluntary method. If that is so, I ask is it fair? I have the greatest admiration for those young men, thousands in number, who volunteer to give up a few hours for training in a week and a few days in camp, mostly at the expense of their employers, but is it fair to regard these men so trained as fit to meet the highly trained troops of Continental nations until they have undergone

  79
  some months of intensive military training such as will be provided by the Bill? Would it be fair to them or to their employers if 200,000 Territorials were called up and the shirkers and conscientious objectors got their places? I do not think so. At least the Bill makes that impossible.
  We would have had a few hundred thousand trained men to-day and be in a much safer position and would probably been spared some bitter humiliations if the Bill had been passed a year ago, immediately after Herr Hitler annexed Austria and when it was obvious that he intended to go forward step by step until he had completed his programme as set forth in "Mein Kampf," or even after Munich, when was was narrowly averted, and when we were in a state of emergency and the country ready to make any sacrifices. After Herr Hitler annexed Czecho-Slovakia and plundered her gold and armaments and threatened Rumania and Poland, it was obvious that there was much more to come and the Prime Minister's statement on 31st March was admirably supported by the Opposition and had the wholehearted approval of the country. It was a declaration of war against aggression. There are certain immutable principles in the conduct of war, and a swift counter-attack was inevitable. It was certainly not the moment for the complacent optimism which prevailed. The declaration of 31st March should have been followed immediately by precautions and preparations for war. These could not be put into effect under the voluntary system, which the Prime Minister considered himself pledged to maintain in peace time.
  We are now no longer in a state of peace with aggression and, therefore, I think the Prime Minister should have been absolved from his pledge in order to introduce compulsory national training at once. Everyone knows, however, that it was the Opposition's hostility to any form of compulsion and their threat that it would interfere with the production of munitions by trade unionists and thus stop the progress of rearmament, which was responsible for the Government's hesitation to undertake a step which would be imperative and inevitable if war came, but which would certainly be far too late under the swift and ruth-
  80
  less methods of war as conducted by the dictators. Each of Herr Hitler's strokes has been preceded by a treacherous and lying declaration that he had no designs at all on the country he was about to invade. Signor Mussolini followed Herr Hitler's technique very faithfully before he annexed Albania. There was a period of calm optimism before the next act of flagrant aggression became a fait accompli, which we were powerless to avert. I saw in a Sunday newspaper Herr Hitler's technique described as "lull and grab."
  Mr. Ellis Smith: You encourage them on your side.
  Sir R. Keyes: No, by supporting this Bill we shall make him think twice, because I hope the Bill is the beginning of a much wider form of conscription. The next act of aggression by the dictators may come as a surprise, we may find ourselves at war at very short notice. Yet, five weeks after Great Britain has declared that we will go to the assistance of certain nations to resist aggression, we are still debating a measure which is a vital essential to our being able to resist such aggression, and the Opposition, or at any rate their leaders, are impeding and resisting the only possible way of giving security to our own country and of honouring the guarantees we have given towards collective security for which they have always been pleading but which until these guarantees were arranged was nothing but a catchword.
  We were unprepared at the outbreak of the last Great War, but thanks to the sacrifices of our Regular Army and the ability of the Navy to command the seas, we had six months' grace during which men could be voluntarily trained and munition factories organised. But the flower of our manhood suffered terribly before conscription was introduced to bring in the less willing. Imagine the feeling of a man who came back from the filth and horror and risks of the trenches, or a man who came back home from a patrol in the mined waters, finding men and women earning 10 and 20 times as much pay as he did, and striking for more and holding up supplies. Why should some be conscripted to fight and others not compelled to work in the same cause?
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Were you conscripted?
  Sir R. Keyes: I have been in the Navy since I was 12½ years of age, and my sons of 20 and 21 are both in the Service. [Interruption.] I know that many hon. Members opposite really share my views.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: You do not share your wealth.
  Sir R. Keyes: I have very little capital. The greater part of my wealth is a pension I get for having risen to the top of the tree in the Navy after 52 years of service. It is a fraction of the salary which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gets for making the position of the Government, in their negotiations with Russia and other countries far more difficult, and for opposing a Bill which he knows in his heart to be necessary.
  Mr. Butcher: May I be allowed to say that part of my hon. and gallant Friend's wealth is the respect with which people in this House and outside regard him for his services to the country at a time of great danger?
  Sir R. Keyes: There is no more rigid form of compulsion than that which is exercised by the trade unions, which compel men to join them, or start strikes in order to prevent men who do not join them from working. The trade unions compel men to pay from their wages a levy which is used for political purposes.
  Mr. Maclean: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not the case that an Act of Parliament was passed which made it impossible for anyone to pay a political levy, and is it not the case that it is only voluntary payments that can be made to maintain the Labour party?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): It is true that such an Act was passed, but the hon. and gallant Member is now getting very far from the subject under discussion.
  Sir R. Keyes: I was developing my argument, which is that the Socialist party object to compulsion for military training, but exercise compulsion in the trade unions. I repeat that they take a levy from trade unionists and use it for political purposes in connection with which the individual members have nothing to say.
  Mr. T. Williams: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled
  82
  persistently to declare that the trade unions are enforcing a political levy, when it is well known to him and to every other hon. Member that no trade unionist can be compelled to pay a political levy, unless he definitely expresses his willingness to do so, and signs to that effect?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I said before that I thought the hon. and gallant Member was getting very far from the Bill.
  Mr. Silverman: Further to the point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Member, when he has made a misstatement, to persist in that misstatement after he has been corrected from the Chair?
  Mr. Marshall: Further to the point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said something which is really a travesty of the position. I think that in the interests of truth he ought to withdraw.
  Sir R. Keyes: I have simply stated what I have been told by a great many of my friends in the trade unions. Having raised and taxed a large army, they appear to be unable to discipline it. For example, the Siemens' strike—a strike in which the men went against their leaders—held up a vast quantity of electrical equipment required for armament purposes. I think that was an outrage.
  Mr. Maclean: Was it not an outrage when seamen trade unionists were used by the Coalition Government to prevent MacDonald from going to Russia?
  Sir R. Keyes: I have the greatest admiration for the vast majority of the trade unionists. I have many friends among them. I know that they are loyal and patriotic people who are spoiling to see aggression defeated, and a great many of them would willingly see some form of national service made compulsory. They consider that it would be the fairest arrangement. For instance, a friend of mine came back from France, badly wounded, and rejoined his trade in a certain district in which he is now leader, and he told me that he found that men who were shirkers or conscientious objectors had joined the union and were stirring up strife in that district and spoiling the game for the regular trade unionists. If hon. Members opposite say that there is going to be trouble in the trade unions,

  83
  then my answer is that it is up to them to stop it, for they have practically unlimited power. The trade unions could withdraw their ticket from disloyal and unpatriotic members. I am sorry to have fallen foul of the Opposition, but I am trying to put the point of view of hundreds of thousands of their own supporters, who agree with me. As a result of my personal experience in going about towns in industrial areas, I think I represent their views more faithfully than do hon. Members opposite.
  In conclusion, I welcome this Bill, which I think will be a turning-point in our national life. I think a far wider form of national service will be accepted as part of the life of our country. Conditions now are entirely different from what they were in the old days when our sea-power protected us against invasion. We have to realise that there are three powerful aggressive nations which are determined to get what they want by war or the threat of war, and we must be prepared to resist them with all the strength we can accumulate. We cannot afford to wait as we did in 1914. The whole country must be organised. I believe that if the Government went much farther than they have done in this Measure and introduced really national compulsory service, it would be welcomed by the vast majority of the people of the country.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I was somewhat impressed in listening to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). They played a great part in the last War, one of them on the civil and administrative side, and the other as the greatest sailor produced by this country in this century. I felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was suggesting that if the Government had come to some understanding and agreement with Russia, there would have been no need for this Bill. In the first part of his speech, he spent much time in supporting the Bill, but I felt that what he said in the second part proved quite conclusively that if the Government had had the good sense to come to a definite understanding with Russia,
  84
  Russia would have provided all the men needed, and this Bill would have been unnecessary. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth understands the Navy far better than he understands the trade unions. As a trade unionist, I should never think of vying my knowledge with that of the hon. and gallant Member on naval matters, and if he will accept a suggestion from a younger Member, he will in future leave trade union matters to those who understand them.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this Bill is designed to achieve its own purpose. We are told that its purpose is to call a halt to aggression; we are told that we must pass the Bill in order to discourage Hitler and Mussolini, and in order to preserve peace, or, failing the preservation of peace, to win a war. Will the passing of the Bill do any of those things? Could we not achieve the same purpose without passing the Bill? I am opposed to the Bill for three reasons. First, it has not had the approval of the country. It is no use supporters of the Government continuing to tell us that the country is behind conscription. That is the sort of thing that is done by the dictators, who always feel that they know the minds of the people better than do the people themselves, and that they have no need to consult the people. I hope that supporters of the Government, when they think a policy is justified, are not going to pursue the line of saying that the country is behind that policy. If the electorate of the country had approved of a period of conscription, I should not consider it my job to oppose it in the House, for I am sufficient of a democrat to accept the decision of the electors. If the electors had supported conscription—if the matter had been put before them, as all questions are, and they had decided by a majority that they wanted military conscription—I should not have risen to oppose this Bill.
  We have heard a great deal about unredeemed pledges and broken promises. It is very easy to try to justify the breaking of a promise by saying that one would have kept it if things had remained just as they were when the promise was given. Last Thursday, at Question Time, I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the pledge given by his predecessor. About a week before the last General Election, the late Mr. Morgan Jones mentioned to me that he had heard rumours

  85
  that there was a possibility of the Conservative Government bringing in conscription in peace-time. At that time, the then Prime Minister was consulting me regarding mining matters, about which there was a little uneasiness, and he mentioned to me that he would deal with this matter at Wolverhampton on the following Monday, when opening the General Election campaign. At my own adoption meeting, I put a direct question to the Prime Minister—would he, in order to exclude conscription from the election campaign, state definitely whether it was his intention during the lifetime of the new government to introduce conscription? In his own blunt and bluff way, he made a clear and definite statement that that was entirely out of the question.
  The Prime Minister now says that he agrees that his predecessor gave such a pledge, but that things have changed since then. It will be a dangerous thing if we are going to claim that we can make a promise and then, when there is an alteration in circumstances at a later date, say that as things are not quite the same as they were when the pledge was given, we are not called upon to redeem it. That is not a good thing for democratic government. I can understand the Prime Minister's point of view in one sense. I should not advocate a General Election at the present time. I think it would be unwise for this country at the present time to indulge in three weeks of discussion in the country. I do not think we could trust the Axis Powers not to take advantage of such a situation. I am certain they would do so. But surely things are not as urgent to-day as has been represented. Surely we could have afforded to make one further mighty effort to meet all our requirements by voluntary service.
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War never tire of telling us that the response to the appeal for voluntary service has been magnificent and beyond all expectations. With the help of leading members of every party could not a further effort have been made? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) seemed to criticise our party because we believed voluntary service to be best and were prepared to use it, in order that the country's requirements might be met. I am satisfied that time could have been used and wisely
  86
  used in order to achieve, by voluntary effort, all that we require in the way of man-power. As I say I do not suggest that there should be an election now, but I think a bigger effort could have been made to redeem the pledge previously given on behalf of the Government.
  We are told by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that we must now broadcast abroad what the voluntary system has done, and tell the world how our young men responded to the call. I hold that we could have got as many by voluntary service as we shall by this Bill. We could have strengthened the Army to an equal extent without this Bill. I do not say that we should have got the same results numerically. We might have got fewer numbers but, in spite of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I maintain that we could have strengthened our Army by the voluntary system as much as we shall do by this Bill, if indeed we could not have done even more. On what grounds do hon. Members opposite support the Bill? I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) in his place. In justice to him I must say that he has been an advocate of conscription for a long time, but I notice that those who support the Bill are not doing so because of what is in the Bill, but because of what they think the Bill will lead to. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth, with all the frankness of the sailor, told the House that he believed in universal conscription. He went even further because he said that he would advocate, not only military but industrial conscription.
  Sir R. Keyes: For men of the same class, certainly.
  Mr. Macdonald: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the introduction of this Measure in this way will have the same great effect on the Continent as if it were being introduced as the result of a General Election? If the Bill were introduced as a result of the electorate having voted for it, it would have a still greater effect on the Continent. My second reason for opposing the Bill is that it is unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) put the case for the Government with his usual powerful

  87
  eloquence in a previous Debate. On the following day I heard one of my hon. Friends say that if the Prime Minister had spoken in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman, there would be unity in this House. I would not go as far as that, but it would have made a vastly different impression on this side of the House, from that which was made by the Prime Minister. What is said to be the greatest need for the Measure? To get man-power. I think it has been shown that it is questionable whether we could not have secured an equal number of men, without it. I admit that that is doubtful. It is a question upon which we cannot dogmatise but, for myself, I doubt whether the Bill is necessary. I think a fine appeal such as that indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. W. Benn), an appeal to the country by this House, including the leaders of all parties, would get a similar response.
  But, we are told, another reason for the Bill is the uneasiness among our friends in Europe. I am not surprised that there should be some uneasiness in Europe. I think the vacillating policy of the Government is such as would create uneasiness anywhere. Certainly there is uneasiness, not as regards our ability to carry out our obligations but as regards our determination to go on with our policy. What is worrying Middle Europe to-day is this: Having let down Czecho-Slovakia in the way we did, for what nation, it is asked, shall we stand? What country will trust us? That is what is troubling the Continent. I do not think there is any uneasiness as regards Britain's readiness to throw in her lot and do her full share if the need should come. I think the Prime Minister might have emphasised to the Continental Powers that we can do much in other than the military sphere which they cannot do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in a previous Debate outlined what this country could do with the Navy, and in producing materials and in finance. He showed clearly that Great Britain's contribution in any state of emergency will be equal if not superior to anything which can be done by any country on the Continent. I see no reason to be modest about it. If we are making our contribution in those ways, why should we not say so. As I say I am
  88
  not satisfied that the need for this Bill has been shown.
  My third reason for opposing the Bill is that I fear the consequences of this legislation. I am a trade union leader. Luckily for myself I am connected with the miners and possibly this legislation will affect my people to a comparatively limited extent. The industry cannot afford to lose young men of 20 to 21. They are badly needed. It is not because of its effect in my own industry that I fear the consequences of this legislation. But what argument can be used for military conscription which cannot be used also in favour of industrial conscription? There is no use pretending. We know in the industrial sphere that any argument of a convincing character as regards military conscription, can be used with equal force as regards industrial conscription. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs asked what was the use of supporting a rearmament programme and then denying the country the men to use the weapons that were being produced. But one could carry that argument a step further and ask what was the use of keeping men in the Army without having the men to produce the equipment which they will need.
  We fear that this is the thin end of the wedge. We cannot see how it is possible for an Army, one section of which is recruited by compulsory methods and another section by voluntary methods, to continue very long. I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and others are supporters of out-and-out conscription. The Prime Minister has brought in this Measure in this modest way, believing that as a result of its modesty we will accept it. All I have to say is this. If anybody will convince me that we could not stand up to Hitler without this Bill, that the only hope of preserving peace was this Bill, I should, without hesitation, be speaking for it to-day. It is because I am satisfied in my own mind that there is no need for it, in order to achieve that purpose, that I oppose it.
  I pass to a few observations on the Bill itself. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to take note of a few questions. First, can we be told why this age group has been singled out for

  89
  inclusion in the Bill in preference to any other age group? I should have thought that men of 26 or 27 would have been better in physique, would have made better soldiers and would have discharged this duty more efficiently. Why, then, has this age group been specified? Reference has already been made to the fact that the members of this group are below the voting age. In my own division I met boys who asked why they had been called up, and was it because they had not votes. A boy of 19é told me he had a brother of 23 who was stronger in physique, better educated and better qualified for this service. "Why," he asked, "am I being dragged in, while he is being left out?" The Government ought to tell the country their reasons for selecting this group. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton spoke of safeguarding employment for those whose training period is over. More will need to be done in this Bill with regard to that matter than is proposed at present. We shall also require that much more should be done in this respect regarding those who are approaching the age at which they will be called up. The case which was put from the Opposition Front Bench is one which can be multiplied. There is danger in that direction.
  As regards conscientious objectors, I would make this point. During the War it was not so difficult for men of 25 to 30 who had developed conscientious objections to military service to state their case, but I see a danger of the boy of 20 not being able to put his case properly to a tribunal. Doubt will be cast upon his case because of his age, especially if he has not shown himself to be a member of some religious body which objects to war. In such a case a boy of 20 will have difficulty in satisfying a tribunal on this issue. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that in selecting these tribunals he gets the right type of men, men who will approach this question with some sympathy. I must say that I did not like the reference to this matter which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth. I felt that his was an insulting reference to conscientious objectors. The Prime Minister was far more gracious in the reference which he made. I am not one of them, but there are people who have a conscientious objection to being involved in war—in killing. All I ask is that consideration
  90
  should be given to the case of the boy of 20 who, because he is not a member of any religious body, may have difficulty in satisfying a tribunal that he has such conscientious objections and that proper treatment should be meted out to the young fellows who claim to be conscientious objectors.
  Finally, I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that when we were asking that commitments should be made and undertakings given, we did not intend withholding the power to carry out these commitments and undertakings. It is our intention on this side that the country should be in a position to carry out any undertaking which we pressed the Government to give. It is because we do not think the Bill necessary for that purpose that we oppose it.
  6.43 p.m.
  Sir Edward Grigg: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has stated with great sincerity and force the reasons which induce him to oppose the Bill. He issued a challenge to supporters of the Bill to state their case for it more fully, and I shall endeavour to meet that challenge, particularly as I want to reassure him about the motives of hon. Members on my side. We have no ulterior motive in supporting this Measure, as I hope I shall be able to make him believe. Before coming to his argument, I should like to make one reference to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not think that support of the principle of this Bill could have come from a more important and convincing quarter than from the oldest Member of the House, who bore the chief responsibility in the last War. It seemed to me when he stated the case which he made in 1911, with his colleagues, he was saying something which we would do well to bear in mind at the present time. He painted a very dark picture and he is a master of colour. He was making a case—to my mind an unanswerable case—for the Bill. But I do not think that, as a matter of fact, he painted the European situation which confronts us quite fairly to ourselves. There are on the other side many factors which should be taken into account, and Russia or no Russia, if we are challenged, I have no doubt whatever we shall give a very good account of ourselves.

  91
  That, however, does not alter the strength of the case for the Bill. I think the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would in any way have accepted an alliance with Russia as a substitute for this Bill. If that was the case, why did he recommend compulsory service in 1911? We had the Russian understanding then, and even then he was recommending strongly a measure of compulsion in this country. That is an argument, I tell the hon. Gentleman frankly, that I greatly dislike. Are you going to say to Russia, and much more to the other democracies, "We know that you have conscription, and, therefore, we need not have it here?" That is the form in which that argument is put over there, that we have got the Russian alliance, and now we are going to save our own skins. That is not a light in which this country ought to be presented in other countries, and I hope the hon. Member will not again use that argument.
  Mr. G. Macdonald: That is not quite fair. My point was that we should make a contribution to an emergency, when it comes, in a different way, and do as much in an emergency without conscription as any Continental country would do with conscription.
  Sir E. Grigg: I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Member in any way. I would like to come now to the contribution which we are to make. I presume the hon. Member does not mean that our contribution is to consist merely of a contribution on the sea and in the air and in production. I imagine that he accepts the fact that we have to produce manpower as well, and the point that I would like to make about man-power is that it is not man-power alone that matters; it is trained man-power. Man-power is nothing at all by itself; trained man-power is the thing that matters, and is what the other Powers in Europe, the other members of the peace front, are thinking about. Our provision of trained man-power in this country has become an immensely important consideration in Europe. How are we to provide it? Under our present system of military organisation apart from this Bill, there are only two ways. You can either try to increase the strength of the Regular Army, raising by voluntary appeal men
  92
  to undertake service for 12 years, four to seven with the colours and the remainder in the Reserve, or, if you think that is too difficult and impossible, too expensive also, you must use the Territorial Force.
  What is the objection to doing that? It is simply that the Territorial Force is a force which begins its intensive training only on the outbreak of war. Surely the right hon. Gentleman made that clear in what he said about our experience in the last War. You cannot produce trained man-power in the form which any European country will recognise as trained man-power by our present Territorial system—that is to say, spare-time training, week-ends, and a fortnight in camp—and you cannot, in my opinion, do it even if you extend it to the utmost limit of training allowed by the Territorial Army Act, that is, 30 days. Real training means a minimum, if you are to make a contibution equal to what our friends are making, of six months, and in order to justify that opinion I will not quote any authority in support of our view of the case, but I will quote the military correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian." He says:
  "In the ordinary course of events the statutory number of drills required of a Territorial soldier each year is designed to meet leisurely conditions, when it does not much matter whether a man becomes an efficient soldier this year or next. Six months' intense training with the Regular Army would be of more value than several years under the old conditions."
  That quotation from the "Manchester Guardian" is, I think, unanswerable. There is one other point that I would make about the necessity for six months' training. Hon. Members above the Gangway are all very anxious for what they call the democratisation of the Army; that is to say, they want officers and noncommissioned officers chosen as widely as possible from the ranks. I agree with them about that—I agree that that is necessary—but you cannot get that under the Territorial system, because there is no adequate opportunity for judging merit under that system, with your night drills, your week-ends, and your fortnightly camps. You must have men serving for a longer period in order to pick out the natural leader, and this system of six months' training seems to be an absolutely essential condition for the democratisation of the Army which hon. Members want. I have always argued

  93
  that, and I hope there will be no concession made whatever to the appeals which are being made for special consideration for boys who have been through the O.T.C. They will get quite enough consideration from the fact that they have been through the O.T.C, and I hope tie Government will see that they go into the ranks and justify themselves, and that there is no question whatever of promoting anybody to commissioned or noncommissioned rank unless they have proved their capacity in the ranks of the militia.
  Given those two argument for six months' training, I come to the hon. Member's further point, a point which was made by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), when he moved the Amendment to the Motion, and, I think, by the right hon. Member who spoke first for the Opposition to-day. They admit the necessity for six months' training, but they ask why that six months' training cannot be got under the voluntary system and by extending the Territorial training. I think I put it fairly. This is the answer: Consider the character of the Territorial Force. It draws on all ages from 17 to 38, and tradesmen it draws up to 45. I think you must rule out at once the 17 to 19 group, because they are too young, if you are talking of going immediately into the field on the outbreak of war. I know it was not so in the last War, but I can remember the boys of 18 coming out to France, and I know that one of the most terrible things that happens to boys of that age is that they cannot keep awake—the physical strain is almost more than they can bear—and I should be very sorry to see anybody going out, if we could help it, before the age of 20, certainly before the older men go. I rule out, therefore, the 17 to 19 group in the Territorial Force. I am prepared also to rule out tradesmen between 38 and 45. That leaves 19 years, and, really, four-fifths of those 19 years consist of men who are already settled in life; that is to say, they have got settled in professions or jobs, they have houses and very likely wives and families, they have become men who have got to carry on in a certain way because they have taken on those responsibilities and cannot get rid of them.
  The Territorial system, as it is, suffers greatly from the fact that masses of
  94
  people consider it unfair. I have been doing my best in the National Service Campaign to secure recruits for the Territorials, and at one of the meetings the other day a woman came up to me and said, "I liked your speech, but I won't let my man go." I said, "Why not?" She replied, "I do not see why I should be the first widow in our street." That is the kind of thing that works against the voluntary Territorial system. Many people are nevertheless prepared, because of their patriotism, to take the risk to life, so long as what they are giving, as now, is only their spare time and so long as that does not involve any hardship to their family, but if you call for six months' training from this wide range, from 23 to 38, you are really calling on men not only to give their own services, but to inflict very great hardships on their families. You cannot imagine any system of pay or allowances which would make up, in the case of the great majority of men who would be called on to do six months' training, for their loss of income. The only men who could do so without inflicting hardship on their families would be men not earning more than the pay and allowances they would get in the Territorial Force, or else the men rich enough to be totally indifferent. For that reason, I do not believe the voluntary appeal would be fair or could possibly have succeeded. I hope the hon. Member feels that I have made an attempt to state the case fairly as I see it.
  After all, there is no time to go on with many more of these experiments. I thought, when the Government said they were trying to bring up the Territorial Army to war strength, and then to double it, that already they were leaving the thing extremely late. My view was that this form of compulsion should have been introduced immediately after Munich. I believe the country would have accepted it then, and certainly there is no time to waste on further experiments now. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs surely made it plain that the necessity is terribly urgent. Let me then deal with one or two other objections which I have heard. It is said that women are against compulsion. All that I can say is that last Friday I attended the annual meeting of the women's association in my constituency. It was a very large meeting; women of all ranks were there, and they were absolutely unanimous in

  95
  support of this Bill, and not only unanimous, but enthusiastic. [Interruption.] They are part of this country, and it is no good hon. Members above the Gangway shaking their heads and saying that a gathering of women of all classes is not representative. That, at any rate, was my experience, and I promised them that I would state their views.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: When the hon. Member says he has addressed women of all classes, has he ever spoken before an audience of Co-operative women, and does he know that 80,000 of them have recently demonstrated against conscription?
  Viscountess Astor: May I say that the Left Wing has got hold of the co-operative party?
  Sir E. Grigg: I have never, so far as I know, addressed a meeting consisting solely of Co-operative women, but I have addressed very large numbers of open meetings at which there were Co-operatives, Socialists, and others, and I have not found any such opposition to compulsion.
  Mr. Lansbury: I have.
  Sir E. Grigg: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman excites it, and I excite the other thing. I have not found any opposition where the case has been stated.
  Mr. Lansbury: I always state your case, and they do not agree with it.
  Sir E. Grigg: I have been asked whether I have consulted young men of 20 years. I was talking last night to such a gathering, and I found exactly the same thing. Another thing that is said is that under compulsion you only get unwilling recruits, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in a speech which he made last week, described the difference which he had found in the War between men who were volunteers and men who were conscripted. I saw a good deal of compelled men in the War, and I think that, as a matter of fact, there is no difference, although, of course, I do not question the hon. Member's own experience. But, after all, what happened in the War is not a fair example, because we had already sent enormous numbers to the front, and when compulsion came in it was really beginning to comb out the people who were unwilling anyhow. Therefore, that is not
  96
  a fair example as to what would happen under a compulsory system started as this is being started now.
  There is another point that is made, however, with which I feel very much sympathy, and I would like to deal frankly with it. Many hon. Members have said, "Why the 20-years-old only?" The hon. Member for Ince said it. I am bound to say that when this Bill was first introduced, I felt the very greatest regret that it was not calling out, at any rate, a much larger number of annual classes. If it was a question of 200,000 men being needed I would much rather have seen one-fifth of them taken from each of five annual classes so as to make up the number than to see the whole lot taken from one class. I regret that this burden has been placed on one annual class. But, going into the practical difficulties, I do not see how the Government could have done otherwise. If you take a quota of a fifth from five annual classes you have to go in for a system of exemption, which is bound instantly to be attacked and to arouse every kind of charge of unfairness. That seems to me quite inevitable. And whatever system you had adopted, even if you went back to the old English system of a ballot, I think there would have been a great deal of trouble about selecting a small quota from a large number of an annual class. For that reason I think it was essential to take only one class.
  And if one class is going to be taken, I do not see that the Government could have chosen a better class than the 20-year-olds. I believe most of them are those who are getting to the end of their apprenticeships and are not yet settled in life. There are objections to every year, but on the whole there seem to me to be fewer objections to this particular year than to any other year. Therefore I hold that in this matter the Government was right. But I do feel this—and I hope my right hon. Friend whom I see on the Front Bench opposite will be able to give us some assurance on this before the right hon. Gentleman winds up to-night—I do not think we should call on the 20-year-olds in this country to come forward and train under compulsion for six months unless all classes and all ages in this country are prepared to accept liability in case of war. I think that declaration should be made at once. We should all put ourselves on a par with

  97
  those who are now to be called up. I therefore suggest that the Government should bring in now a Measure pledging this country by Resolution of this House to universal liability to service in case of war, and that they should compile at once a National Register. I apologise for always bringing in this King Charles' head, but it seems to me to be an absolutely indispensable thing when you are placing this burden on our young men. I hope to-night we may have an assurance on that point. I believe that it would add greatly—and this is a matter of great importance—to the moral effect of the decision we are taking to introduce compulsion.
  I maintain that this Measure is a democratic one. The hon. Member who spoke first for the Opposition to-day quoted poetry, and we can all quote poetry, but I feel most strongly that the case he made was an implied insult to the other democracies whom we are calling upon to make a peace front with us. How can you say that the Swiss people or that the French people are not free? It is an insult to them to say that because they have accepted the principle of compulsory service they are not true democracies. And if you are going back in history, Switzerland was the country which one of our greatest poets, Wordsworth, coupled with this country as one of the two great voices of freedom in the world:
  "Two Voices are there; one is of the sea,
  One of the mountains; each a mighty Voice.
  They were thy chosen music, Liberty's."
  At the time when Wordsworth wrote that Switzerland had universal compulsory
  military service, and she has had it ever since. What is the use of saying that you have sacrificed your freedom when you have adopted compulsory service?
  The real trouble is the fear that this Measure is going to lead to something else, and that brings us back to the old difficulty that exists in this country, very well described by Disraeli when he spoke of "the two nations." We on this side, I think improperly, are supposed to represent the anti-revisionists, the people who are in favour of the status quo, who have got the comforts and the wealth; and always when any Measure of this kind is proposed there is a feeling that the people who are in favour of the status
  98
  quo are going to use it as a weapon to strengthen their position and prevent the revisionists from getting something they would otherwise get. How is one to set that kind of anxiety at rest? I can only say this, that so far as a General Election is concerned to ascertain the opinion of the country, everybody agrees it is impossible. I am not in the least afraid of a General Election myself, only while you are holding it you would destroy the peace front in Europe. What would happen, supposing that the Government were defeated in a General Election, and the Opposition came into power? What would they do? The very first thing they would have to do would be to reassert the imposition of compulsory military service in this country, because there would be no peace front in Europe.
  Mr. Gallacher: Do you ask me that question?
  Sir E. Grigg: I was addressing my argument to the Socialist Opposition. I think we have to recognise that the die is cast, and that this Measure is about to become the law of the land, and it cannot be reversed without sacrificing all we stand for—in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), I think very patriotically, said that he would give the Measure his full support when it became the law, so did the hon. Member for Ince, and so did other hon. Members. The only thing I can do to remove their anxiety—and I do not suppose I shall go far towards doing that—is to say I have fought as hard as I could for this Measure, not because I want to detract from the liberties of the people, but because I think it was essential to their preservation. I still believe that, and I do not believe there is any hope of preserving the liberties of Europe, or our own liberties, without a Measure of this kind. But I give this pledge, that if at any time it becomes clear that this Measure is being used to reduce or to compromise the liberties of the people of this country, then I will work as hard to undo this Measure as I have worked to place it on the Statute Book.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mrs. Adamson: I rise to oppose the Military Training Bill and the principle of conscription. When the Prime Minister made his statement in this House 12

  99
  days ago it was one of the most momentous statements that had ever been made by any Premier in peace-time, because it broke with tradition, and it broke the pledges in regard to conscription that had been given to the electorate, to Parliament, to the Labour party, and to the trade unions. Those pledges had been re-affirmed as recently as 29th March. We have heard a great deal in the Debate from various speakers about public opinion. How can any Member of Parliament judge public opinion on any vital issue such as this. We can only judge by our post-bags, by our contacts in our constituencies, by our contacts with the general public, and by the meetings which we address in different parts of the country. We have heard the voice in this House of the soldier, the sailor, and the representatives of different kinds of industry. I want to state the point of view of the mother, and I hope I shall not be misrepresented in what I shall say. Because I am not a pacifist, I come from a fighting family, a family that has done its bit in the days that are gone to fight for religious freedom in my beloved Scotland; and during the last War my eldest son, who was a mere lad, was in the Merchant Service and ran the gauntlet of the submarine menace in order to bring food to the people of this country. He still follows the tradition of the sea, and if this country were in danger again he would do the same thing, because he could do nothing else.
  But I want to express the point of view that is held by women all over the country. I have given a life-time of service to the Labour movement in a voluntary capacity, and spoken practically all over Great Britain, and I receive a great many letters from women in different parts of Great Britain. I think I express the point of view of the mothers when I say that they are fundamentally opposed to this Military Training Bill and to the principle of conscription. It may be that mothers are fundamentally pacifists. They detest war. They detest it because it means slaughter, and they detest the militarisation of their sons. Their whole experience in life is to protect and preserve human life. We women go down into the jaws of death to bring life into the world. We in the working class have to make tremendous sacrifices for our
  100
  children, and we do sacrifice to give them a better chance in life than we have known ourselves and, just as our sons attain the golden age of manhood, we do not like to think that they are going to be conscripted and trained in the art of war. We know only too well, because of our experience in the last War, that when hostilities break out our sons are expected to go forth to destroy the sons of other mothers in other countries, who love their children just as much as we love ours, and sacrifice for them too.
  And perhaps it is because we women know at what cost human life is brought into the world that we place a higher value upon it than the politicians, the statesmen and the war-mongers. We believe with Ruskin that there is no true wealth but life. And my experience, since the Prime Minister made this momentous statement, is that the mothers of this country have had sad hearts, and are not in favour of conscription. I could show hon. Members letters which I have received. I could cite the case of a mother whose only son enlisted under age in the last War and was killed when he was only 19 years of age. So she adopted a boy who is now between 19 and 20, and she asks me whether this boy, for whom she has sacrificed to give him an apprenticeship in engineering, is to be caught up in this net of militarism and whether she must undergo the same sorrow as she did with her only son.
  I hope that the Government will not measure the opposition to conscription by the number of conscientious objectors. Some of the women whose husbands were conscientious objectors in the last War know of the persecution which they and their menfolk underwent because of their opposition to war. They know of the loss of jobs and of the scorn and suffering that ensued. I have been speaking to a mother whose husband was a conscientious objector in the last War. She has two sons and she told me that, after careful thought and consideration to this problem, she advised her boys, much against her will, that because of her experience in the last War she does not want her sons to undergo the same experience. She has, therefore, said to her boys, "Go through with it and get it over as quickly as possible, and every night I will pray God that my sons will come out of the Army with no deterioration of their manly principles." This is

  101
  what the womenfolk are saying. We shall get by this Measure unwilling conscripts. During the last War we were always told that one volunteer was worth 10 conscripts. The lads will go if they can go willingly. I heard an ex-Service man who is now a Member of this House tell the story at a public meeting of a deputation of ex-Service men which he led to a certain Cabinet Minister after the War in order to plead for justice and fair play for the men who had done their bit in the War. When they expressed their disappointment at the answer, one of the deputation said, "If the circumstances arose again we would not do what we did before and go forward willingly to play our part." The Cabinet Minister was reported to have replied, "There won't be another war for 20 years, and when that time comes a new generation will have grown up that has not known war and it will go just as readily as you have done."
  I find a great deal of opposition to this Bill not only from women who take the pacifist point of view, but from women who are prepared to make a stand against Fascist aggression. Those women belong to that body of public opinion which believes in the League of Nations and the principle of collective security. They believe in the establishment of an international police force and in the combination of peaceful powers to meet Fascist aggression. They knew when they took up that standpoint that there were risks, not that they believed in the inevitability of war. There are more ways of dealing with aggressors than by war and bloodshed, but they know what Fascism means. We as democrats know and have seen what it means to our friends in countries abroad. We know all about the horrors of the concentration camps and the risks of shots from the Fascist firing squads for all liberty-loving people. The womenfolk know that they have more to lose by Fascism than even the men have. We have seen its effects in Fascist countries, where women have lost their status as industrial and professional workers, and I say with a full responsibility of what my words mean that Fascism means the moral and spiritual degradation of women. We do not need conscription in this country to safeguard our liberties here and to take part in a fight against Fascism.
  I want to emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr.
  102
  G. Macdonald). It has been put to me at meetings in different parts of the country. Why single out boys of 20 to 21? I had a deputation of young men of military age from my constituency, and they said, "We have no votes and we are not responsible for the composition of a House of Commons that imposes conscription upon us. We are not citizens and why single us out?" I came across a quotation from a colonel in Cromwell's Army:
  "The present he that is in England hath a life to live as much as the greatest he, and a man is not bound to a government that he has not had a voice to put himself under."
  Serious consideration will have to be given to the problems that will arise as the result of the selection of boys of 20 to 21. Many of them are finishing their apprenticeships in industry and commerce and many are finishing their training in colleges and universities. This means a dislocation of their lives which may have serious repercussions on their future careers. I hope that the Government spokesman will give clear answers to some of the questions that have been put during this Debate, and that we shall particularly get answers to the questions that were put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) last Thursday. I trust that we shall make effective the penalties against employers. I was interested to hear the letter that was read by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), because I, too, hear of the dismissal of lads who will shortly be conscripted. Some of the unscrupulous employers evidently look upon this Bill as a unique opportunity to get cheaper labour. I hope that we shall tighten up the regulations and impose heavy penalties for what I hope all Members are agreed is an undesirable practice and an evasion of the law.
  I hope, too, that we shall tighten up the provisions to ensure re-employment after Service. It is all very well for hon. Members to make high-sounding speeches on these points, but some of us remember what took place after the last War. We could give a great many of our own experiences as we travelled about the country, of employers who had pledged themselves to the reinstatement of the men who had done their bit. When the men came back they were reinstated, but in

  103
  many cases they were reinstated for only a few weeks and then turned adrift. In my association with the engineering industry I have heard that there is a move—I hope it is not true, but I want the Government to make a note of it—on the part of the engineering employers to introduce women to take up the jobs of the conscripts. Women are, of course, always paid lower wages, and I object to the exploitation of my sex in industry. I am one of those who believe in equal pay for equal work.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: May I ask whether the hon. Member has read Clause 6 of the Bill, because if she has the last part of her speech has been entirely unnecessary and a complete waste of the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" "Withdraw!"]
  Mrs. Adamson: I am stating my point of view as it has been put to me by people who are employed in the engineering industry. I have read the Bill and I hope to take part in the discussions on the different Clauses in it. I am in order, I think, in raising these points at this stage. I object to the exploitation of my sex and to women being used as cheap labour. I would like to see equal pay for equal work. The basis of payment should be for the job done and not sex. We ask for the fullest investigation into these statements, and I warn the Government that if the statements are true there will be serious trouble, because the workers are not in the mood to permit the lowering of their standards of wages and conditions in the workshops. I hope, too, that some consideration will be given to the cases of men who are in the reserved occupations. I have a letter which has been sent to me by a young man in my constituency. He says:
  "In five weeks time I shall be 21 years of age, and, therefore, as far as can be ascertained, I am in the age limits. I am employed locally as a skilled laboratory assistant and was placed on the reserved occupation register, and am also still on the revised list published since the Prime Minister's announcement on Wednesday last. I, therefore, have had no choice to volunteer my services if necessary for my country, as a person under the reserved occupations should take on no part-time duty which would mean full-time work in war time. I am, therefore, conscripted without ever having the chance to volunteer. Further, if I am trained for military services and my employers claim me in the event of war, I think it is wasting public money.
  104
  "Another point concerning a fellow worker. He is a laboratory assistant, like myself, aged 19. Therefore, he is on the reserved occupation register and cannot join the Territorials. The War Minister stated that a young fellow under the age of 21 could join up and the time served up to the age of 20 would be deducted from his three and a half years on the Reserve. Why should my fellow worker be penalised and not be able to take advantage of this, as I suppose conscription has come to stay and he will be affected soon."
  He adds:
  "I have tried to join up as a volunteer but I am afraid they are not in a position to accept me."
  I hope we are going to have equality in the interpretation of the Bill and in the treatment of many of the cases which are put to us as Members of the House. I hope that the responsible Minister will give careful consideration to all these points. We do not want them to be swept aside as they were last Thursday by the Minister of Labour, who seemed to occupy his time in boasting of his two years' barrack life and the benefits of military training. We believe there is no need for conscription. There had been a splendid response to the appeal for volunteers. I believe it is true to say that there was such a large number of volunteers that there is a shortage of equipment. I know it is stated that local authorities are seriously embarrassed to secure the necessary equipment for the Civilian Defence volunteers, and we trust that the Government will do its best to remedy that state of affairs.
  I believe that there is a muddle in our national as well as in our international affairs. I believe that there is fear in the hearts and the minds of the people, and I think that the large number of Members who petitioned the Prime Minister to introduce conscription believe that now is the psychological moment to put the shackles of conscription on our boys. Somebody said that it was the thin end of the wedge, and we have heard a clamour during this Debate for an extension of military and industrial conscription. We are always told that we ought to fight Fascism abroad. I think the democracy in this country realises that all the Fascists are not abroad, but that there are some at home as well, and when we have got conscription what is the difference between Fascism and democracy? I think the Prime Minister must have a poor opinion of the mentality of the Members of this House or of the country,

  105
  because in his statement on conscription of wealth he simply said that we had it to a large extent at the present time. When that is repeated at public meetings the audience enjoys the joke. I hope that a serious attempt will be made to limit profits and deal drastically with the profiteers.
  What we really need is a change of Government. We want a Government that is prepared adequately to defend the nation, to pursue a foreign policy that will promote harmony, peace and good will and get down to the removal of the causes of war which are very largely economic. In my judgment we can do that by common sense and reason. I am one of the few Members of this House who have a mandate on this question of conscription. During my by-election campaign in the month of October and early November I drew the attention of my voters to the fact that practically all the Tory organisations and associations in Great Britain were sending resolutions to the Prime Minister demanding National Service, and I said that when the Tories talk about National Service they mean compulsory military and industrial conscription. I found a great deal of interest was taken in developments at that time. Moreover, I ask the House to remember that mine was the first by-election after the Munich Agreement in which Labour had a straight fight against the Government. I raised this question of conscription at every meeting and I claim that I converted the electors in my division to my point of view. They have not had long to wait before conscription was introduced. I feel that I have a mandate from the electors in the Dartford Division to vote against this Military Training Bill. I will honour my election pledges. I believe this Bill is a blow to freedom and liberty, and in the interests of my constituents and of the people, particularly the mothers of this country, I oppose the Measure.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. York: I feel that I owe an apology to the House for being the third new Member to address it in this Debate, but, nevertheless I do ask for the indulgence of the House on this occasion, the first on which I have had the honour of addressing it. I do so because—according to hon. Members opposite—I am one of those curious beings on this side of the House, an anti-conscriptionist. Although
  106
  at this time I follow, and follow sincerely, the lead of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, nevertheless at heart I believe that conscription has only been brought to this country by the necessities of the foreign situation. I believe that voluntary service would be the very best answer that this country could give to the foreigners, if it were successful. But despite the fact that it has been undoubtedly successful we are still reaping the scorn of the dictators for our puny efforts. I feel, therefore, that some stronger gesture is now necessary. What greater measure could we adopt to show our determination to warn aggressors, to help our friends and to carry out our pledges, than to throw overboard this, perhaps the dearest of our possessions—voluntary service?
  There has been a great deal of talk about the pledges given by my right hon. Friend. Far from condemning him on this point I would commend him for having the courage to take this step in face of the known attitude of the Opposition in Parliament and of the trade union leaders, and at a time when he is precluded from going to the country to ask for a mandate. I believe that if the Government did go to the country they would be successful. But if they did decide to go to the country, the Opposition would hold it against them at the following election, and in the interval, that they had been successful only because they went to the country on a patriotic issue.
  I should like to say a word or two about the re-employment conditions in Clause 6, because I am not altogether happy in my own mind that they are strong enough. We are legislating not for the good employers, not for employers such as a firm in my home town who have already made it clear to every man who goes, that his job is waiting for him when he comes back—and they employ several thousand workmen—but we are legislating for the bad employers, and we cannot be too hard upon them. I would make one suggestion on this question of re-employment. After his six months' training are up a man will, of course, be given a paper upon which will be his instructions for the future, and I suggest that on that paper should be written down the place to which he could go straightaway in the event of his being unable to return to his old employment. There may be some delay between the

  107
  time when a man goes back to apply for his old job and the time when he is able to apply to a certain authority to inform them that he has been unable to get that job back.
  I view with very great concern the effect which this Measure is going to have upon the agricultural industry. There are about 130,000 men under 21 engaged in that industry at the present time, and the present Measure will affect somewhere about 20,000 men in the current year. There is an intense shortage of agricultural labourers, particularly in the mixed-farming areas, and if under this Measure we have three or four boys going from each village it will make a very serious difference to the farming economy of that village. In the matter of employment and unemployment the agricultural industry is unlike every other industry, because undoubtedly in the mixed-farming areas there is no unemployment, and with all due deference I should like to put forward the following alternative for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
  There is no period of six months in the year when a farm labourer can really be spared, but nevertheless no farm labourer or farmer or, in fact, anybody in the agricultural community wants in any way to sabotage or criticise the principles of this Bill nor to try to whittle it down. There are, however, two ways in which the training could be made much easier. In the first place I suggest that the period of military training should be spread over two years, being split into two three-monthly periods. I do not know whether the military authorities would be able to work in their training in this way. If that were not possible, would the right hon. Gentleman consider delaying the calling-up of agricultural labourers until November, at any rate, and if possible until December? As those who live in the country realise, many farmers keep men on, who are doing very little work all through the winter months in order that they may have them during the busy months—which may be said to count from June to the end of November—and if it were possible to keep back the agricultural workers in the present age groups until next November it would have an incalculable effect upon the farming community. I hold strongly that the home production of food is infinitely more im-
  108
  portant to this country than military service. I know that view will not be popular in certain parts of the House, but nevertheless it is a fact. Before any army can go abroad we must make certain of our food supplies in this country.
  I should like to say a word upon conscientious objection, because liberty of individual thought and toleration should be preserved on all occasions. I believe that conscientious objectors would be segregated by the Clause which puts them in that particular category, and as conscientious objection is in part a religious scruple, or at any rate a quasi-religious scruple, I feel that their religion must lead them to wish to serve the community. There is one way in which they can serve the community without becoming involved in the war machine at all. There are the women and children, who have to be fed. Why not make these conscientious objectors register in a land workers' register and send them to work on the land in time of war?
  This great effort on our part will do an enormous amount of good in the world at large. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) who said that in the last War the conscripts were not as good and did not have the same effect as did the voluntary forces that went before them; but I feel that that is the strongest argument in favour of conscription at the present time. My reason is that now you are going to mix the good and the bad and send them out together. The people who, like those who went out first in the last War, will be going out, if there is another war, with the new people. You will, therefore, be able to strengthen those latter ranks. I further believe that the young men of to-day—I speak as one myself, just over this military age—will be improved. I believe that this Measure will give to the world the supreme proof of which it is in need that there are no limits to the sacrifices that we are prepared to make. I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to show a division of opinion which may, to some extent, make that sacrifice seem a little less real than it really is.
  7.47 P.m.
  Sir Stafford Cripps: I am sure that Members on all side of the House will desire me to congratulate the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) on the very fine contribution he has made to our Debate. It is one to which, I am sure, we

  109
  have all listened with interest, especially in view of the point of view from which he obviously had started, on this subject matter. I am sure, also, that the House will be anxious to hear him again on future occasions contributing to our Debates.
  Many Members have given their account of the reactions they have felt in the country to this Measure. I have had an opportunity this week-end of addressing a large number of meetings, and I should like to add my quota of testimony that I found universal objection to a conscription Measure introduced by the National Government. I emphasise those words, "introduced by the National Government." I would be very largely—I think entirely—in agreement with the very remarkable presentation of the case which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) at the beginning of this Debate. I do not want to repeat arguments which have already been made if I can avoid doing so, but I would offer two observations in regard to the question of need. The other day when the Prime Minister was speaking it seemed to me that he completely answered himself as regards the need for man-power, because directly he approached the question of Northern Ireland he announced that Northern Ireland was to be omitted from the Bill, but that, he told us, would not in any way diminish the availibility of the forces. Indeed, he said that he believed they would get as good a result, if not a better result, such was the loyalty of Northern Ireland, if conscription were not applied in Northern Ireland. I do not know what the Prime Minister's constituents in Birmingham will think of that argument.
  Sir Ronald Ross: If I am fortunate enough to be called upon to speak in this Debate I shall take the opportunity of pointing out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wrong in the assumption he made, and of giving my reasons.
  Sir S. Cripps: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to prove that Northern Ireland is not really so loyal as the Prime Minister indicated.
  Sir R. Ross: I think it would be better if the hon. and learned Member used arguments rather than insults.
  Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member believes that there is not sufficient loyalty in Northern Ireland to provide by means of volunteers the number of troops required, then he must say that that is the case. However that may be, from the point of view of the Government, whose case the Prime Minister was putting forward, it is clear that it is regarded as unnecessary to impose conscription upon a loyal population. So far as Bristol is concerned, I venture to say that we are every bit as good as Northern Ireland. Anyway, we have never yet organised a rebellion against an existing Government.
  Now let me say a word on another aspect of need, which is, the effect upon foreign countries. There was a time when the word of the British Government was sufficient in itself as regards an undertaking, but, during the last eight years, that has ceased to be so in the international life of the world, and now the Prime Minister cannot merely make a statement, because nobody believes him. He has to implement it by some deed or action in order to show that he really means what he says. That is what he tells us, anyway, about the need, so far as foreign countries are concerned, for conscripting 200,000 boys in Great Britain. I suggest that he would make a much more effective gesture to the world if he were to enter into an agreement with Russia forthwith. Whatever the valour and effectiveness of 200,000 boys, for whom we have no equipment, may be, the effectiveness on our side of the vast resources of Russia would be infinitely greater and infinitely more terrifying to those who were likely to undertake fresh aggression.
  In fact, what the Prime Minister and the Government are doing to-day is to repeat the policy which they tried to carry out regarding Mussolini and Abyssinia. They are just wanting to make a gesture which is ineffective as a gesture to stop aggression, but may be sufficient to cause irritation. That is precisely the line they followed when they applied the mild sanctions and failed to apply the effective ones. So to-day they are applying the mild sanction of a slight measure of conscription in Great Britain while neglecting the effective measure of sanction, which is a firm agreement with Russia. That is a policy which will lead this country into the maximum of danger. It is a pity, if the Prime Minister

  111
  was looking round for troops to help him, that he did not think of some of these things a little longer ago when he might have had 1,500,000 Czechoslovaks and 2,000,000 Spaniards, well-trained men, on the side of this country in order to defend Democracy in the world. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but is it better that those 2,000,000 Spaniards should be under Fascist control?
  Sir Arnold Wilson: I laughed merely because the hon. and learned Member seems to assume that the troops to which he referred were prepared to fight for us. There is no reason whatever to suppose that they were.
  Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the policy of the hon. Member is to defend democracy and freedom in Europe; not here only, but in Poland, Rumania, Greece and other countries in Europe. I am certain that the Czechoslovaks would have been prepared to enter into an alliance with such a group if Russia and France had been there. I do not think that anybody can conceivably doubt that proposition. Instead of that, we find ourselves deprived of that assistance, very largely because of the action of the Prime Minister.
  Sir A. Wilson: Mr. Benes himself made it quite clear that he was not prepared without reservation to enter into any such alliance.
  Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Mr. Benes never said anything of the sort. He made it quite clear that, given the support of Russia, France and Great Britain, he would have been prepared to enter into an arrangement for collective security. However, those assets have been converted into losses, and they are now on the other side of the balance sheet. It seems rather a hopeless gesture to try to counterbalance those losses, for which the Government are responsible, by this measure of conscription. Indeed, if there were any reality in the intention to make an impression upon the aggressors in Europe, this would have been a Measure of conscription not for 200,000 youths in one age-group, but an all-in measure of conscription. Probably the hon. Gentleman will agree with that proposition. Therefore, it seems quite clear that that cannot be the real purpose
  112
  with which this Measure is brought forward, and that, on the ground of need, no justification whatever has as yet been brought forward to prove that this conscription is desired.
  I wish to stress another aspect of this question. I think everybody will agree that in the last resort the defences of this country, whether by means of the armed forces or in the factories, will fall largely upon the working classes. That is bound to be the case because of the numerical strength of those classes. Hon. Members will, no doubt, agree equally that if that is so, those people are entitled, as a condition of giving their service, to make demands as to the circumstances in which those services should be given. I want to put forward what seem to me one or two elementary demands in this connection. I would remind hon. Members that to-day we have not a National Government; we have in this country a class and a party Government.
  Viscountess Astor: Nonsense.
  Sir S. Cripps: It sounds like the Noble Lady the Member for Berlin who is making that interruption.
  Mr. McGovern: Go and tell it to Ribbentrop.
  Sir S. Cripps: I believe that the conditions entitled to be demanded are, first, that everything shall be done to minimise the risk to life of those who are asked to serve. Obviously the first requirement as to that is that the safest foreign policy should be pursued. At the moment, the general opinion among the workers of this country is not only that the foreign policy of the Government is not the safest possible but that it is about as dangerous a foreign policy as could possibly be pursued. The Prime Minister hurriedly, and apparently without any consultation even with his General Staff, after Czechoslovakia was overrun by Hitler, entered into certain commitments in Europe. In my view, those commitments were wholly unjustified unless there had been, first of all, some arrangement, which we knew would make sure that Russia would be on our side if we were called upon to implement those commitments. Merely to have those commitments without any form of guarantee from Russia is to increase the danger to this country, and not to minimise it. It is bad enough to be

  113
  at the mercy of the Prime Minister of this country so far as war and peace are concerned, but it is much worse to be at the mercy of Colonel Beck in that matter, especially when we know that we have no really overwhelming force behind the commitment. Therefore, I think the workers are entitled to say, "Before we will consider any Measure which is going to compel us to give our services we demand that there should be carried through a foreign policy which is going to leave us less open to risk than any other."
  I believe that the vast majority of this House agree that, in order to secure the safety of the country, an immediate agreement with Russia is necessary. I am equally certain that in the course of the next few days we shall be told by the Government that of course they would have been very willing to enter into an agreement with Russia, but those wicked Russians would not do so; and the reason will be because the Government have refused to accept the reciprocal liability which is an essential part of any such agreement. As it was put rather naively in one of the Sunday papers yesterday, it might be that this would turn out not only to be an asset but also a liability. I have always been taught as a lawyer that one of the fundamental principles as regards a contract is that no contract can be good unless there is consideration for it. If we are to expect to gain an increase of safety from Russia, we must expect to give some consideration for that increase of safety, and possibly it is on that point that the negotiations are at the present time breaking down.
  Mr. Marcus Samuel: May I ask the hon. Member for Moscow whether he received any consideration?
  Sir S. Cripps: I am so sorry, but I could not even hear what the hon. Member said. The second point, which seems to me to be a perfectly good point, and one which can be and should be made by those who are asked to serve, is that, if lives and bodies are to be conscripted, money and wealth also must be conscripted. The way in which the Prime Minister dealt with that point was rather remarkable. He explained to the House that his pledge was not to introduce conscription during a time of peace, "But," he said, "this is not really a time of peace at all; we are, indeed, so near to
  114
  war that substantially one can treat this as a state of war." But when he came to the conscription of wealth, he said, "We can have conscription of wealth in time of war, but, as we are now in a condition of peace, we must not, of course, have conscription of wealth now." I am not prepared to accept the Prime Minister's pledge in that regard any more than I am prepared to accept any of the other pledges which he has so freely broken in the past. Therefore, I think it is a perfectly legitimate demand that, before any Measure of this sort is brought forward, there should first be a measure for the conscription of wealth.
  Mr. Boothby: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he really means by that?
  Sir S. Cripps: Certainly: a capital levy; a levy upon all capital in the country. That seems to me to be a very small sacrifice to ask of people compared with the sacrifice of a life, which most of us regard as more valuable even than stocks and shares.
  Mr. Butcher: May I ask how a shopkeeper, whose capital consists of stock and goodwill, can pay a capital levy?
  Sir S. CrippsHe can give a charge, which is a perfectly satisfactory way of doing it, and which is frequently done in favour of the banks. There is another demand which seems to me to be of importance, and one which the people who are asked to serve are entitled to make. That is that the Navy, the Army and the Air Force should be democratised—that they should cease to be class forces and become truly democratic forces. The old assumption is still made—because, of course, we have a class Government—that all the officer posts in our armed Forces must necessarily go to people who wear the old school tie. That, of course, is a grave cause of inefficiency, but it is also a grave cause of protest by the masses of the people of this country who have to serve in the Forces, and I believe they are entitled to demand that measure of reform before they give their service in those Forces.
  Lastly, it seems to me that they are perfectly entitled to say that they want an absolute pledge—though perhaps it is not of great value in view of the source from which it would come—that in no circum-

  115
  stances will these measures of conscription be utilised in order to diminish trade union rights to any extent whatever, including specifically the right to strike, because that, after all, must be the ultimate defence of the workers through their trade union organisation. I am not suggesting that it should be widely used, but that ultimate sanction is the one power which they have in resisting the great economic power of the employers. There should be specific statements and guarantees that that right will not in any way be interfered with by these measures of conscription. There are, of course, many other demands that one could elaborate, and different people would probably think of many different demands. One might even say that those who are asked to defend this land of ours should also own this land of ours. That would not be a very extravagant demand.
  Mr. McGovern: Would it be better than a capital levy?
  Sir A. Cripps: It would be better in some ways, but not so good, perhaps, in others. There are many people who own wealth which is not at the moment in the land.
  Mr. MacLaren: Where does it come from?
  Sir S. Cripps: There are especially those who during the last few months have been busy transferring it to America. These four demands, I believe, are very genuinely made by those of the working class in this country who are going to be asked, first between the ages of 20 and 21 and then, of course, as we all know, in expanding groups subsequently, to serve this country. No Government that is not a democratic Government has the right to say, "We do not care what the common people think about this; we are proposing to impose it upon them, whatever they think about it, and, as times are so urgent, we do not propose to consult them on the point, because we cannot have any more general elections until after the next war." If the Government refuse to give way on these quite legitimate demands, I believe that, in the circumstances, it is right for the people to create conditions outside this House which will compel the Government to give way. Otherwise, we shall be accepting a dictatorial Government in this country which
  116
  just treats the people like robots to be ordered here and there despite what those people may think. No Government, in my submission, has the right to utilise critical circumstances as this Government is doing in order to put into operation things which it may consider convenient from its point of view—which is a class point of view—but which are not considered convenient by the great mass of the working people.
  Mr. Sandys: Is the hon. and learned Member inciting the people of this country to defy the will of Parliament?
  Sir S. Cripps: I am certainly inciting the people of this country to put pressure on this Government, and to do what the hon. Member, if he had had the "guts," would have done some time ago, namely, to vote against the Government. As he and those who think with him have not had the courage to do that, it becomes necessary for the people outside—
  Mr. Sandys: I think that the Opposition as a whole, if they support what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, and his gibes at me and other Members who have taken the same line, must recognise that we have achieved by our attitude more results than the Opposition have by theirs.
  Mr. Gallacher: Bad results.
  Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is perfectly right. He has achieved the result of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia being overrun, of Spain being sacrificed, of Memel going, and Albania; and, if he is lucky, he will achieve the result of Poland going soon. If he is proud of that, he is entitled to his pride.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what form of pressure he suggests that his friends outside should exercise?
  Sir S. Cripps: It should take all the ordinary forms of popular pressure upon representatives in this House, and all the forms of industrial pressure that are open to the workers to use. If those are not permitted, what is the position? We have a Government which says that it will not take the opinion of the people, that there shall be no General Election, a Government which, according to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, would say, "The people must not protest if they do

  117
  not like what we do." That is precisely what Herr Hitler says. I suggest that this claim by the Government to put forward policies upon which it will not test the opinion of the nation cannot be made by a Government which is not a Government of national unity. There might be some argument in its favour if there were such a Government, which there is not in this country. A Government which rigidly sticks to its own position even with its own party, which promotes gentlemen who make the most adulatory speeches of the Prime Minister but who are not necessarily the most efficient, which refuses to introduce into the Cabinet members of its own party because Herr Hitler does not like them—a government of that type is not entitled to make these demands upon the common people of the country. It is for that reason primarily and chiefly that I oppose this Measure, and I hope that the widest opposition will be organised outside, so that pressure may be brought to bear to change the government of the country, because in that change alone, in my view, lies any possibility for the safety of our democracy.
  8.14 p.m.
  Sir A. Wilson: It is a heavy responsibility to follow the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He referred, in a spirit, I doubt not, of light bandinage, to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) as "the Member for Berlin." Having regard to the tenor of his speech, it would make matters even, perhaps, if I suggested that he might be regarded as the Member for Moscow. I make that very obvious point, for the whole tenor of his speech suggested that all that was necessary was to send a reply paid telegram to Moscow, and that the inevitable answer would be, "Delighted to accept your invitation." A great part of his speech was clearly directed to matters not directly relevant to the Bill. He cited the electors of Bristol, but he represents only a part of Bristol, and the representation of Bristol in Parliament has gone through some strange vicissitudes. It is just over 100 years since a large part of Bristol was burned down at the instigation of certain vagabonds. I hope a similar fate will not overtake the city of my birth as the result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's exhortations. His speech has been in what I hope I
  118
  may describe, without impertinence, as his Olympian or White City manner. It seemed to me at certain points that he was adopting a tone more suited to his supporters outside this House than to a serious debating assembly. He claimed that strikes are a proper and legitimate means of bringing influence to bear on the Government. I was reminded of Kipling's epitaph on gunners killed because their battery had run out of ammunition:
  "If any mourn us in the workshop, say.
  We died because the shift made holiday."
  [Interruption.] Yes, many died in the last War because the shifts in this country made holiday.
  Mr. Davidson: A lot died because of the rotten, lousy officers.
  Sir A. Wilson: I will not discuss the character or habits of the hon. Member's friends.
  Compulsory military service is part of the common law of this country. That was laid down by Lord Haldane on 8th January, 1915, and on an earlier occasion in the House of Commons when he was War Minister. Speaking in the House of Lords he said:
  "By the Common Law of Engand it is the duty of every subject of the realm to assist the Sovereign in repelling the invasion of its shores and in the defence of the realm. That is a duty which rests on no Statute but is inherent in the Constitution of the country.
  Any subject at a time of emergency may be asked to give himself and his property for the defence of the nation…Given a great national emergency it is your duty to resort to compulsory service."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken as if the whole of the Socialist party were opposed to compulsory service on principle. But on 3rd April last the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) made it clear that he had no objection to compulsory service on principle, though he did not admit its necessity at the moment. He said:
  "I, personally, have no prejudice against national military training—none at all. I have seen little Switzerland, a country which is as free as ours, saying to its young men, 'You have got something worth fighting for in your freedom. Come and be military-trained,' and they come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1939; col. 2525, Vol. 345.]
  He also said:
  "For many years I was the secretary of the British section of the International

  119
  Socialist movement of the whole world, and there was never a country connected with that association, from Switzerland to Russia, that did not believe on the Socialist side in compulsory military service or military training, on the ground that it was the duty of a Socialist to defend his country if his country was attacked."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1939; col. 2522, Vol. 345.]
  I prefer to accept the decision of the Government, with such facts as are at their disposal, to the theory that it would have been possible, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said, to induce the Territorials to come forward in larger numbers. It would have involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said, calling up men of mature age with heavy responsibilities. The best alternative of the many from which the Government had to choose is this.
  I want to say a few words about conscientious objectors; and what I have to say may not be entirely palatable to everybody. To make the path of the conscientious objector too hard will arouse a sense of injustice. To make it too easy will arouse a fiercer sense of injustice. In the words of Mr. Sidney Webb, now Lord Passfield, written during the War:
  "It is even easier to pretend to a conscientious objection than to sciatica."
  The dictates of conscience are not admitted in any court of law, as, for example, in the case of so-called "mercy murders." In the words of a great judge in the reign of Henry VIII:
  "The mind of man is not triable."
  We are endeavouring in Clause 3 of the Bill to try the mind of man, and I foresee, as in the last War, great difficulties.
  Mr. T. Johnston: Is the quotation from Lord Passfield complete? Was there not something more?
  Sir A. Wilson: It is, as far as I can make it, complete, in so far as Lord Passfield refers to the difficulty of proving whether a man is a bona-fide conscientious objector or not. It is from a magazine article published in America during the War, and I shall be glad to send it to the right hon. Gentleman. Do not let us assume that all the conscience is on one side: that it is the conscienceless man who serves and the man with a conscience who does not serve. There is a place in life for the conscientious
  120
  objector, but I hope that any Civil servant who at 20 years of age has a conscientious objection to serving will be invited to earn his living elsewhere. To my mind the Civil service to-day is no place for a man who limits his allegiance to the Sovereign or his obligations to the State.
  Mr. Lansbury: If what the hon. Member has said is morally right, was it morally right for Privy Councillors and others, because of their conscientious objections to the Home Rule Act, to put a pistol to the head of the Government of the day, and compel that Act to be held up before they would give their services in the War?
  Sir A. Wilson: My answer, quite frankly, is in the negative.
  Mr. Lansbury: It is a pity you were not there to say that to Carson.
  Sir A. Wilson: The dilemma is as old as Plato, who said:
  "None may yield or retreat or leave his place in battle or in any other place, but must do what his city and his country order him. We give every Athenian the right, if he does not like us, to go—and take his goods with him. He who remains has entered into an implied contract to do what the city and country order him to do."
  Garibaldi put the case of military service in a sentence:
  "Libertá non tradische i volenti.
  Freedom will not betray those who serve her willingly."
  Volenti does not mean as a volunteer; it means willingly. These men will serve the State all the more willingly, because they know there will not be a minority holding back sheltering behind them.
  When Sir Christopher Wren was rebuilding St. Paul's, he asked three men the question, "What are you doing?" The first said, "I am getting 18s. a week." The second said, "I am carrying stone; can't you see?" The third man said, "I am building a cathedral." If these men look only at the money they get, that is all they will gain; if they look only at the work they have to do, that is all they will have; if they will realise that they are playing their part in building up the defences of Europe and the liberties of this country, as free men should, they will gain manhood and self-respect and they will emerge better able to serve their own country, and with a fresh idea as to what

  121
  citizen service and the service of the State really mean, with new friends, wider vision and a better sense of values.
  It has been suggested that, as they are not 20 and they have not got the vote, there is something unfair. I should like to amend this Bill to make it quite sure that they have the vote. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, every man of 19 years of age or upwards who was serving at the time was entitled to vote, and I can see no serious objection to-day to giving these men the vote, if they are in khaki at the time, or if they have served their time.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Give them the vote before.
  Sir A. Wilson: I think that the suggestion I have made deserves the serious attention of the Government. I hope that the Hardship Tribunals will be provided with a code of published instructions which will enable us to judge on what principles they work. I have in mind, for example, the one-man business and the employé who is already fully occupied with one particular and highly technical job, who cannot easily be replaced, who himself wishes for exemption, and whose employer desires that he should be exempted. All these cases should be dealt with on their merits, but also on principles which the Government should lay down in a definite code. As for the tribunals which will deal with conscientious objectors, it is even more necessary for them. I do not think that there is any other solution for the conscientious objector who objects to military service than to have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York), in his excellent maiden speech said, a land workers' corps in which they should serve for six months on the same pay as if they were under arms, working as hard, as laboriously and as long, under precisely the same conditions, on some work of national importance, which would involve as hard physical labour as that of any soldier. Whether it be drainage or whether it be land reclamation they ought to be put into uniform and made to do manual labour, otherwise we shall have the bitterest feelings aroused. It need not even be work of "national importance." It should be "socially necessary" work, and I fancy that there would be very few conscientious objectors
  122
  who would have any conscientious objection to doing socially necessary work, that is, work which would not have been done unless it could have been done by them.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman agree also that from that type of work absolutely no profit should be made?
  Sir A. Wilson: I need hardly say that there should be no profits whatever made, and drainage, embankment of Crown lands are notoriously undertakings from which no profit can conceivably be made. That is absolutely necessary, otherwise we shall have very large numbers of persons having a conscientious objection to military service. We must have a landworkers' corps or public service corps ordered to take them, and from the very beginning they ought, as far as may be, to be under officers who were also conscientious objectors. That is the best guarantee that they would be treated fairly.
  The final arguments against the Bill are based largely on matters of expediency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham has dealt with them so fully and conclusively that I have no more to say, but I do wish to say one thing in reply to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), to whose speech last Thursday I listened with great interest and attention. He hinted at the end of his speech that there was something in the Christian faith which was inconsistent with the profession of the soldier, and that the dogmas of Christianity gave a certain justification to conscientious objectors and, by implication, made it difficult for a soldier to regard himself as equally true to the Christian faith. I should not like to sit down without having expressed my own conviction. It is very easy indeed to quote texts—and my hon. Friend has never attempted to do so—from either side, but for every text on one side there is a text on the other. What matters to a Christian man is the intention with which he acts and the spirit in which he does every deed. The parable that I should like to bear in mind myself when I go to war is the parable of the Wolf and the Shepherd—the shepherd who lays down his life for the flock, exemplifying the obligation of the strong to protect the weak, even at the cost of their own lives.

  123
  That, to my mind, is a Christian principle not less compelling than any other.
  I regret profoundly the omission of Northern Ireland from the Bill. I regret it the more because it is freely stated that the omission was not on the merits, but owing to considerations which have arisen altogether beyond these shores and the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall not live to regret it, but as far as its effect in France is concerned, and in Europe generally, I believe this is a thoroughly sound Measure in principle, and I only hope that it may become, within the strict limitation laid down in the present Bill, a permanent part of our military system. I believe that it will do good to all concerned, and it is no small gain to democracy that there should be at least six months in a man's life in which he should be rubbing shoulders with men from every part of the country and from every walk of life, with men from the workshops, the universities, the factories and from public schools. That will be a stage on the road towards that great national system of education of which many people talk, and for which a very few are working. As an instalment towards that dream, this Bill has my cordial support.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Maclean: The speech to which we have just listened, while delivered with a great deal of sincerity, is just the kind of speech for which we can look on a Bill of this kind from a supporter of the Government. Members, such as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, have for a long time regarded the purpose of this Bill as being the real purpose of their lives as far as military service is concerned. I can remember that not very long ago the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), when speaking on a national service motion, made a speech which I regarded as an argument for conscription to the full extent that any hon. Member could take it. When I challenged him with being a conscriptionist, he said that he was not advocating conscription for military purposes abroad but simply conscription in Order to preserve order among the civil population at home in case disorder should break out during a period of war. To-night he has been speaking and rejoicing in the fact that this Bill contains
  124
  what he has been working and striving for for a long time. He, at least, is frank. Other members of the Government or supporters of the Government in this House have been insidiously carrying on the campaign which the hon. Member for Altrincham has been carrying on openly and avowedly. They have now won their way, and the Government have brought in this Bill in violation of the pledges made at two succeeding elections.
  We are told that it is not right for us to hold the Prime Minister to his pledges when the circumstances have changed. It is true that circumstances do change and, consequently, we must make allowances; but we must also take into consideration the fact that when circumstances change the Prime Minister is not to be permitted to shelter himself behind the changed circumstances in doing things that suit him and his party, unless we on our side have also the right to insist as to the direction which circumstances shall force him and his Government to take. We insist that the changed circumstances have not altered his outlook as to the methods to be employed for bringing about a peace bloc in Europe in such a way that would make it necessary for this conscription Bill to be introduced. Since September we have been able to trace the circumstances which have led up to this Bill. There was Munich, the umbrella waving, the display of paper brought to this country as the signed word of Herr Hitler, and the statement that consequently all was well. Those pledges were broken immediately afterwards. The freedom of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia has gone by the board, and latterly, that of Albania. The Secretary of State for War, inadvertently or callously, openly and frankly admitted the trend of events which have led up to the bringing in of this Bill. The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir V. Warrender) looks rather questioningly at that statement, but if he will look at the latter part of the speech which the Secretary of State for War delivered on 27th April he will find that he gave part of the reasons why this Bill has been brought forward. He used these words:
  "It was following upon this declaration that we announced our plan for 19 divisions."
  That was after the taking over of Czecho-slovakia. The Secretary of State for War announced the formation of 19 divi-

  125
  sions that could be employed for service overseas. He went on to say:
  "Since then, our fate has become inseparably associated with the independence of other European countries. The Germans moved into Bohemia and Moravia on the 15th March, and in the ensuing fortnight international tension increased. It was in these circumstances that the Polish guarantee was given and we stated that if Poland
  'considered it vital to resist with their national forces. His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all the support in their power.'
  By the time this pronouncement was made by my right hon. Friend, we had undertaken the doubling of the Territorial Army. That was the second military implication. Albania was occupied on Friday, 7th April, and again my right hon. Friend pledged this country, stating that: 'His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the avoidance of disturbance by force or threats of force of the status quo in the Mediterranean and the Balkan peninsula.' And he gave a formal assurance to the Greek and Rumanian Governments that we would lend them, in certain contingencies, all the support in our power. This series of declarations does not leave Britain where we stood last year … We are now asking Parliament, which endorsed our new commitments, to give us the required authority to take the necessary steps… Military implications have ensued upon international commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939;
  That is the history of events leading up to this Bill. What was the guarantee that we gave to France when we induced France to break her agreement with Czecho-Slovakia, as a result of which Germany invaded and annexed Czechos-lovakia?
  Sir A. Wilson: Can the hon. Member give any authority for the statement that we induced France to break her agreement.
  Mr. Maclean: Although the hon. Member said things with which I fundamentally disagreed, I did not ask him any questions. If he has noted what I said and he realises that I was asking a question of the Government, which I expect them to answer, perhaps he will repeat my question to the Government and ask them to answer him. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to tell the House what was the guarantee we gave to France. Was not part of that guarantee the 19 new divisions to be employed abroad, if the case arose? Was it not an argument used by France that voluntary service was not sufficient, that the 19 divisions and the doubling of
  126
  the Territorial Army were not sufficient as a guarantee for this country to give to the peace bloc? France wanted this country, Rumania wanted this country and Poland wanted this country to conscript some of the manhood of the nation because they were conscriptionist countries. Is not that the guarantee that this Government gave to those three countries? Is not that the price that we are paying for the betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia by the Prime Minister? You betrayed Czecho-slovakia, but you are not paying the price yourselves. You are asking the mothers to part with their sons, 20 years of age. The mothers of this country are going to pay the price by sacrificing their boys of 20 years of age, because of the broken pledges and promises, and because the Prime Minister has betrayed his own country as well as having betrayed Czecho-Slovakia. I see hon. Members opposite smiling. Is that the way in which they regard this Bill and the effects of this Bill? Is it a smiling matter to them? If it is, it is a heartbreaking matter to thousands of women who will see their young lads of 20 going into the Army.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is to place this country in the same condition as other countries in Europe, and while this is being done the strongest nation in Europe is being cold-shouldered by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have assured us that there is no objection to Russia on ideological grounds, but they are not doing anything to hasten an agreement or get a treaty signed. They are skirmishing around. The Prime Minister could fly to Munich and sign an agreement with Hitler much more quickly than he can with the representative of Russia. He was in a great hurry to get Hitler to sign an agreement, but these conversations, this exchange of notes, have been going on for month after month with the representatives of Russia; they have been going on since last September, and we are no farther forward now to the signing of any treaty or alliance than we were then. Herr Hitler could be asked to sign in 48 hours, and did so. Perhaps the Prime Minister agrees with the ideological ideals and form of government of Hitler. That may explain the rapidity with which they both signed an agreement and the delay which has happened in signing an agreement with Russia.

  127
  An ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), spoke at that Box this afternoon. I was present in the House 21 years ago when he stood at the Box on the Government side introducing the Peace Treaty. He said he had brought peace for democracy, everything was finished, peace was established in Europe, there would be no more war. He now stands at the Box on this side of the House and asks for the conscription of young men again. He talked peace 20 years ago. He spoke then of the glorious conditions which were going to prevail for all of us. I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the Kaiser a Tory Member interrupted him and asked, "Will he be tried in London?" and the ex-Prime Minister said, "Yes." The Kaiser is the only one who seems to have profited out of the War. He is free from worry, he has married again and he had only the other day a birthday on which he received congratulations, some of them from this country. He seems to be living a very quiet and respectable life with none of the worries of a crowned monarch upon him. And 21 years after we are discussing what we are going to do because of the evils which have arisen out of the Peace Treaty which was produced at that Box in May, 1919. We are being asked, after a War which was to end war, a war for democracy, to vote for young lads of 20 years of age to be conscripted into the Army to fight another war. For what? To end Fascism? How do we know that we are not going to establish Fascism in this country? We are rapidly going towards that.
  Hon. Members opposite tell us that we ought not to say this and that and the other thing, that we ought not to provoke disorder. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was asked what he was going to say to the people outside, what kind of methods he was going to invite them to adopt in order to carry out his opposition to the Government. The insinuation was that he was going to incite people outside. If we try to teach people outside, to convert them to our views, it is incitement, according to hon. Members opposite. They can go out and talk conscription and organise their Fascist ideas, but that is in no way against the Constitution,
  128
  because to them anything that they do is supporting the Constitution, but anything we do is quite evidently fighting the Constitution. This Conscription Bill is a Bill which I for one shall advise every young man of 19 and 20 to refuse to accept. The Government may pass it with the biggest majority they have ever got in this House, but that will not deter me, and I speak for myself alone, although I know that others of my colleagues will do the same thing in their constituencies. I shall do my best to frustrate everything that this Bill is intended to do. I shall advise mothers not to allow their boys to go, and I shall advise the boys not to be conscripted. I defy this Government to put any conscription upon me or on my tongue in advocating and continuing to advocate the liberty which I would have everyone possess in this country, that is, the right and freedom to do what his conscience may dictate.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. Member has claimed, as have other hon. Members before him, that the voluntary system would meet the present emergency perhaps more efficiently than the limited measure of conscription we are now bringing in. I believe that he and his friends overlook one all-important factor, and that is the speed with which modern war breaks out. Up to 1914 it was possible for a citizen army to recruit its strength whilst the battle fleet stood at its station in the North Sea. Nowadays we know from bitter experience that sirens may be sounding in our cities a few moments after the outbreak of war, and that bombs may even have begun to fall before the Ambassador has received his passport, that is, before a formal declaration of war. It is merely common sense and common wisdom to have a buffer which can receive the first shock. The French, who have an apt genius for coining phrases, call this buffer the "armée de couverture"—the covering army—which holds strategic positions behind which the nation mobilises its resistance. Surely, it is only wisdom on our part that our military authorities should know at a given moment that there will be several hundreds of thousands of men at their positions ready to man the anti-aircraft defences, or to go abroad should necessity demand it.
  Hon. Members opposite have likewise referred to the fact that we have brought

  129
  in conscription because pressure from abroad has compelled us to do so. Let us put ourselves frankly in the position of a Frenchman. If I were a Frenchman, engaged in war, I might well ask myself why I should send my sons or brothers to the battlefields of Poland or Roumania while across the Channel there were able-bodied men not wearing the King's uniform. Hon. Gentleman opposite claim that that is an unjust accusation, and that people on the Continent do not realise the vast war effort we should be putting into any conflict; but propaganda, always unscrupulous, would make tremendous play with such a charge. If murmers ever broke out in the trenches, a great rift might develop between our ally and ourselves. Again, if I were a Pole or a Roumanian, at the present juncture, I should feel fortified by the fact that there was conscription in this country. It may be true, as hon. Members have said, that sea-power is decisive in war, but the naval weapon of a blockade, although terribly efficient, is nevertheless slow. It does not provide dramatic headlines for newspapers with which to cheer up the morale of the country. It shows itself only after many months in the pinched faces of the food queues in enemy cities. It would be a reassurance, I believe, to our new allies to know that they would have the visible support of khaki columns marching through their villages, perhaps to share in the defence of their country.
  Lastly, I believe also that it is necessary, to deter any possible aggressor and to inspire confidence in our policy, to plate all our resources as far as possible on a war footing. The Germans, if I may say so without offence, are psychologically an undeveloped people. They often believe that the symbol is more important than the idea which it represents, and therefore, they very often wrongly conclude, if there is no physical expression of force, that there is no force available. We know that powerful and influential voices in Germany have been raised again and again, in most important quarters, saying that England can be discounted because she has not introduced conscription. This policy to which we are now bringing material reinforcement cannot in any possible circumstances be called a policy of encirclement. It is not a policy of encirclement against any one nation, but only against a possible aggressor. A burglar might as well com-
  130
  plain, if he came to a house and found the windows and doors shut, that a policy of encirclement was being carried out against him by the householders.
  I believe that, at the same time as we press ahead with this material reinforcement of our policy, we should launch a co-ordinated propaganda campaign. We should make it plain, as we have done in the past, that what we deny to force we do not deny to legitimate German economic ends. We should make it plain that there can be work for German factories, wages in German homes, money in the German housewife's purse, on one condition—that the German commercial traveller takes the pistol out of his pocket. It is to our interests to have a peaceful and prosperous Germany, but if the rulers of Germany discount this appeal and believe that a policy of force will pay them, then they will find mobilised against them the ideals and passions of mankind. It will be nothing less than a crusade against the law of force. I believe the Measure we are now bringing in will receive a response, because it always has, in the course of our history, received a response when the objective and ideal have been good. It has always been so, from the days when the beacons gave a warning of the arrival of the Spanish Armada off the Lizard to the days when German troops entered Belgium in the last War. I believe that the Measure we are discussing to-day will prove that the thin red line will stand as firm in an emergency as it has done in the most glorious annals of our history.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: I oppose conscription. I can claim to-night that I may be in a special position in regard to what is termed the defence of the country. I have heard so much in this House about the patriotism of various individuals in it that I am driven to Dr. Johnson's definition of patriotism—that it is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Although all who profess patriotism are not scoundrels, it is true that very often the flag and patriotism are the cloak behind which a large number of exploiters in this country hide themselves. With regard to the Bill, hon. Members may remember that in February, 1936, I asked the then Prime Minister, now Lord Baldwin, whether he would pledge his word that conscription would not be introduced into this country as long as

  131
  peace prevailed. On successive occasions, I asked for a renewal of that pledge, and on three occasions I was told both by the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister, that conscription would not be introduced in peace time. I am not annoyed about the breaking of this pledge, because I never expect capitalist politicians to keep any pledges when it suits them to break them.
  I was apprehensive three or four years ago about what I believed to be the ultimate aim and goal of this country. When the country decided to embark on a huge armaments programme, I could not see myself backing that programme. In common with those hon. Members who are associated with me, I have refused, even under pressure, to ask that armament work should be started in our divisions, because I believe that ultimately the common people will have to pay a terrible price for this policy and for the building up of these vast armaments. In attempting to be as logical as possible, in an illogical world and an illogical House, we tried to see the road that was being prepared, the lair that was being devised, the trap into which the common people and the working-class movement were to march; and we saw it step by step.
  The armament programme was advanced as something which would bring work to the workers, but, in spite of the sugar coating on the pill, we realised that if we accepted the armament programme, we were bound, in the end, to provide the men who were to be used to defend what were called the interests of the country. We saw collective security as a means to an end. We had no doubts as to the aims of the ruling class of this country, or any capitalist class. They do not seek to use these weapons in defence of working-class rights, those rights which have been torn from the ruling classes by suffering and by resistance to deportation, the prison cell and the firing squad. Inhuman treatment and economic starvation have been the lot of the worker all along the road of social progress. When the bait was being used that these weapons were for the defence of democratic freedom we were under no illusion about the freedom for which hon. Members opposite stand and the freedom for which we stand. Therefore, we refused to support that programme.
  132
  Pledges have been given on this subject from time to time. When the Conscription Act of 1916 was introduced I followed events very closely from outside this House, and I remember the attitude of the late Herbert Henry Asquith, a very wily Liberal politician, as most Liberal politicians are—always balancing themselves on the wall and never knowing on which side they will come down. He said that the Government were not seeking to bring within the ambit of that Measure the widow's son, or the married man. He quoted poetry:
  "Go cruit me Cheshire and Lancashire,
  And Derby hills that are so free,
  No married man or widow's son,
  No widow's curse shall go with me."
  In spite of that pledge, he came back to the House very soon with a proposal to conscript the married man and the widow's only son and, without a blush of shame, national necessity was advanced as the excuse. One would think from the Debate to-night and that of Thursday last that this country had been generous in its treatment of conscientious objectors in the last War. If one did not know the facts, one would imagine that the country had honoured its pledges, even to those men, but here are some facts and figures. There were 6,312 conscientious objectors who resisted military service. Of these, 5,970 were court-martialed; 655 were court-martialed twice; 521 were court-martialed three times, 55 were court-martialed five times and three were court-martialed six times. The number who served over two years in prison was 816, while 69 died after arrest and 10 died, having been retained in prison even when they were very ill; 39 became mentally deranged and had to be put into lunatic asylums and between 3,000 and 4,000 accepted combatant service.
  Thousands who refused to bear arms served with non-combatant corps and with the Friends' ambulance units and other units. But 39 were taken to France, in spite of the fact that they were technically free. They were taken by the military. The Government of the day could not prevent them from being taken by the military authorities to France, and they were sentenced to death. They were placed in an open field under Field Punishment No. 1—under crucifixion. Their hands were handcuffed behind their backs. They were nut out in open fields even on stormy

  133
  nights and ultimately sentenced to death for insubordination and disobedience, although they had real and substantial conscientiousobjections. Sir Douglas Haig confirmed the death sentence, but ultimately the sentence was commuted to 10 years penal servitude. That is part of the history of the conscientious objectors in the last War.
  Do not let us have any hypocrisy about the country having been generous in its treatment of men with consciences. I remember, myself, going before a tribunal. Of course we all know that you form tribunals and we are told that you are going to appoint a High Court judge. I think you generally appoint a man without a conscience to look after those men who have consciences, and then he is so angry and annoyed that anybody should have a conscience when he has none, that he will wreak his personal spite on the individual. I remember the petty little grocers and other tradesmen who formed the Tory party in Glasgow and the questions which we were asked when we went before them such as, "What would you do if the Germans attacked your mother-in-law?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Mother-in-law?"] Yes, mother-in-law. That was the sort of stupid question that was asked. Have hon. Members not heard the story of the fellow who replied, "You do not know my mother-in-law. God help the Germans, if they attacked her." Having asked every kind of stupid question, they decided that you did not conform to the conscience clause, no matter what your answer was. They would ask, "Do you object to taking life?" And if the answer was, "Yes," then they would say, "But you are are wearing boots and they come from an animal." Unless you were going about in bare feet and without any clothes, as a nudist, you were taken to be a man without a conscience; but if you had gone about in that way the city would have had a conscience, and you would have been placed behind prison bars.
  I am not going to exaggerate the power which I have. I cannot bring the workers of the Clyde out on strike. I cannot bring the workers of any industrial works out on strike. I am not going to exaggerate the power of the youth of the country in connection with this Bill. But I say this, that as far as one man can, I will appeal to the youth of this nation to
  134
  consider their position and to realise that they are pioneers in this struggle for conscience and against war. What are you considering in this Bill? It is not that you are going to take men for six months' service to improve their bodies and their minds, because if you wanted to improve their minds, military or naval service is the last thing you would give them. I was a short time in the British Navy and I was glad to get out of it. I say it is a cesspool of human iniquity and mothers and fathers in this country, if they knew the demoralisation of the youth of the country in that service, would not allow their sons to go into it for a single minute. I challenge any person in this House to deny that. If they do, I will go more fully into the subject.
  In regard to the Bill, I say that if we were taking these individuals for six months' training to improve their physique and to improve their minds, I could subscribe to that, but you are taking them to teach them the art of murdering other human beings. That is what you are organising them for, and the State has no more right than has the private individual to organise men for the purpose of murdering and destroying human life. I refuse either to be organised or to be silenced in my description of war as the murder of human beings. I remember during the War reading in the "Glasgow Herald" despatches that came from the front, and I remember one description by Philip Gibbs, now Sir Philip Gibbs, of the battle of Loos, where there were 10,000 dead lying in a small area. He said that one could not take a single step a foot square on ground, but that one had to march from body to body in order to get over the area. He also said in that despatch, "If I thought that a child of mine was likely to endure this suffering and cruelty, I would be tempted to take that child from its cradle now and dash its brains out."
  I remember the battle of Verdun, in which 300,000 lives were lost. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was describing that battle to-day as if it were some glorious thing, but he did not tell us some of the facts as they were described in the despatches. About 10,000 shells per hour were fired on the defences of Verdun, and ultimately it was mostly the bodies of men that were barring the way

  135
  to the continual mass formations of troops that were being pressed forward. In those despatches we were told that while that assault was going on, for weeks, after nightfall men, mostly young men, lying in the open, could be heard screaming in agony and pain because no mortal could help them, either to kill them or to take them out of the place, and they were crying out in their various tongues for their mothers, for the ones they loved dearly, until after a period silence reigned, and they died in their agony. There was something of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross that was enacted tens of thousands of times in that struggle on the Western front, on the mountain slopes of Italy, on the plains of Mesopotamia, and in other places. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter)—I think he is ill at the moment, for which I am sorry—made a statement during the last War analysing arguments whether he could serve or not, and here is a quotation from that statement:
  "Look! Christ in khaki, out in France, thrusting his bayonet into the body of a German workman. See! The Son of God, with a machine gun, ambushing a column of German infantry, catching them unawares in a lane and mowing them down in their helplessness. Hark! The 'Man of Sorrows' in a cavalry charge, cutting, hacking, thrusting, crushing, cheering. No, no! That picture is an impossible one, and we all know it. That settles the matter for me. I cannot support war, even on its defensive side, and I cannot, therefore, advise anyone else to enlist or to take part in what I believe to be wrong and wicked for myself. A country, as an individual, must be prepared to follow Christ if it is to claim the title of Christian."
  That was the quotation given by the hon. Member. I think it is telling and effective and that it answers this Bill and the general question regarding war, so far as I am concerned. Continually put up to us is this argument: "Would you defend your home?" Of course, I would defend my home. I would defend my wife, I would defend my family, but I can best defend them by being there at home to do it. I do not require to leave the shores of this country. It is a different thing defending your kith and kin and being organised to go out to France and to seek other workers, standing face to face with other workers, against whom you have no grievance, who also are organised by their ruling class for the purposes of murder, pillage, and loot. Therefore, I refuse to encourage the youth of this nation to pro-
  136
  ceed to the battlefield to seek out other men in order to destroy them. I remember a very effective little poem that we had in the last War, which went something like this:
  "Two babes were born one Summer morn;
  They came of love divine.
  Hearts were glad by the River Thames,
  And hearts were glad by the Rhine.
  These children grew so brave and true,
  Each mother said, 'How fine,'
  And a mother smiled by the River Thames,
  And a mother smiled by the Rhine.
  On one sad day, so people say.
  Their rulers tried to shine,
  And one lad heard a call by the Thames,
  And the other a call by the Rhine.
  Two noble sons shouldered their guns,
  And they marched in martial line,
  But a mother prayed by the River Thames
  And a mother prayed by the Rhine.
  On the battle plain where the bullets rain,
  Their aim was really fine.
  But a mother weeps by the Thames
  And a mother weeps by the Rhine.
  Two noble sons fell by their guns;
  And their names in glory shine,
  But a mother weeps by the River Thames,
  And a mother weeps by the Rhine.
  The Thames so fine and the River Rhine,
  Flow into one great sea,
  And each seems to say, as they kiss in spray,
  'Would that men were as wise as we.'"
  That expresses my attitude towards war. I refuse to disembowel, to blind, to hack, to tear asunder, and then wipe my bloodstained hands on the folds of a flag and call myself a patriot. It is done in every country in the world where capitalism reigns. I cannot support this Measure or do anything in any way to encourage it. This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and the youth of Northern Ireland should be delighted at that. The youth of Northern Ireland can look upon Mr. de Valera as their friend, and they can look upon Lord Craigavon as their enemy. Lord Craigavon comes to this country and pleads that the youth of Northern Ireland should be sent to the battlefield, an old man coming over here—I think he is between 80 and 90 years of age—and pleading to have the youth of Northern Ireland conscripted and sent to the battlefield. Well, he is the master of his own mind and his own conscience, but if I were a young man in Northern Ireland to-night, if I were the father or the mother of a son there, I would look upon Mr. de Valera, with the action that he has taken, as being worthy of the young men of that country. I say this

  137
  further, that I wish the trade unions and the Labour movement would use their power as effectively as Mr. de Valera has done, for then there would not only be no conscription, but there would be no National Service and no war.
  There will be wars only while the men from the slums and the dens and the mean streets, with their low wages, are prepared to be drawn from their kennels and the back lands into the false and lying struggle for democracy and freedom—the democracy and freedom of Lord Hunsdon who said at a public dinner in London during the last War, referring to the miners, "I would starve them into submission, as we do the Germans."
  That is the attitude of the ruling class to the workpeople. The worker is a man to be exploited, a man to make profits, to provide rent and interest for an idle class in society, who are prepared to use them in war time. They deny them the pensions they need when they have done with them after a war. In last evening's National Programme on the wireless an appeal was made on behalf of the disabled ex-Service men, and we were asked to give charity to the ex-Service men who stood between the Germans and the ruling class of this country, their possessions, their bank balances, their land and their profits. Then you treat them in that way. The Minister of Labour is aware of the tens of thousands of young men who have been chased out of their homes by a means test. I have often said that the day will come when the working class will have the power to hit back.
  So far as we are concerned, there is no co-operation with any Government. We cannot say, as other parties say, that if there is a change of Government we are prepared to co-operate. We are not seeking only a change of Government, although that would be desirable; we are seeking a change of system, and then, when we get the common possession of the land, the banks, the railways, the mines and the possessions of this country and throughout the world, there will be no need for war. It will be a Red army, a Red army that will be prepared to defend the real interest of society, because it will be the collective interest of the whole, and not the interest of a few exploiters. Therefore, we reject this plea for national unity. There is a division,
  138
  there are two peoples in this country—the poor and the rich; and if the rich want to defend themselves against Hitler and Mussolini and the ruling class of other countries, who seek to tear from them part of their colonial possessions, then let them get their uniforms on and defend those interests. We will remain behind, we will encourage youth to remain behind, we will encourage youth to resist, aye, even to the prison cell, this Government and this system that make war continually and exploit the fine feelings of humanity for the ulterior ends of rent, interest and profit.
  9.29 p.m.
  Sir R. Ross: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has told us what his feelings would be if he were a young man of Northern Ireland. That is not a matter of much interest, because he is not a bit like them. The young men in Northern Ireland are prepared to bear the burden as well as to obtain the privilege of citizens. The hon. Member is not prepared; he is more logical than many. He has made a personal attack on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland because he said that our people should bear this burden. I would tell him, if he does not know, that Lord Craigavon as a young man went out to fight in the war in South Africa, and he had prepared himself as a member of the auxiliary forces to serve his country, if necessary, without being compelled. He also joined up well after military age, and if he had not been disabled by sickness he would, I believe, have served throughout the War.
  Mr. Maxton: What about the Curragh?
  Sir R. Ross: The Curragh incident was merely a question of people who were given the option of retiring from the Army and ruining their career or of attacking the people of Ulster, whose only offence was that they were determined not to be thrust out of the citizenship which they desired, and which they were determined to preserve.
  Mr. Stephen: They did not believe in democracy.
  Sir R. Ross: We did believe in democracy, and we would have got no democracy if we had been put under a Dublin Parliament. We only asked for the rights which hon. Gentlemen opposite enjoy.

  139
  [Interruption.] I quite appreciate that hon. Members opposite individually have to make 25 per cent. more noise this week. There is one peculiar thing about the attitude of the Labour party, and that is the distinction they make between industrial and international disputes. If a workman does not join wholeheartedly with his fellow-workmen in a trade union in an industrial dispute and enjoys the fruits of that dispute, he is denounced as a blackleg and a scab, but apparently in the field of international disputes it is open to him to avoid doing his share, and hon. Members opposite support him.
  Mr. Messer: Is not there a difference between an industrial dispute and compelling a man to kill his fellows?
  Sir R. Ross: Those views are not mine; it is hon. Members opposite who hold them. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member who has just spoken are pacifists, and their position is different. But I cannot see how the Labour party's protection of the man who is rather a laggard in an international dispute can be reconciled with their views on industrial disputes. Up till now I have suspected hon. Members of being Socialists, but, of course, with their rugged stand for individualism in opposing conscription, I see that they are not Socialists. The State is not all to them: only those who feel inclined are to serve in war. Let hon. Members opposite be logical. They will have an opportunity on the Finance Bill. Why do they not take the same view of finance, and move that the social services should be paid for by public subscriptions and voluntary contributions? Why should not the principle which they apply to conscription apply to money? The logical conclusion of their attitude is that the social services should not be paid for by taxation, but by voluntary contributions.
  Mr. John Morgan: Would the hon. Member suggest that a person who would voluntarily surrender £1,000,000 in aid of his country would be in a higher category than a person who had it extracted from him by taxation?
  Sir R. Ross: I am not going to indulge in academic discussions. I am only saying that the voluntary principle, which hon. Members opposite in defence of their individualist views apply to the service of
  140
  the country in war, can equally well be applied to the financial forces of the nation.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member complains that people who believe in Socialism seem to believe in individualism in the military sense. Why is it that the hard-bitten individuals of that side, the more hard-bitten they are the more they are in favour of military conscription?
  Sir R. Ross: Because they are a patriotic party. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not cost them anything."] It does, and there are many Members on this side who are affected by this Bill. I turn to a question which affects me as an Ulster Member more than other Members, and that is the question of the inclusion or exclusion of Northern Ireland. Up to the present we have had nothing about it from a Minister of the Crown, and I was disappointed when the Minister of Labour, in winding up on Thursday, did not allude to one aspect of the question which is particularly in his province. I refer to the flow of people, who will wish to avoid conscription in this country, which will almost certainly go to Belfast, the only part of the United Kingdom where there will not be conscription, and the only part where they cannot be conscripted and can yet still get the benefits of the social legislation, particularly as regards the unemployed. As a result, we shall have an increase in our unemployment and further competition with our own people. Will it be possible for people who have left Great Britain to avoid conscription just to go into the Employment Exchange, put their cards on the table in Belfast, and so increase the number of our unemployed?
  I do not think hon. Members quite appreciate the position in which we as Ulster Members are in this House. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland came over and made an offer of unstinted support on behalf of those he represented, and he stated his opinion as to what course should be pursued. That is all he could do because the authority responsible for Defence is the Government here. This was not a time to confuse the issue, and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland could not attempt in any sense to interfere with a Defence matter. He came only to offer his support and to give his opinion. If it was decided against him it was no fault of his, and even if it was

  141
  in reverse of his advice or opinion, there was nothing he could do. Our position as Members of this Parliament is different because we are Members of the House, which is responsible for the Defence services and the Defence policy. We recognise, if anyone does, the difficulties of the Government, and we are anxious to help and not to embarrass the Prime Minister.
  We feel obliged, however, to oppose a decision which we believe to be disastrous. We cannot shirk this responsibility, and we would not be doing justice to our country or to our constituents if we did not oppose it. Clause 1 puts Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom in the Bill as liable to conscription. We shall oppose its amendment, as we shall oppose anything which will draw a distinction between us and other parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 15, even if Clause 1 were amended to make it not applicable to us, would still enable the Government to apply it if the occasion was thought proper and it is now apparently even suggested that Clause 15 should be omitted. That, I think, is a great mistake. What is to happen to the Isle of Man? Are they to be relieved from the Bill because they happen to share Clause 15 with us? No one has spoken for that gallant island, and I see in the Press that they are indignant that any slur should be cast upon their manhood. That is a matter upon which not a word has been said. Members on all sides, and on this side perhaps most of all, must consider seriously whether this country is able to leave a population the size of New Zealand to which this Bill does not apply. The population of Northern Ireland is very much that of New Zealand. When through their representatives, elected in the ordinary way as other members are, it is said that Northern Ireland is prepared to accept this burden, are hon. Members able with a clear conscience to go and tell that to their constituents?
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, that Clause 15, even if it is not thought proper to apply this Bill at the present time, should be left in the Bill. The Clause is not mandatory; the Government need not hurry, but they should have the Clause there so that in case there should be a necessity which would justify the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, it could be applied
  142
  without further legislation. There was one matter which was mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister. We were given an extra regiment, which is to be a light tank regiment. I would remind the Secretary of State for War that this regiment, in which I had the honour to serve for many years, has come to an end and has to be started afresh. If it is to be started afresh it is essential, not merely to give it two or three trucks, but to give it some real up-to-date equipment, because it is a much harder task to raise a regiment which has been allowed to disappear, which this has been than to continue a regiment which has been in being for some time.
  With regard to the question of why there should be difficulties too great to extend this Bill to Northern Ireland, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one or two things. I agree that there would certainly be organised opposition, but there will probably be organised opposition over here. We have already seen some of it. I do not think that is an insuperable objection. I would remind the House that when the United States in 1863 proposed conscription, the Irish in New York rioted mightily in opposition to it and said they were not interested in the American Civil War. In July and the beginning of August, 1863, there were very bad riots and serious organised opposition on behalf of the large number of Irish in New York, but they were met by President Lincoln and they came to an end. I have claimed that our record in recruiting in the province as a whole, in proportion to all classes, creeds and political opinions, is as good as any, but the reply I got to-day showed that it was roughly one-third better than the average recruiting numbers for Great Britain as a whole, but that may have been accidental to the last three years. At all events, it has been quite as good.
  It has been suggested that there are violent objections to serving by those who are sundered from us politically in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I do not think that is so. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate mentioned the enthusiasm for service that was alleged to exist in Dublin during the September crisis. I am not quite sure of that, but I am sure about what was called the "suitcase brigade," who filled the trains from this country to Dublin at that;

  143
  time. But undoubtedly there are Irishmen who are not of the same religion or political faith as myself who would serve and have served. Look at that fine Territorial Battalion in London which does such honour to one of our colleagues in this House. That is an Irish Battalion, and probably you will not find very many Ulstermen in it. What is the reputation as soldiers of my fellow-countrymen with whom I disagree? It is a fine reputation for courage; and how was it earned? Not in burning houses or in attacks on the police; it was earned under the British flag on a hundred fields; and I think that if it had been possible for these young men to have been enlisted under a conscription Act the vast majority of them would have come in.
  The Prime Minister said he hoped that Ulster would make no smaller contribution to the Defence forces and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is a very leading Member of that most bourgeois profession of which I have the honour to be a very humble member, picked upon that point at once. He asked why, if that be so, we should not have the voluntary system in England. Of course the position is not the same, because we shall have those who are of the same political faith as myself being told to bear the whole burden. They will see those who are opposed to them and who desire their political destruction under no obligation to serve. Probably they will see their jobs taken by people coming, perhaps from outside Northern Ireland, because that is what happened last time. People came up from the south and got into the jobs, and the extraordinary thing is that although in Eire Northern Ireland is described as a place where people of that type are oppressed, yet once they get into Northern Ireland they never seem to go out again.
  At present there is a competition between Mr. De Valera and his Government and the Irish Republican Army as to who compelled the English to withdraw the threat of conscription, and I am very sorry that there is a third party and that, I regret to say, is the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. We are often accused of bringing religion into politics, but in this case no sooner had the announcement of conscription been made than, headed by a very great authority—an authority which people who do not live
  144
  in countries where there are many Catholics do not appreciate, the Cardinal-Archbishop—the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ulster issued a very marked political announcement to tell their people at all costs to resist conscription; not on any ground that they objected to the shedding of blood, because they certainly had no objection to matters being fought out to the last Protestant. The political aims of the Government of Eire and the Irish Republican Army are the same. They are both prepared to use force if they think it effective in order to compel us in Ulster, against our will, to be under a Government which deprives us of British citizenship. On 7th February, Mr. De Valera, the Prime Minister of that part of the country, said in the Senate:
  "Force would be justified if there was any chance of its succeeding."
  —that is, force against us to drive us under his authority. At the present time his utterances are quoted with approval by Herr Hitler. He also said:
  "If we had the backing of some Continental Powers I should say publicly what I have said privately, that I would feel perfectly justified in using force."
  With this threat of force how can we expect people willingly to leave their homes and join up when there is no such duty imposed upon those who hate them?
  Mr. Logan: In view of the discussions now taking place, and in view of the agreement reached with Northern Ireland, does the hon. Member think it appropriate to be using this language?
  Sir R. Ross: I think all my language is most appropriate.
  Mr Logan: I wish I had the opportunity to reply.
  Sir R. Ross: In conclusion I should like to say that I hope the Government have no illusions now as regards the attitude of the Government of Eire to the act of faith which the Prime Minister alluded to last May in the step he took to get their good will. That has failed. We know that the aim of the Government of Eire is to preserve their neutrality in time of war. The aggression of Mr. De Valera towards us is constant. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate to this point. We have told the British Government that we are with them without reserve. If the British Government have

  145
  any reservations towards us we should be told what they are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) made a very serious contribution to the Debate on Thursday. Nothing has been said about it. We are eager to help the Government and reluctant to embarrass them; we are friends of this country, but we are determined to maintain our citizenship; and we are ready to bear its burdens as well as its privileges.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. Attlee: I hope the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the domestic questions which he raised. I will only express my sympathy with him in one particular thing, and that is his difficulty in trying to get a reply from a Government spokesman. We are now coming to the end of two days' Debate, and the Government have not yet discharged their obligation to show the military need for this Measure, and to show beyond all question that the men required cannot be provided by the voluntary system. To change the long-established system of this country calls for very strong reasons. In this matter the Prime Minister gave a pledge to this House and to the country. It must, therefore, need really overwhelming reasons if a British Prime Minister is to break his pledge. It is not a light thing to do. In this world there is far too much breaking of the pledged word for far too light reasons. It is easy to kill faith in the words of statesmen and very difficult to re-create it. It is not enough to give reasons which may be valid at any time to satisfy a conscriptionist of many years' standing, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It is necessary to convince those who have hitherto been against conscription.
  There has been no explanation of the military reasons for this sudden introduction of conscription. One reason given is the need for the continuous manning of anti-aircraft positions. I agree that with the air menace as it is there is need for that continuous manning, but that need existed a year ago. It existed two years ago. It was put before the Government long ago. They cannot only just have had their eyes opened to it. That, therefore, cannot be the effective need for conscription. The next point given is
  146
  that it would take the Territorial Army some time to train to be ready in case of need. Well, that is no new thing. That was so six months ago, a year ago, two years ago. It was so when the Secretary of State for War made his announcement with regard to the Territorial Army. It was so when the Prime Minister announced an increase in the Territorial Army. It is not some changed condition. That need for speed which was expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Dodd) has been obvious for some time to any student of military affairs.
  The next point put is the need for an increase of our land forces because of our Eastern European commitments. That is a most extraordinary illusion. The idea is that to meet our pledge to Poland we have to put in land forces, in order as some romantic Member said, that we should march to Poland's aid. Because we have a pledge to Rumania it necessarily means a large increase of our land forces is again an illusion. I do not think anyone in this House supposes that in the event of war we should be putting large land forces into Eastern Europe. Besides our Imperial commitments we should necessarily be engaged, as hitherto, in supporting the forces of the West. One of the alleged reasons for this Bill is the demand of our Western Allies that we should be able to put more troops into the field, but that demand again is not new. The alliance with France has existed for some time. Although the agreements with Poland and Rumania may increase the danger for us, they do not necessarily increase the need for the number of land forces. They do not affect necessarily the distribution of our effort.
  The curious thing is that the alliances, as we must call them, with Rumania and Poland, are always taken as increasing our liability, but not increasing our strength. One would think that in the Great War when anyone joined the Allies we had to make a larger effort. I am not suggesting that we are going to shelter behind the forces of Poland and Rumania, but I say that it is impossible to contend that we necessarily need greater land forces. What we really need, and what we have not had from any Minister, is some exposition of the military ideas behind the Bill. One of the disadvantages of the vacillating policy of the Government is that in any attempt to find out

  147
  what our needs are we are left in the dark because the policy of the Government is so vague. No one quite knows what is to be made of their approaches to the Union of Soviet Socialist Russia. No one knows whether you can count those forces on the side of the forces that are standing against aggression or not.
  It is essential, when you consider not merely the defence of this country by its own forces, but actually any alliance with others, that you should be able to estimate those forces. Such an alliance should be based on some allocation of function. Countries that join an alliance are not similar, geographically, in their economy or in their military potentialities. If we are to overcome the kind of cheap gibe which is made at our fighting at somebody else's expense, there ought to be a proper examination, not in order that every country should give an identical contribution, but in order that every country should give that contribution which might most make for the strength of the whole alliance. Different contributions, not identical; different, but equivalent. The need for the Russian alliance was rightly stressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but, as he does sometimes, he proved too much, because by the time he had finished he proved that without the Russian alliance nothing was any good at all. Although he demanded increased conscription he did not show that that would be any good in existing circumstances without the Russian alliance.
  Indeed, except for what is considered the psychological effect on other countries, this proposal is not going to be effective immediately in the critical times ahead. The Secretary of State for War rather said the same when he said that National Service would not affect in the degree sometimes imagined our initial military effort. I do not think that this Measure is really directed to our immediate needs. I do not think it is a measure of military policy. It is a surrender to the conscriptionists at home and a surrender to a not-very-well-informed demand from abroad. It may be some slight satisfaction to us to surrender to those who are apparently our friends on the Continent, and not to our enemies. That is a change. I do not in the least doubt that our friends abroad,
  148
  who certainly needed some encouragement from the Government, have some satisfaction; but the ultimate satisfaction is with the conscriptionists in this House and in the country.
  There has been no real reply to the case that was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). The Minister of Labour made no reply. I rather doubt whether he understood the question at issue. His attitude was that of the old sergeant-major who said: "What are you asking me for? You take the facts from the sergeant." The rest of his speech was little more than reading the battalion orders of mobilisation. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Duchy did very much better. He did not deal with the claim that the necessary men could be found by a voluntary appeal—an appeal that could be made, not only for annual trainings, but for six months' training; and, on the question of the possible utilisation of older men, he rode off by suggesting that all the other trained men were old crocks like me and himself. That is not true. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley gave very careful figures showing the number of people that there are of comparatively youthful age who have had training in the Territorials, and who could be trained far more quickly and readily than these boys who have had no training at all. It is not true to suggest that all these people are old crocks. I remember that, at the beginning of the War, I thought all people over 40 were old crocks; but there were in my battalion plenty who joined up and gave false ages and showed as good staying power as a great many of the younger ones. The Secretary of State for War claimed that no other scheme could give such a rapid accretion of trained strength. I deny that. I believe that a voluntary scheme, with full-time service under proper conditions, would give it far more rapidly, and if it is the next few weeks or months that are critical, that is the thing to do.
  I come now to the general point with regard to the advantage of conscription. I claim that the calling up of a whole age-class is not the scientific way of getting the men that are really needed for the Fighting Services. It has been stated, and I think it is true, that for every man in the fighting line there must

  149
  be 14 or 15, or perhaps more, behind the line. In addition, there are the key men in industry and in the professions, and in any age-group that is called up there will be the trained or partly trained men in various crafts or skilled trades or professions, and you will in effect be training numbers of men whom you will not be able to use later if they go back to their trades—seamen, miners and so forth. It is, therefore, wasteful, and is not really a good way of organising the man-power of the nation. Further, it is not selective, because you do not get those who are temperamentally best fitted for a particular service. I admit quite frankly that our voluntary system, on which we relied for filling the Regular Army, has been largely a matter of the work of Sergeant-Major Unemployment, and not of Recruiting-Sergeant Enthusiasm. But that is not true of the Territorial Army. There the voluntary system does effect a great degree of selection.
  I should be the last to deny the value of the services of many men who were conscripted in the last War, but I say that the volunteers were the better men. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I think there was a difference between the men with whom I served in 1914 and those with whom I served in 1918. It is wrong to think that this scheme will not interfere with voluntary recruiting. If the scheme continues for the 3½ years, or for longer—and I do not see any Conservative Government getting rid of it once they have got it—it will mean within a period the total destruction of the voluntary basis of the Territorial Army. In a few years' time all the Territorials will have entered through conscription, and you will have lost something of very great value to this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara) spoke truly when he was apprehensive that the spirit of voluntary service might be killed.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went a good deal too far in suggesting that the Territorial Army took a very long time to get fit in the last War—that it was not until after about two years that they were really effective. I think he was wrong there. After a very few months the average number of trained men—long-
  150
  service men—in any unit was not very great. The old Regular battalions were filled up with all kinds of people from the depots, some of them with hardly any training at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Territorial Army failed at the Somme because they were not properly trained, but it was not the men who failed—it was the generals. One reason against conscription is that it is very dangerous to give generals all the men they want. Experience shows that they waste them; they economise on thinking and waste life. French, German, British and Russian generals were all the same in this respect in the Great War, and we have to watch very carefully how we dispose of our comparatively limited man-power. It has been stressed already in this Debate that we ought to consider the proper direction of our efforts. I am sure it is not proper direction to think we are again going to put into the field a great Continental army.
  We are told a great deal about this being a very democratic system. I agree that it is practised in some democracies, but that does not necessarily make it democratic. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to make it democratic, they must go a good deal further than conscription; they must democratise the fighting forces. Our Navy, Army and Air Force are officered on a class basis. It is true that exceptional men like Sir William Robertson get through, but the whole basis is a class basis; the ritual of the mess maintains it. That is not because good officers cannot be obtained from other classes. At the end of the War men from all occupations and classes were making admirable officers, and towards the end a good deal of democratisation was going on; but after the end of the War they slipped back into the class basis. I do not think we ought to hear quite so much of this plea for democracy unless it is going to be a great deal more thoroughgoing.
  A number of points have been raised which are perhaps more suitable for the Committee stage, but I should like to refer to one or two of them. One practical point is, what is going to be done with these lads if the Bill passes? How are they to be trained? It is very important that they should not be just pushed into units and treated as a whole mass of raw material to be trained into soldiers. They

  151
  should be specially treated, just as the young soldier was treated in 1917. You will want to have very specially selected officers and N.C.Os. to deal with these men. You are going to have the pick of the nation, many of them extremely able people, with the best brains in the country; and you want some well-brained people to look after them. I want to make one point with regard to the age of selection. It is an unfortunate thing that this age of selection will mean taking the son of the war widow and of the man who was injured or crippled in the last War. I have a letter here from a mother, who writes saying that she has had a terrible time ever since the last War. Her husband was crippled in the last War and has never got another job. They have two boys; and now these boys are going to be conscripted. It is a terrible thing that is going to happen to those mothers who suffered so much in the last War. There is another point about this. There will be a tendency for employers not to take on boys who are nearing the conscription age. That will mean that those boys will tend to enlist earlier on. The better-off boys who are going for continued education will tend to postpone enlistment. So you are going to get recruiting in two separate age groups, according to social classes.
  Another point is the question of pay—1s. a day. I think it is very mean; it is very niggardly. I remember that in 1900 I was a schoolboy volunteer, and I went into camp for a fortnight at the time of the South African War. I then got the first money I ever earned. That was is. a day. If I had bought tobacco—I did not, because I was too young—it would have cost 4d., whereas now it would be is. 2d. These people are going to serve with other soldiers who are getting better pay. They are going to be cut off, I gather, from any additional pay for efficiency. They will get the bare is. a day. It is said that they are not going to have the obligation of serving for three or four years. That is true, but, on the other hand, they will not have the pension. Also, they are being put to a serious disadvantage at that time of life. I gather that the dependants' allowances, according to the Prime Minister, will be given only where need is established. We are going to have the means test applied. That means that the working-class family
  152
  will pay, because where the son is assisting the family, unless they can prove that they absolutely depend on him, they are going to lose when he is called up. There is no equality of sacrifice. To suggest that there is, is just as much a mockery as to suggest that we are going to get any real conscription of wealth.
  We consider conscription to be a bad thing in itself, and its introduction has been done in the worst possible way. The Prime Minister, who is so tender about the feelings of foreign dictators, does not mind in the least the feelings of the British working man. He must have known perfectly well what would be the feeling of the trade union movement on this. He has flouted the feelings of the working people of the country. This thing was done extremely clumsily. Every now and again we get appeals for national unity. The Prime Minister, by actions of this kind, does all he can to break up national unity. He is regarded by large sections in this country with the utmost suspicion. He is not regarded as a friend of democracy, and the people behind him who push for conscription are not friends of democracy. The feeling behind this Bill is not the desire to meet the immediate needs of this country, but the desire for conscription. That desire will grow; it will not stop short of this demand. Behind it all looms the spectre of industrial conscription. In the name of defence of liberty our liberties may be destroyed, and the Members of the present Government are the very last people we should trust.
  10.21 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The right hon. Gentleman began his speech, which was a reasoned speech, by complaining of the difficulty of obtaining any reply from Government spokesmen. I do not think that the complaint was substantiated, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be my endeavour to answer with particularity all the arguments which he advanced, and to answer, if I can, all the questions which he propounded. It it very striking to note the difference in spirit and in angle of view between the two speeches which have been made from the front bench opposite to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was not concerned with the military aspects of the problem—the military aspects of the problem

  153
  which concern this country—so much as with what he thought to be the moral aspects of our proposal. So reprehensible did he find the principle of compulsion that he could prophesy with confidence that its introduction would destroy the spirit of the people and dry up the sources of the nation's power. For us to sit here and send other people to the front, was, he asseverated, unseemly, degrading and an insult.
  But we are not sending these people to the front. We are proposing to give them training in order that, if the need should arise, they may be better able to defend both themselves and their country. The risk we run, and the risk that youth, owing to the accident of the time of its birth, runs, may be estimated by reference to the last Great War. That was made plain by the speech which we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, I think, somewhat detracted from the impersonal character of his advice by the personal character of his references to my right hon. Friend. He taunted my right hon. Friend with not having had diplomatic successes. I sometimes wonder whose task was the more arduous. The right hon. Gentleman's great work was done in conditions which were certain. The War had broken out and he had to mobilise the nation to win it. My right hon. Friend, on the other hand, is striving to avert war breaking out. He, therefore, operates in more uncertain and more arduous conditions and is entitled I think to some tolerance from the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that the failure to introduce such a measure as this might mean that our chances of victory might be halved and our casualties doubled. It hardly lies with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton to say that it is unseemly, degrading and an insult to send other people to the front in the event of war, when he has urged a policy which might have sent not only these young men but many others to the front, and sent them unprepared and untrained. Let those whose slogan is "Stand up to the dictators," give us the trained men so that we can stand up to them.
  It was interesting to have an account from the right hon. Member for Gorton of his experiences in Europe. He told us
  154
  he had visited certain countries in Europe, that he had addressed audiences and had invariably found that what they wanted to hear was that Britain was free. Free, certainly, but I should have thought that they also wanted to hear that Britain was strong. His Majesty's Government have also heard from foreign countries. Message after message has reiterated to us that this is a Measure which, above all others, would give them hope and greater assurance in a cause which is common to us all. Therefore, what infringement is it of our freedom if we take steps to secure it?
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken took quite a different line. He said that the Government had made no effort to justify the military need, and he complained that the speech of the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) had been unanswered. What did the right hon. Member for Keighley say? He said it was by its military results that this Bill must stand or fall. That is an acid and a forthright test and one which the Government are prepared to accept. This practical approach by the right hon. Gentleman tears away at once all those heavy political draperies appended to the Amendment, doubtless out of a sense of propriety to conceal the sparseness of its form. It tears them all away—the charges of mismanagement, incompetence, failure and dishonour. These flounces may be taken away and put back into the trunk for use on some other occasion.
  We are left then with the foundation of the Amendment, which while asserting a resolute determination to defend the country and to fulfil its international obligations, affirms the belief that the necessary man-power can be provided by voluntary recruitment. No one has disputed that man-power can be provided by voluntary recruitment; indeed, the enthusiastic response of the past few weeks is ample evidence of that. The challenging questions are, whether in relation to our urgent needs we are making the best use of our man-power and whether in present circumstances you can achieve the same security as promptly and as efficiently by a sporadic enlistment of soldiers who can only give their spare time, as you can by a simultaneous assembling of predetermined numbers, who can undergo intensive and consecutive training. Those are the really challenging questions. The Opposition and the Government have a

  155
  common interest and a common objective. What we have to do then is to examine whether the military results of our proposals are likely to be justified; whether they are likely to prove an effective reinforcement of our existing methods.
  The Government scheme, said the right hon. Member for Keighley, is an amateur scheme. Let us study it and see whether it is more amateurish than the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made indeed a constructive contribution to the Debate and advanced the only alternative of which the House has heard. May I then in the first place explain our scheme. Some derogatory observations were made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and other speakers about the numbers we propose to summon for training, about 200,000 men. In no conscript country are they in the habit of calling up more than one annual class. The annual class in France for 1939 is 141,000 and in Germany 230,000. That is in a great conscript country, and we are calling up about 200,000, which is 60,000 more numerically than the strength of the whole of our Regular Army at home. Therefore, it is in no sense a derisory scheme, and is as much as the small Regular Army we have been in the habit of maintaining can be expected to cope with in the first year. We have provisionally apportioned to the several arms of the Service their quotas of the total of the militiamen likely to be available. The Ministry of Labour offices throughout the country will call up enough men for examination required in each area. Each man having been medically examined will be interviewed by a representative of the Army, who will check information as to his education and trade and report the arm for which he is most suited and consider any preference he may have for any particular unit. A military posting officer will then examine the data and in each case settle the final allocation, informing the Minister of Labour of the place at which militiamen are to join and the Ministry of Labour will then issue the necessary instructions.
  I will now take two arms of the Service to illustrate the subsequent career of the militiaman. Those allocated to the infantry, like their fellows of the other branches of the Field Army, will be called up in bi-monthly batches. They will be trained in the first two months of their
  156
  service at the regimental depots and pass their subsequent four months with the battalion. It is intended that recruits on joining shall be graded into a more or less advanced squad according to their special knowledge and intelligence, so that those who are more capable shall not be held back by those who are less apt. The curriculum laid down will thus only be a guide, and men who are above the average will be pushed on more rapidly. On leaving the depot and joining his battalion, the militiaman will continue his basic training for two months, and in his last two months he will be instructed in specialist duties. The pick of the batches who have gone ahead of the others will spend their last two months, not with the battalion, but in a section and platoon-leading school attached to the Small Arms School at Netheravon. From these will be selected those who, if they desire, will be available as officers for the Territorial Army, for the Reserve Militia or for further training in officer-producing units. Merit and not adventitious recommendation will be the claim to advancement under the scheme.
  Some of my hon. Friends, in advance of knowledge of this plan, have expressed concern about the position of Territorials. May I put the essence of their case in the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara)? A man, he said, may join the Territorial Army at the age of 17, and by the age of 20 he may very well be a lance-corporal, a corporal or even a sergeant; and he felt some anxiety at the prospect that such a man, on entering on his Militia service, would have no notice whatsoever taken of his previous service. This is a consideration which my advisers and I myself have had much in mind. We do not wish to be impervious to argument, and our scheme, of course, is not so rigid that it cannot be adapted to give the greatest measure of satisfaction and consideration, within the limits of efficiency, to all concerned. The principle, however, to which the Government do ask assent is that every man starting his Militia service should start level with his fellows, his progress thereafter being determined solely by his own qualities. In any event, the point is not of immediate significance because no one who was accepted for the Territorial Army before 27th April last comes under the scheme at all. Those who were or are

  157
  accepted after that and who will be presently liable to be called up, can hardly have acquired more than the elements of soldiering since that date, and are not likely to have secured non-commissioned rank. The boy of 17 whom my hon. Friend has in mind, joining now, and who in course of time may become a non-commissioned officer, will not be liable for three years, when the Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines, is due to come to an end. So there will be full opportunity to consider this type of case and any anomalies which may arise in the light of our experience.
  Now, may I take the case of those who are going to perform anti-aircraft duties? They will be called up in batches of 22,000 in each quarter. They will remain in depots based on Regular antiaircraft units, and these depots will be situated in the various Commands. After three months at the training depot, they will form units which will man the permanent defences, guns and searchlights, being replaced in their turn at the end of three months, and so on, in such a manner that our Maginot line will always be served. All the men of the Militia, whether of the Field Army or the anti-aircraft units, will, after six months, pass as fully trained men either to a Reserve of the Regular Army, which will henceforward have at its disposal a more comprehensive reinforcement than ever previously, or to the Territorial Army, which will be brought to a higher degree of readiness and efficiency than ever before in its peace time history. I do not know whether the House realises what a fundamental change we are making in the state of preparedness of the Territorial Field Army. That Army was raised and has been maintained on the assumption—the only assumption you can make in the case of a citizen force so composed—that it can do its preliminary training up to a certain point in peace time, be given the foundation of the military art, and only after war has supervened can you, by concentrated effort, complete the structure.
  Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the greater the number of young men who have undergone training in peace time and who will, thereby, be ready for mobilisation, the better the position of the country must be in the event of the outbreak of war. That is our proposal. What is the counter-proposal of
  158
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees Smith)? I will not subject his figures to too close a scrutiny but this is the proposal, as he made it. He said that in about three weeks we shall have 420,000 Territorials. We actually have 320,000. He said that in the last five years 120,000 men had left the Territorials. He said that, in addition, there were 250,000 men who had been in the Territorials and who were still under 40. He then added these past, present and prospective figures together and obtained a total of 790,000 and he said there was an indefinite number beyond that. All those men were to be invited to spend three, four or six months in camp, with their jobs guaranteed, with decent and reasonable pay and allowances, with their rents, mortgages and insurances guaranteed, and with no loss of their prospect in civil life. He said that 800,000 men could be called up under this system for three, four or six months—just once, as he put it, for this very short time.
  It would, indeed, be difficult to find a proposal more calculated to abuse the voluntary system than that—the voluntary system which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so much concerned that we should respect. In private relationships it is considered unjust to take for granted the sacrifices of good-natured people and to presume upon their willingness, by wantonly imposing further burdens upon them. For a great, well-organised community like ours, to place the increased requirements of its defence solely upon those who have already done their share, would be contemptible. The right hon. Gentleman's plan is put forward as an alternative to compulsion on an orderly basis. The Territorial Army is based upon co-operation between employers, employed and the State. Under the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion those employers who have most encouraged the Territorial Army would be called upon to conduct their business, in some cases, deprived of almost the whole of their staffs, for a long period. That is an inverted form of conscription.
  The organisation of this indeterminate number of men, of varying degrees of proficiency, into formations, and their equipment and training, would present problems far more complex than those which confront us in relation to this scheme. Even if the men responded, even if industry could bear the dislocation, even

  159
  if arrangements could be improvised by the General Staff, what superior or indeed equivalent advantages would that scheme give over ours? You would not secure the permanent manning of your anti-aircraft defences. You would not have recurring and accumulating reserves of trained men to complete to war establishment and replace the wastage of the Regular Army in the technical arms in which it is now so short. You would not provide continuing re-inforcements of highly trained men for the Territorial Army. All these are the benefits of our scheme, and they are benefits which are furnished in an organised manner, with the minimum of disturbance to the ordinary life of the nation.
  Lord Haldane, who founded the Territorial Army, understood well its present shortcomings as a military machine, shortcomings not in any respect owing to any lack of enthusiasm or application by the Territorial Army, but which are inherent in the conditions of its composition. He said in 1907, when he introduced into this House the Measure setting up the Territorial Army:
  "We have thrown the war training on to the other side of the mobilisation, being enabled to do so as an island Power, instead of making it take place in time of peace, You could never get a large volunteer force to take six months' training in time of peace."
  Those words are as true to-day as when Lord Haldane used them, and they are the most effective answer to the right hon. Gentleman, as Lord Haldane had given more thought to this subject than any man who has held the office of Secretary of State for War before or since. Realising these shortcomings when reflecting upon his work at a later date, he said, in 1915, in the course of a Debate:
  "Compulsory service is not foreign to the constitution of this country. Given a great national emergency, I think it is your duty to resort to it. I can conceive of a state of things in which you might have to resort to it. At a time of national necessity every other consideration must yield to national interest, and we should bar nothing in the way of principle if it should become necessary."
  Those were the words of Lord Haldane, who established the Territorial Army. Of course, under any system of compulsion you must assure that the treatment of all concerned is fair, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down raised
  160
  the point of their pay and allowances. The Government, naturally, had to ask themselves whether they should pay the militiaman at the same rate as the Regular. It has to be borne in mind that the militiaman is only doing six months' continuous service, which is a brief interlude in his permanent occupation, which is statutorily preserved for him; whereas the Regular is following a military career and has to make his permanent arrangements on this assumption. The militiaman cannot be sent on foreign service in peace, whereas the Regular is liable to be sent anywhere, and he may have to participate in fighting even in time of peace. Is it fair, in principle, to pay as much to a man whose obligations are restricted, both in time and in character, as to a man whose obligations in both respects are more extensive? The answer is, surely, "No." Reference to the practice of foreign countries will show that such a differentiation is usual.
  What one really has to have regard to in the case of a man who is temporarily withdrawn from civil life are his obligations, and it is in this spirit that the Government have sought the solution of an admittedly difficult problem. I think it must be admitted that there are few men of 20 in civil life who can allow out of their earnings 17s. to a dependant, when particularly no part of this sum has to be spent on the maintenance of the man, yet this is the rate on which the Government have determined, with additional sums for children, and as of right—
  Mr. Attlee: Is not the 17s. applicable only to the special case of a wife and not to other dependants?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is perfectly true. I was dealing with the case of a wife; that is as of right. But if somebody is claiming to be totally dependent upon somebody else and asking the same money for that purpose, it is not unreasonable that he should make out his case. But in the case of a wife there is quite clearly a contractual obligation. The decision to give a family allowance to Militiamen at 20 threw into relief at once the contrasted position of the Regular sailor, soldier and airman, who only get an entitlement to that allowance at 26 or 25, as the case may be. Before the Bill was envisaged at all the Government was conducting an inquiry into this

  161
  matter, and had resolved to reduce the qualifying age. It is now as a matter ct justice to be fixed at 20.
  Some objection has been raised to this on the ground that men may be tempted to contract improvident alliances. Such misfortunes have not been unknown in other classes of the community. While there are those who hold that members of the Services, in view of the unsettled nature of their calling, should be kept free from marital obligations, there are others—and they are an increasing number—who are concerned with the conditions of the wives and children of those who in fact do marry, despite the Regulations. Reports on these conditions are most distressing, and all the Commanders at home in the British Army have represented that the age of qualification for marriage allowance should be lowered. A certain restraint on marrying for the sake of the allowance is imposed by the requirement that the 17s., which is paid directly to the wife, has to be supplemented by the soldier himself out of his pay when he is separated from his wife.
  Mr. McGovern: What about the children?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: The allowance is 5s. for the eldest child—5s., 3s., 2s., I think it is. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) who opened this Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who closed it, took different points of view and spoke in a different spirit, I must place the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in still a third category. He said he was not opposed to conscription, but he wished to make the passage of this Bill a matter of bargaining, and I must take exception to one misguided idea which possessed him, and which evidently animates others, namely that it is only people on that side of the House, or rather those whom they represent, who will have to do the fighting, and the more fortunate classes, as they hold them to be—although that is doubtful—will escape the liabilities of war.
  He suggested that capital levy should be the price that others should pay in order that some might fight. But the scythe of war cuts down all classes equally. The second condition was that we should democratise the Army. How
  162
  more speedily could you advance demo-cratisation than by passing a Measure such as this? If this Measure were permanent, which it is not, it would be possible to take every single officer of the future out of the ranks of the British Army. That is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite, apparently, desire. His third condition was that there should be no damage done to trade union rights. The Government have no intention of damaging those rights, and I think they are safely protected by the sagacious men who are trade union leaders.
  I have endeavoured to show, what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me to show, that there is a military justification for this Bill. There is a military justification and there is a military necessity. Having imposed that test upon the Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to reconsider whether the Opposition desire to vote against it. If we proceed to a Division, let us be sure what it is on which we are going to vote. The issue is not freedom versus compulsion. These two principles are interwoven throughout the whole texture of our national life. In order that justice may be done, all subjects of the Crown can, with certain qualifications, be compelled to serve on juries, but to administer the law we rely on the voluntary engagement of police. The State exacts taxes by compulsion to provide the social services, yet benevolent objects which make an equal claim upon our moral sense are voluntarily supported. In Defence, what is required must be forthcoming, and there is no impairment of our democracy if it should be obtained, as so many of our other requirements are, by a combination of the two methods together. We maintain our freedom to pass or not to pass this Bill in order that we may be protected from the loss of that freedom. By inserting now into our military system the strand of universal service we shall strengthen the fabric and show in a practical form, what the Amendment desires us to show, our resolute determination to take all necessary steps to defend the country and to fulfil its international obligations.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 387; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 96.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Critchley, A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Hepworth, J.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

  Cross, R. H.

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Apsley, Lord

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Assheton, R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Holmes, J. S.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  De Chair, S. S.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  De la Bére, R.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Dodd, J. S.

  Hunter, T.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Doland, G. F.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Donner, P. W.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Blair, Sir R.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Blaker, Sir R.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Kimball, L.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Bracken, B.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Lancaster, Captain C. G.

  Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

  Emery, J. F.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Leigh, Sir J.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Errington, E.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Levy, T.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Lewis, O.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Bull, B. B.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Fleming, E L.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E,

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Furness, S. N.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

  Lyons, A. M.

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Cary, R. A.

  Gledhill, G.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Goldie, N. B.

  McKie, J. H.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Rower, Sir R. V.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Channon, H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Magnay, T.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Chorlton, A. E. L.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Christie, J. A.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M

  Markham, S. F.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Clarks, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Medlicott, F.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Hannah, I. C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. {E'nburgh, W.)

  Harbord, A.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Moreing, A. C.

  164

  165

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Rowlands, G.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Munro, P.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Touche, G. C.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Train, Sir J.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Salt, E. W.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Owen, Major G.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Peake, O.

  Scott, Lord William

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Peat, C. U.

  Selley, H. R.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Petherick, M.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

  Pilkington, R.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Porritt, R. W.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Power, Sir J. C.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Procter Major H. A

  Snadden W. McN.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Purbrick, R.

  Somerset, T.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hilchin)

  Radford, E. A.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wise, A. R.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Spens, W. P.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Storey, S.

  Wragg, H.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

  York, C.

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

  Remer, J. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Captain Margesson and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Corsett)

  Day, H.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Dobbie, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Ede, J. C.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lathan, G.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Frankel, D.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Gallacher, W.

  Leach, W.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Leonard, W.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Loslie, J. R.

  Barr, J.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Logan, D. G.

  Batey, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Lunn, W.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley).

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Benson, G.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Bevan, A.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  McGovern, J.

  Broad, F. A.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Maclean, N.

  Bromfield, W.

  Groves, T. E.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Marshall, F.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)

  Mathers, G.

  Cape, T.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Maxton, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Messer, F.

  Chater, D.

  Hayday, A.

  Milner, Major J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Collindridge, F.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Muff, G.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Hollins, A.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Jagger, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Dalton, H.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Paling, W.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Parker, J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Pearson, A.

  166

  167

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Sloan, A.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Poole, C. C.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Walker, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Ridley, G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Riley, B.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Westwood, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Stephen, C.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Thorne, W.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Shinwell, E.

  Thurtle, E.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Silkin, L.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Viant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Anderson and Mr. Whiteley.

  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

  MILITARY TRAINING [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for rendering persons between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training in the armed forces of the Crown and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council there under."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir Victor Warrender.]
  11.12 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The Committee may like to have a few details regarding the cost of the Bill. If hon. Members will turn to the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill, they will see that paragraph 19 states:
  "It is not possible at this stage to give any reliable estimate of the cost to Service Votes resulting from the provisions of this Bill."
  It goes on to say:
  "But on such information as is available it is estimated that the expenditure will be of the following order:
  Capital £30,000,000 spread over two years.
  Maintenance cost in 1939 £10,400,000 rising, as the number of men under reserve liability increases, to £25,000,000 in 1941."
  The Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of pay?
  Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir; I am not speaking of pay; I am distinguishing
  168
  between the capital cost and the recurring costs. As regards the capital cost, of the total expenditure of £30,000,000 we estimate that £25,000,000 will be the cost of erecting hutted accommodation round barracks, and depots and in camps, for the accommodation of the Militia, and the bulk of this expenditure will be incurred during the present year. There is also included a figure of £3,000,000 for training equipment for the Militiamen being trained in anti-aircraft defence. As regards the maintenance costs, it has been very difficult to estimate accurately, but the figure of £25,000,000 which we have put down in the Memorandum covers the maintenance of the Militia during their initial training and their family allowances, which it would not be in order for me to go into in any detail at present. I must ask the Committee to extend some indulgence to us on this occasion, because of the difficulty of making any accurate estimate.
  In the first place, we can have no accurate knowledge of the number of men that there will be in the classes to be called up this year or in any subsequent year, or of the degree of need of their families. Moreover, we have some difficulty in estimating the cost of the accommodation, because that will largely depend on the value of the land which we shall have to acquire, the location of these buildings, and the number of ranges, training grounds, etc., required. Also, the exact requirements of staff and personnel required for the training of militiamen are difficult to estimate. A Supplementary Estimate will be brought forward in due course, and the Committee will then have full opportunity of discussing and criticising the financial implications of the Bill in detail. That deals with the matter as far as the War Department is concerned. A considerable amount of the expenditure will fall on the Votes for the Ministry of Labour. Money

  169
  will be required for expenses in connection with the hardship committees, local and other tribunals, and medical boards, and for the expenses of men reporting for training under Militia notices. Here, again, a Supplementary Estimate will be required, and hon. Members will have a full opportunity then of dealing with the figures in detail.
  One other Department concerned is the Air Ministry. The effect of the Bill on the Air Ministry Votes will not be very great. The increase in the number of men coming up for training, borne on the Air Ministry's Votes, will be comparatively small, as they have called up nearly all the men it is possible to train this year. Although I am not in a position to give any definite information, it can be said that it is improbable that more that £1,750,000 will be spent on recurrent expenditure in a full year; capital expenditure this year will be about £250,000, and £4,000,000 in all. I have given some explanation of the figures contained in the Explanatory Memorandum, and I hope that that is sufficient information to enable the Committee to agree to the Resolution.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: We appreciate the difficulty under which the hon. Gentleman laboured in explaining this Money Resolution to the Committee. We are aware that there are very narrow limits within which we can discuss details, and I observe, if I noted his exact words, that he said that he had no exact knowledge of the need of the dependants. It is on that point that we on this side of the Committee would desire a little more information, without going into details, before the Resolution is passed. We recall that the only information we have on the subject was embodied in the statement made by the Prime Minister, when he spoke in this House on 4th May. He made a statement then which we regard as incomplete. He said:
  "In the case of allowances to dependants, which, if they were granted, would be at the rate of 17s. a week for total dependancy and 12s. a week for partial dependancy, it is clear that these should only be paid where the need for them was established."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1939; col. 2101, Vol. 346.]
  Are we to take it from that statement that dependancy allowances shall be 12s. or nothing? If there is partial dependancy, say, a widow with one son, and
  170
  that son has been contributing 5s. to his mother, are we to gather from the statement of the Prime Minister that the minimum sum to be paid by way of dependancy allowance will be 12s.? Can we have a statement on that point before the Debate closes? As the statement of the Prime Minister stands, the minimum amount to be paid by way of dependancy allowance is 12s. Are we to understand that that is clear and definite, and that there will be no attempt to cut it down to 11s., 10s., 9s., 8s. or whatever is the figure?
  I know that we cannot pursue that matter in detail, and I pass to the question of hardship, which I understand we may discuss on this Resolution. Tribunals are to be set up. We have not been told by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Money Resolution how many tribunals there are to be. Are there to be four for all England, and four for Scotland? If so, where are they to be situated? Is it to be, as was the case in the last War, that young men may be called upon to travel from the Outer Islands to attend tribunals sitting in Stirling or in Glasgow? There is, obviously, considerable cost and great hardship, even if something is permitted to be paid towards expenses, in asking young men to travel for two or three days from their homes in order to attend these tribunals. What is to be a hardship? Will it be the kind of hardship that was scheduled at the time of the last War? Then there were all sorts of obligations in the Schedule, in respect of which the conscript could receive grants from the State—questions of rent mortgage, instalment obligations, taxes, school fees, insurance premiums, in some cases taxi-cab instalments, storage of furniture, etc.
  We ought to have been told to-night by the hon. Member who introduced the Resolution whether it is intended to augment these amounts upon which grants may be paid, or whether it is intended to diminish them. This is a most vital matter, economically for thousands of young men, yet we have heard nothing about it. Except the two sentences from the statement of the Prime Minister on 4th May, not a solitary word has been said as to the allowances which can be paid to a poor young man, his widowed mother or his dependent

  171
  relatives. The statement is so ambiguous as perhaps to mean that there is to be a minimum payment of 12s. even if the dependency is only 1s., whereas the maximum dependency is to be 17s. even although the actual dependency may have been a great deal more. The Committee should insist upon having full particulars before it parts with this Financial Resolution. There are many hon. Members who desire to speak on this point.
  I never went into the Division Lobby in this House with a clearer conscience than I have done against this Bill. I am certain that it will result in grave injustices, that it will cause great hardships to hundreds of thousands of people, that it will not give us in the end any military advantage, that it has divided this nation at a time when, above all other times, we should have been showing a united political front to the world. We are not doing that. The Government have introduced this Bill and as far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we shall, despite the Conservative Press, fight it line by line, comma by comma.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must not discuss the Bill on this Financial Resolution.
  Mr. Johnston: I have endeavoured to show why we oppose this Resolution. I have avoided traversing any of the arguments used to-night, and have simply indicated that it is our determination to do everything in our power to oppose this Bill. I have also within the narrow limits permitted to me, endeavoured to show why on this Financial Resolution we ask for more information than we have received from the hon. Member.
  Mr. E. Smith: On a point of Order. When the Money Resolution is passed will it limit us in moving Amendments later on regarding payments to men who will be affected by the Bill?
  The Chairman: That is a matter on which I cannot giving a ruling now.
  11.30 a.m.
  Mr. Logan: The terms of the money payments have been specified in the Bill, and if the Money Resolution is passed now should we not be out of order in dealing with them? Is not now the time to deal with this particular matter?
  The Chairman: There is no definite amount stated in the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Logan: We have had a definite statement made in regard to dependants' allowances. It is not in the Bill, but we have had a guarantee. Are we not entitled to have a detailed account of the amounts which are to be allowed?
  The Chairman: That may be, but it is an entirely different question.
  Mr. Logan: I am anxious to know in regard to this Measure whether if we pass the Money Resolution to-night we shall be ruled out of order if we bring forward Amendments later on. I submit that we are entitled to-night to have the details of the amounts which will be paid under the Bill.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has raised a point on which I ought to make an apology to the Committee, for having omitted to stop the right hon. Gentleman when he was dealing with dependants' allowances, because they come under the Royal Warrant, and cannot be discussed on the Financial Resolution. With regard to the other matter, hon. Members are entitled to discuss under the Resolution what kind of payments will be made under the several provisions in the Bill, in the italicised Clauses, but they must confine themselves to the particular matters which are covered by the Resolution.
  Mr. Logan: The Resolution deals with temporary provision to be made for persons between the ages of 20 and 21, and I submit that we are entitled to know the provision that is to be made.
  The Chairman: That is not dealt with under the Resolution. It is outside the Bill altogether.
  Mr. Silverman: Are we to understand that all those payments which are under Royal Warrant and not provided for in the Money Resolution are matters which we are not debarred from discussing on amendments at a future date?
  The Chairman: Hon. Members are debarred from discussing matters which do not come under the Bill or the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Silverman: I quite appreciate that matters which are not covered by the Financial Resolution are matters which

  173
  cannot be discussed to-night. That is quite clear. But there are other payments contemplated in the Bill which are to be made not under the Financial Resolution and not under Royal Warrant. With regard to these matters, am I right in assuming that nothing in this Financial Resolution precludes the House from making alterations at a later stage?
  The Chairman: That is a question which the hon. Member must raise at a later stage.
  Mr. Stephen: May I make the following submission, Sir Dennis? The Money Resolution states:
  "and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid."
  They appear to me to be very general purposes, which bring in a very wide range. It has been stated that it is the intention of the Government to deal with the question of pay under a Royal Warrant, but it is also possible that the House, in Committee, would indicate to the Government that it wanted this matter to be dealt with, not under Royal Warrant, but in the Bill.
  The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is not correct. The words which he quoted are not in the operative part of the Resolution which deals with the moneys to be covered, but are only the words which identify the Bill to which the Resolution relates.
  Mr. Stephen: The Resolution goes on to state:
  "It is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder."
  I submit that this passage can relate to the previous passage to which I drew your attention. The latter words certainly may be taken in a narrower sense, but I submit that that would depend upon the way in which the House, in the Committee stage, dealt with the Bill and the changes that might be made in the Bill. Consequently, I submit that, as the passage to which I have drawn attention is contingent upon the action which is taken on the Committee Stage of the Bill, the scope of this Debate should be much wider.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is again wrong. What can be done by the
  174
  Bill is contingent upon what is authorised by the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I add to that point of Order a further submission? I wish to call attention to Clause 13 of the Bill, and to ask specifically whether that Clause does not authorise payments to be made by the Minister under Royal Warrant. Since the words in that Clause are almost identical to the words in the Resolution, does not that entitle us to discuss, under the Money Resolution, payments which will be made under Royal Warrant?
  The Chairman: No, certainly not. There is no question about that.
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I respectfully submit that there is an attempt being made to smuggle this Bill through?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is no doubt quite entitled to use language of that sort or arguments of that kind in discussing the matter of the Resolution, but he is not entitled to do so when putting a point of Order.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. E. Smith: Further to my point of Order. There are two points which I hope you will be good enough to answer. In Clause 5, Sub-section 11, of the Bill, it is stated that:
  "The Minister may pay to persons required to present themselves in accordance with military training notices served upon them such travelling and other allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine." My point is that when we part with this Money Resolution we shall be restricting ourselves: and seeing that this is contained in the Bill, should we not be given an undertaking from the Chair, before we part with the Resolution, that we should have the right to move Amendments in order that the Minister might pay to persons required to present themselves in accordance with military training notices, such sums as the House desired?
  The Chairman: I cannot be called upon to give any undertaking as to what may happen in the subsequent stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Smith: My second point is this. Seeing that the payment to which we refer will be dealt with in the Royal Warrant, and that we shall not have an opportunity of considering it until the next Army Estimates, and seeing that this is a

  175
  new Bill containing new financial commitments, should we not be given an opportunity of stating our view on what those financial commitments should be before we part with this Resolution?
  The Chairman: I must confine myself and I must confine the Committee to the Resolution which is before us. We cannot go into the question now of what is in the Bill. The Resolution might be before the Committee without any Bill at all, and it is the Resolution that we have to consider.
  Mr. Holdsworth: I take it, Sir Dennis, that your Ruling is that we cannot, on this Resolution, discuss rates of pay and allowances? Can you tell us on what occasion we can discuss them and pass our opinion on whether they are too little or not? I think if you did so, it would allay a great deal of the anxiety which is felt in the Committee.
  The Chairman: I am always willing to help hon. Members in any way I can, but this is not a matter on which I can advise the hon. Member at this stage. I think he himself will realise the appropriate time for raising this question when it arrives.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I submit that there is nothing in the Bill to state that the matter of pay will be dealt with in the Royal Warrant.
  The Chairman: It is not necessary that there should be. As I said just now, the question of what is or is not in the Bill does not arise, and cannot be discussed at this stage.
  Mr. Stephen: The point I am making is that there is nothing in the Bill about how the soldiers will be paid. The question then arises: Is there anything in the Resolution? There may be nothing specific in the Resolution, but the Resolution is very wide and a member of the Government may say, "We intend to put a new Clause into the Bill dealing with the pay of soldiers."
  The Chairman: That could not be done without a previous Resolution.
  Sir Percy Harris: Would it not simplify matters if the Minister made a statement on the subject?
  The Chairman: The question of the scope of the discussion on the Financial Resolution is one for the Chair. I suggest that the Committee should proceed with what is before us now, namely, the Resolution. If hon. Members transgress beyond what I consider to be the proper bounds of Order on the Resolution, I shall have to call them to order.
  Mr. Batey: I hope, Sir Dennis, you will be patient with the Committee. We have had experience in the past of passing Money Resolutions rapidly, and then finding ourselves hampered and unable to move Amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill. If we pass this Money Resolution to-night, will it prevent us from increasing the conscript's pay from 1s. to 2s. a day?
  The Chairman: I have tried to be patient with the hon. Member, as with all hon. Members, and I hope I have not shown any impatience, but I must again say that I cannot properly be asked, and I do not therefore desire, to give an opinion on a matter which it is not my duty to give from this Chair, in this particular proceeding, on this Resolution.
  Miss Wilkinson: I want to put this point of Order to you, Sir Dennis. This matter of the actual question of the allowances is really the one big question that is agitating the public mind. This seems to us—we may be wrong—to be a complicated way of avoiding the issue by putting you, whom we all respect, in a most difficult position. What we want is your guidance, by which we can get out of the difficult position in which you and we are placed.
  The Chairman: I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot allow the Committee to discuss matters which it is beyond my power to allow them to discuss.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. Maxton: On the point of Order. I have been trying to understand where we are, and I want to know whether I am right in taking your reply, Sir Dennis, to mean that the Committee has no right to make proposals for the remuneration of these conscripts under the Bill or under the Financial Resolution, that the Government are making no provision under this Resolution for even the miserable remuneration that they are proposing,

  177
  and, therefore, that we are being asked to pass a Bill and a Financial Resolution which provide for a conscript, unpaid Army. I want to ask whether that is your Ruling, and that all that we have got is a very casual reference by a speaker in the course of the Debate that it would be 1s a head. I take it that so far as the Measeure now before us is concerned, we are asked to pass a Resolution for unpaid conscripts, and to hope that at some other time some other Measure will be brought forward.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is now putting forward arguments to which I should have been happy to try to reply if I had been on one of the ordinary Benches of the House, but while he is right about his first point of Order, his second point is not really a point of Order at all.
  Mr. Maxton: Am I right in my first point, that the Government are not taking powers now, under the Bill or under the Financial Resolution, to pay any money to the conscripts, and that when we pass these two Measures no provision will be made for paying them?
  The Chairman: It would be better if I put the matter in my own words, and not in the hon. Member's words, and left out the last sentence of what he said. All that I have said is that what the pay and allowances of the men called up under this Bill when it becomes an Act are to be are not within the Financial Resolution and, therefore, cannot be discussed in this Debate.
  Mr. Macquisten: May I put this point of Order? The last words of the Financial Resolution are:
  "It is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council."
  Does that not give the fullest scope to the Secretary of State for making such payments?
  The Chairman: If the hon. Member wants to take part in the Debate, he had better do it later on, but if he goes on those lines, I think I may shorten his speech.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: You have informed my hon. Friends that they cannot raise on this Money Resolution items that
  178
  are not covered by the italicised financial Clauses of the Bill.
  The Chairman: If I did use those exact words—which I do not think is the case—I apologise for having expressed myself not quite correctly. My Ruling is that the Committee cannot discuss matters which are not covered by the Financial Resolution. My intention in referring to matters which are indicated in the Clauses printed in italics was to give guidance to hon. Members as to what would be in order; they are printed for the express reason that they require the authority of a Resolution.
  Mr. Alexander: Might I direct your attention to the respective Clauses? Under Clause 4 (6) provision is made that is clearly an expense under the Money Resolution, for travelling and other allowances, including compensation for loss of time when the conscript is called for medical examination. If you look at Clause 5 (11) you will find that when the conscript has been accepted after medical examination and is thereupon summoned to attend, provision is also made for travelling and for allowances. Surely we must be entitled to discuss under the Money Resolution these, allowances to which the man immediately becomes entitled on being called to the Colours?
  The Chairman: I cannot agree with that interpretation. At any rate, it is not covered by the Resolution for the reason that these further allowances are provided for otherwise than under this Resolution.
  11.52 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: I beg to move:
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I do so in no spirit of levity or of political partisanship.
  The Chairman: Would the right hon. Gentleman give his reasons?
  Mr. Johnston: My reasons are that many Members on this side regard the matter that we have been endeavouring to discuss by means of points of Order with you, Sir Dennis, as about the most fundamental of all matters. As we cannot, within the present rules of Order and on the present limited information supplied to us by His Majesty's Government, discuss the matter at all, I submit that we ought to report Progress.
  The Chairman: Under the powers vested in me I decide that the Motion must be put forthwith. The Question is—
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I think the Standing Order to which you refer is applied in your discretion only if there is a suggestion that the Motion is frivolous. I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the Committee and for the most speedy progress with the Resolution that the Minister should be given an opportunity, in regard to this Motion, which is not fictitious or vexatious—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is now doing what I decided I could not permit. The Motion has been moved that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. Maxton: And I am appealing to you, Sir Dennis—
  The Chairman: I am exercising my powers in putting the Motion to the Committee forthwith.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 255.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES.

  [11.58 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Granfell, D. R.

  Poole, C. C.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Alexandar, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Guest, Or. L. H. (Islington, N.)

  Ridley, G.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Ritson, J.

  Barnas, A. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Barr, J

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Batey, J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Sexton. T. M.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Shinwell, E.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jagger, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Sloan, A.

  Cape, T.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Collindridge, F.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Stephen, C

  Dalton, H.

  Logan, D. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lunn, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, S. O. (Marthyr)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Day, H.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGhee, H. G

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  McGovern, J.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Maclean, N.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, D. M.

  Marshall, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Frankel, D.

  Mathers, G.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Gallasher, W.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Messer, F.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Garre Jones, G. M.

  Milner, Major J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Pearson, A.

  Mr. Anderson and Mr. Groves.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Channon, H.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Boyce, H. Leslis

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Allan, Col. J. Sendeman (B'knhead)

  Bracken, B.

  Christie, J. A.

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

  Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Bread bridge, Sir G. T.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Apsley, Lord

  Brooke, H. (Lawisham, W.)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Bull, B. B.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

  Balniel, Lord

  Burghley, Lord

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

  Critchley, A.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Carver, Major W H.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Bernays, R. H.

  Cary, R. A.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Cross, R. H.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Rowlands, G.

  De la Bére, R.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Float Sir R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Doland, G. F.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Donner, P. W.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Salmon, Sir I

  Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

  Lennox-Boyd, A, T. L.

  Salt, E. W.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Levy, T.

  Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Sandys, E. D

  Dunglass, Lord

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Scott, Lord William

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Selley, H. R.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  M'connell, Sir J.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Emery, J. F.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Somerset, T.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Magnay, T.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Spens, W. P.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Storey, S.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Furness, S. N.

  Markham, S. F.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Medlicott, F.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Gledhill, G.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Goldie, N. B.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Turton, R. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Munro, P.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

  Hannah, I. C.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Haanon, Sir P. J. H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Petherick, M.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Hepworth, J.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Porritt, R. W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Higgs, W. F.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Wise, A. R.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Wragg, H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  York, C.

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Read, A. C. (Exeter)

  Hunter, T.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.

  Original Question again proposed.
  12.4 a.m.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I am afraid that with the best will in the world I still do not understand what the position is.
  The Chairman: I am afraid that in my anxiety not to be too rigid I have laid myself open, possibly, to the charge of having been guilty of some dereliction of
  182
  duty. It is my duty to see that the business of the Committee is proceeded with, and I am always willing to try, to the best of my ability—even going beyond what is strictly incumbent upon me—to assist Members by telling them what is or what is not in order. But I cannot go on discussing Rulings which I have given or deal with points which have not arisen and will arise only in the course of Debate. What I have ruled generally is

  183
  the fairly simple Ruling that hon. Members are confined to what is within the Resolution. It is time now that I asked hon. Members to proceed with the Debate upon the Resolution.
  Mr. Silverman: I am sure the Committee are grateful to you for the patience which you have shown and I do not think that anyone desires to abuse it. I hope that you will think that the point which I am putting is legitimate. I am looking at the Clause on page 12, and there I find that the Minister may pay to persons who are required to present themselves in accordance with military training notices served upon them such travelling and other allowances as he may determine, with the approval of the Treasury. The point I am putting is, what are the other allowances?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is now doing what I expressly said I would not allow upon the Financial Resolution. All questions of that sort can be put in the course of the Debate.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I desire to say a few words on this Resolution, and I have three good reasons. I do not like the Resolution; I do not like the Minister who introduced it, and I like his arguments less than I like him and the Resolution. The Resolution is related closely to the defence of this country and I am satisfied that those who are responsible for the Resolution have not the faintest idea of what is adequate for the purpose.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to vote against the Resolution, for reasons which appear to him to be adequate, but these are not matters which he can discuss now. Questions dealing with the principle of the Bill are matters for the Second Reading of the Bill, and that has already been disposed of.
  Mr. Gallacher: Maybe you will guide me on this point, Sir Dennis: The Financial Secretary to the War Office made a speech when he introduced the Resolution, and it interested me very much because of the complete lack of capacity that was expressed in it. He quoted from the Financial Memorandum in the Bill, and when he talked about those responsible for the Resolution not having an understanding of what was
  184
  adequate—I am referring to what he said about capital expenditure and maintenance—I though I should be entitled to refer to the estimate for capital expenditure and maintenance that was made in the Financial Memorandum. I am convinced that the estimate that the Government have made should demonstrate to every Member of the Committee the utter inability of the Government to understand what it is that confronts us in these questions. It is necessary, in discussing a Resolution which is so vital to the country, that I should say that, with other Members on this side, I am deeply concerned about the Defence of this country, but not for the defence of the gang on the other side or of the property of the gang on the other side. I am concerned with the defence of the masses of the people, and because of that I am against this Resolution and the conscription that it helps to impose.
  The Minister quoted £30,000,000 for capital expenditure. How is that money to be spent? In the Defence of the country? No. In buying land from the robber gang on the other side. The Resolution relates to the conscription of young men of 20 years of age. The Financial Secretary to the War Office tells us that most of the £30,000,000 is to be handed to the landed aristocracy that is well represented on the other side. [Laughter.] Well, is that no true? What is not handed to the landed aristocracy is to be handed out to the big contractors who are also well represented on the other side of the Committee. Is not that true? It says that it is for land and construction; is not that true? Can the Minister tell us how many of these millions of pounds are to go into the hands of robber landlords and of plundering profiteers. It is not a question of bringing forward a Money Resolution that will ensure the wellbeing of masses of young men who are to be dragged into the Army, or to ensure the care that should be necessary for the widowed mothers, the families, and the wives and the children. It is not a Resolution concerned with the dependants of those who will be drawn into the Army, but is a Money Resolution designed—
  The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will be good enough to take notice of what I said to him before. He must not make a speech on the principles of the Bill.
  Mr. Gallacher: I thank you, Sir Dennis, for the guidance that you give me, but I really thought I was keeping line with your Ruling when I said that this was not a Resolution providing for the maintenance of the men who are drawn into the Army and for the welfare and the maintenance of their dependants.
  The Chairman: It does not provide for unemployment insurance or for old age pensions, but that fact does not provide a reason for discussing them.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am not discussing the amount to be paid to the soldier.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is trying, as he said in his own words, to discuss matters which are not covered by the Resolution, and that is out of Order.
  Mr. Gallacher: The Resolution says:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for rendering persons between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training in the armed forces of the Crown and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid,"—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is apparently going to embark upon the same argument and again to deal with matters which are not to be discussed on the Resolution. He must confine his speech within the wording of the Resolution.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry, Sir Dennis, that you get the impression that I am deliberately trying to stray from the terms of the Resolution.
  The Chairman: I did not "deliberately."
  Mr. Gallacher: My point is that there is an estimate made in the Financial Memorandum for capital expenditure, and the Resolution covers that estimate. The estimate may be considerably off the mark. I had down a Question the other day about an estimate made for an air base in Newfoundland. The estimate was £400,000, but when the job was finished it had cost £700,000, and the Minister said that it was easy to go a little bit over the original estimate. This estimate of £30,000,000 may end in an expenditure of £90,000,000. If the estimate for an air base can be doubled, this estimate may be trebled, because in the case of the air base only the contractors were concerned, but in this case it is the landlords as well.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has given me an opportunity of studying the Bill a little further. I shall be glad if the Minister can enlighten me more than the hon. Member himself seems to be able to do, by telling me if it is under this Bill at all that this capital expenditure referred to is authorised. The Minister referred to particulars of expenditure regarding accommodation of the soldier. On looking into it further, I have some doubt whether that expenditure comes under this Bill at all, or whether it does not come under powers which the Ministry already have. Perhaps the Minister can give me an assurance on that.
  12.18 a.m.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: All the expenditure that is incurred under this Bill or as a result of this Bill will, I submit to you, have to be voted by Parliament. There will be a Supplementary Estimate. In the case of land that has been acquired, that is included in existing expenditure and any other expenditure will be have to be voted by Parliament. The House will have a full opportunity of discussing that expenditure, as it always has.
  Mr. Buchanan: Answer the Chairman.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Chairman will decide whether I am answering the question. It is not under any provision in this Bill that the money will be required in respect of items in the Resolution.
  Mr. Buchanan: Tell us what the Financial Resolution stands for.
  The Chairman: The Minister has confirmed my suspicion that this capital expenditure is not provided for under this Bill and will not be provided for under this Bill when it becomes an Act but under other Acts.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Alexander: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Sir Dennis, that the Secretary of State has not indicated to the Committee that the expenditure, including the capital expenditure on accommodation, is not provided for under the Bill or the Money Resolution. On the contrary—
  The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension and could not have heard the last words which the Minister used. He expressly stated that the expenditure is not authorised by this Resolution or this Bill.
  Mr. Alexander: We are gradually getting into a quite impossible position. For some purpose or the other we are presented by the Government with a Money Resolution of the broadest possible kind that I have ever seen placed upon the Order Paper of the House. That Money Resolution, with its broad terms, can apply only to the provisions of the Bill, and in that Bill specific provision is made for both capital and maintenance expenditure of the order provided in the wide terms of the Money Resolution.
  The Chairman: On what Clause?
  Mr. Alexander: If you take capital expenditure, you get the authority in Clause 7, giving a re-enactment of the procedure to be followed in regard to capital expenditure to be taken under the Act in the case of land.
  The Chairman: I cannot accept that view. The Committee will notice that there is only a simplification of the procedure. Therefore, that confirms my opinion that these matters are dealt with under another law and not in this Bill.
  Mr. Alexander: That complicates the procedure. If you turn to the italicised clause—Clause 13—
  "Any expenses"—
  there is no limitation about that—
  "incurred by the Minister or by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of this Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament"—
  The Chairman The Chairman rose—
  Mr. Alexander: May I finish my point of Order?
  The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—
  Mr. Alexander: I really think that—
  The Chairman: Order! The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to continue.
  Mr. Alexander: I expect courtesy.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman should not interrupt what I want to say.
  Mr. Alexander: I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the Chair, but in return—while I do not think that you intend discourtesy, Sir Dennis, and I would not think that for a moment—
  188
  surely a Member is entitled to finish putting his point of Order.
  The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I was trying, quite obviously, to help him in the matter by dealing with one point at a time, and I thought that it would be easier for me, and possibly also for him, not to have to wait until the matter was clouded by other points. He had arrived at these words:
  "in consequence of the passing of this Act."
  I desire to point out that it was limited by those words.
  Mr. Alexander: I was saying that we are getting into an impossible position and, in respect of a Money Resolution drawn in perhaps the widest terms that I have ever seen in a Money Resolution upon the Paper of the House, we are practically debarred from any discussion at all.
  Mr. Gallacher: To continue—
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: On the same point of Order. My right hon. Friend has referred to the Clauses of the Bill, which are in effect the words of the Resolution, relating to any expenses in regard to administration, and so on.
  The Chairman: Exactly; "and so on."
  Mr. Greenwood: Very well. I will read exactly what it says, which is:
  "Any expenses incurred by the Minister or by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of this Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder."
  In the financial explanatory Memorandum to the Bill there is a reference to capital expenditure over two years, and the term "expenses." Surely you cannot limit the discussion under the Resolution to annual expenditure seeing that capital expenditure also is incurred.
  The Chairman: That is correct. I have to rule out annual expenditure as well as capital expenditure, in so far as it is not included in the Resolution. I agree to some extent that we are getting into an impossible position, but that is because hon. Members wish to debate something which I am bound to rule it is not possible to debate under the Resolution on the Paper.
  Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that my hon. Friends are desirous of debating any-

  189
  thing which is out of order, but it seems clear that we are entitled to discuss all the expenses which are incurred under the Bill when authorised by Parliament.
  The Chairman: I have so ruled. They are authorised, and the money is to be raised by Estimates relating to other legislation.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Further to that point of Order—
  The Chairman: Doubtless we are proceeding to some extent in defining what is in order and what is not. I must repeat my request to the Committee that they now proceed with the Debate, and I will endeavour to keep it within the limits of my ruling.
  Mr. McGovern: Would you endeavour to sum up for the rest of us? There has been a private conversation going on. Would you sum up for the rest of us and tell us what we can discuss?
  The Chairman: I will ask the hon. Member who is in possession of the Floor to proceed with his argument.
  Mr. Gallacher: During all that has taken place I have never forgotten for a moment that I had possession of the Floor and I am pleased to have the opportunity of returning once again to the subject of the Resolution. If there has been any difficulty I would draw your attention, Sir Dennis, to the fact that the Financial Secretary, when he was introducing the Resolution, under the benign guidance of the Secretary of State for War, said that it was difficult to see how much money was involved in the Resolution, but that an Estimate had been made.
  The Chairman: If the hon Member had listened as carefully as I gathered he was doing to what I have been saying, he would have understood what I have already ruled out.
  Mr. Buchanan: May I ask if it is not common Parliamentary usage that when an hon. Member, particularly a member of the Government, has, owing to inadvertence, gone out-with a resolution, that at least one speech in reply to that should be allowed to be made before it is ruled out of Order?
  The Chairman: Up to a certain point that is so. We have already had a reply to it from the right hon. Gentleman on
  190
  the front bench, and a further attempted reply, which I venture to think has gone far enough.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  The chairman: I appeal to Members of the Committee, as I asked them just now, not to rise to points of Order until the actual point of Order arises in the Debate.
  Mr. McEntee: I want to submit that, in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has, in fact, made an explanation to the Committee that has since been proved to be entirely outside the Bill, you should at least call on him now to make an explanation of something that is within the Bill.
  The Chairman: I do not propose to accept any point of Order put to me now until a point of Order actually arises in the Debate.
  Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect, this is a point of Order arising out of what you have just said. You said that the Minister has given an explanation.
  The Chairman: I gather that the hon. Member is trying to contest my ruling. I must insist upon my ruling.
  Mr. Garro Jones Mr. Garro Jones rose—
  The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member whether he really has a new point of Order which arises and should be answered at this moment. If he has, I will hear it.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, with great respect I certainly have. May I point out that what the Minister said was that every expenditure which was proposed to be voted under this Bill had also to be voted in the Estimates, and do I understand you correctly to rule that because it has also to be voted in the Estimates it cannot be discussed under this Bill?.
  The Chairman: Certainly not. I never said one word to that effect.
  Mr. Garro Jones: That is what you have just said.
  Mr. Gallacher: My reason for returning to the observations made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office was in order to bring out as clearly as I possibly could the unscrupulous trickery of

  191
  the Secretary of State for War in his endeavour to get this Resolution through the House. The Financial Secretary did not speak off his own bat. You have only to look at him to realise that. So the Secretary for War whispers in his ear—"Get up and talk to them about capital expenditure and maintenance expenditure, and they will all accept the Resolution." Now the Financial Secretary is left in the ignominious position of being told that he has introduced matter that he had no right to introduce. That is typical of the Secretary of State for War and those who are associated with him on that front bench. It has been typical of their attitude right through the whole of this business in connection with the Bill for which the Money Resolution has been drafted. They cannot be trusted on anything, and, therefore, I suggest that it would be folly on the part of any Member of this House to be taken in, and to allow such a Resolution as this to pass. There is another very serious reason why this should not be passed. I am inclined to doubt if the members of this Committee take their responsibilities seriously. I know that if it is a question of grab, or of subsidies, or of capital expenditure on land, they are very serious, but are they seriously concerned about the business of this Committee?
  It was not so long ago that there was such a protest made about Resolutions of this character that a Committee had to be set up to go into the whole question of Financial Resolutions. As a result of the report of that Committee the Prime Minister gave us a pledge—a typical Mussolini pledge—that in future all Financial Resolutions should be so worded as to allow the fullest measure of discussion. Now we get presented with a Financial Resolution on which you cannot discuss finance or anything else. What is the idea of the Resolution? Will the Secretary of State for War—not his "stooge"—tell us one thing we can discuss arising out of this Resolution? I am of opinion that in view of the experience we have had with the Secretary of State for War, in view of the effort he made to avoid the responsibility placed on him by the Chairman of explaining what could be discussed on the Resolution, and his complete failure to give any aid to the Committee, we should not go any further with this Resolution until we hear what
  192
  the Prime Minister has to say. I am as positive as I am of anything that if we could bring the Prime Minister here, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without knowledge of what has been said, to give an opinion of what could be discussed on this Resolution, we would get an opinion entirely different from that of the Secretary of State for War, and certainly entirely different from that of the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
  That brings me to my original thesis. This is a Resolution which should not be supported by this Committee, and the Minister responsible for it should not be supported by the Committee. The arguments of the Minister and of the Minister's "stooge" should be completely repudiated. It is a scandal that such a resolution should have been introduced. It is a scandal that these young men should be threatened with all the evils that arise out of this Bill—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member must keep to the subject of the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. Gallacher: I was going to connect what I said with another subject and say that no adequate opportunity has been given to this Committee to discuss the terms under which these young men are to be drawn away from their homes and their employment. It is a scandal. I am against their being drawn away from their homes and work. I am against the Bill altogether and against this Resolution on principle, but apart from being against the Resolution on principle I assert—and there is no hon. Member on the other side of the House who can take exception to the assertion—that never in any circumstances should we be faced with such a Resolution, which makes discussion almost impossible.
  I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member of East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) refer to hon. Members on the other side of the House as being lacking in intestinal co-ordination. Some of the hon. Members on the other side, he said, were lacking in "guts." I wish that some of them would try to get a little guts from somewhere and take a stand against this Resolution. I wish that hon. Members on the other side would summon up a measure of political courage and place the welfare of the House and of the country before merely trailing after the Secretary of State for

  193
  War and the Prime Minister and the rest of them who, as a so-called Government, are ruining this country. I wish they would get a little political courage and support us in the demand that this Resolution should be withdrawn and that a new Money Resolution should be brought forward that would allow the Committee to discuss the terms of provisions which will affect these young men who are to be drawn out and the terms for those dependent on them. We want a Financial Resolution which will provide this Committee and this House with an opportunity for expressing their minds on this important question. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have not had the experience that hon. Members on this side have had. They are able, and always have been able, to spend as much on a dinner as we have had to keep a home on for a week. We know what it is—
  The Chairman: There must be some limit to the proportion of the hon. Member's speech which is devoted entirely to personalities and to personal apathies against the Government.
  Mr. Gallacher: The only thing I can say is that, although I may have used a lot of personalities against Members on the other side, I must ask you to believe that I have been practising a very considerable amount of self-restraint. I would ask hon. Members on the other side of the Committee in the most pleasant, amicable manner that I can muster, to associate themselves in a demand directed to the Minister that this Resolution be withdrawn and that we get a Resolution that will allow us the opportunity which Members on this side especially should have of discussing the conditions that are going to apply to these young men and their families.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen: There has been a great deal of confusion with regard to this Financial Resolution, and I think that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has been very largely responsible for it. He introduced this Financial Resolution in a speech, and we discovered afterwards that much of his speech was out of order. I would like him to give us some information with regard to the financial expenditure in connection with this Bill. In the Financial Memorandum it does say:
  194
  "It is not possible at this stage to give any reliable estimate of the cost resulting from the provisions of this Bill."
  I want the Financial Secretary to give the Committee in connection with this Financial Resolution some idea at least of what the items of expenditure are that will result from the provisions of this Bill. I take it that that is all that we are able to discuss here. I certainly would like that information. It may have helped in the discussions, seeing that he had made such a "bloomer" in his opening speech, if he had taken the earliest opportunity of trying to remedy the error by making another speech to let us know the facts appertaining to the Financial Resolution before us.
  Then there is the question of the hardship committees that are being set up. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) asked for information with regard to these committees. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for War or the Financial Secretary to the War Office has any idea whatsoever with regard to the number of these hardship committees which are going to be set up. If he could give us any idea of the number of people that are to constitute the hardship committee in each case, it would only be fair that he should do so now. Seeing that we are debarred from discussing the rates of pay of the conscripts we should have some opportunity of discussing the rate of pay of the members of the hardship committees which have to determine questions with regard to those who are being conscripted without any provision being made for them being paid anything.
  With regard to the constitution of the committees for dealing with conscientious objectors, I wonder how many committees are being set up, and what areas are going to be covered by the respective committees. Again, I think it would be quite interesting for the Committee to have some information as to the remuneration that the Government has in mind in connection with these committees. There is another question with regard to the membership of these committees, and that is whether the members are going to be whole-time people. It will be evident that if it is to be a whole-time job for members of these committees, the expenditure may be quite large. While there is no pay for the conscript soldier, there certainly will be good pay for the members of the

  195
  committees, who, quite obviously, will be drawn from supporters of the present Government.
  There is another item in the Bill, in italics, which states that the Minister may pay to persons required to present themselves in accordance with the requirements of military training such travelling and other allowances as he may determine. I want information from the Government as to what those other allowances are. We have already been assured that those other allowances are not allowances to the dependants; they are allowances in the form of pay to the soldiers. What are those allowances that are paid to the conscript in addition to his travelling expenses when he is called for service? I would also like information on this point: We are told that this Financial Resolution does not cover any of the buildings or land for the purposes of the Bill and that the Government have already powers to deal with this matter under previous legislation. It would be quite in order for the Government to indicate what those other rights are. What are the exact provisions in connection with previous legislation? If the Financial Secretary to the War Office had given us that information at the beginning of the proceedings to-night, hon. Members might have been sleeping peacefully at this time. At least, there was a possibility of it.
  I would like some detailed information from the Minister as to the powers which he has at present. Quite frankly I cannot see how he can have powers to deal with this matter. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a military course that is not in existence at the present time, and I cannot see how there can have been a Financial Resolution or provision made previously for the assistance of this abortion which the Government are forcing upon the country at the present time. Evidently the Minister has it in his mind that he has general powers for the acquisition of land, but my recollection is that those powers are limited to previous needs of the country and are specific, but I shall be pleased to have more exact information from the Government in this respect. There was one thing which the Minister also said in his opening statement with regard to the Royal Air Force. He said that the Government
  196
  will not during the present year be able to provide for any additional recruits for training under the operation of this scheme. I wonder whether, under this financial provision, there is anything with regard to providing for those who might choose service in the Royal Air Force. I take it that the individual can have the right of having his training in the Royal Air Force if that is the kind of service he proposes, and I am in somewhat of a quandary as to what the general position is going to be in connection with this whole matter. It would seem that in my opposition to the Measure generally the advice I should give to all the men, if they are going as conscripts, would be to go into the Royal Air Force. They will miss this year at any rate.
  Sir Joseph McConnell: Why miss this year?
  Mr. Stephen: I notice that Sir Dennis is turning his eye towards me, which will debar me from answering the hon. Member for Antrim (Sir J. McConnell) on this matter. It would be different from the reasons concerning the people of Northern Ireland. We want more information as to the estimate of the amount involved in this Financial Resolution. How much is going to be spent on those committees? The Minister frankly told us that the House would have to be indulgent to him. There is no reliable information on that matter whatsoever, and it seems to me it is characteristic of the confusion of mind and inefficiency of the Government in dealing with the whole matter. They have brought absolute confusion into the Committee to-night in the discussion of this estimate, just the same as the confusion which they have brought into the country and the world generally by their complete inefficiency and muddle headedness It is evident that the Prime Minister will be known in history, not as the peace Prime Minister, but as the "bob-a-day" Prime Minister.
  12.54 a.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to reinforce one or two observations made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). We have had a speech from the Financial Secretary which bears no sort of relation to the resolution which the Committee is considering. It may be reasonable to suggest that before we disperse we should have a speech from the

  197
  Secretary of State or the Financial Secretary which would have some bearing on the Resolution. Judging from the italicised Clauses of this Bill, which we have been told we may look to as a guide as to the meaning of this money Resolution, it seems there are three particular heads of expenditure which it is in order to discuss: (1) expense of the hardship committees under Clause 1; (2) expense of the local tribunals under Clause 3; and (3) the expense of the appellate tribunal under Clause 3.
  We ought to have some information, because we have had none, as to the amount of money which it is expected will be spent on these three particular bodies—all of them entirely new bodies. We are told that the hardship committees are to sit in such districts as the Minister may determine. Surely we ought to be given some estimate as to the number of districts. It is a matter of some importance to the people who are going to be concerned, because we can all imagine the sort of case which will come before these committees. There will be hardship to the applicant himself, or it may be hardship to the household of which he is a member. I assume this particular provision is put in, in order to cover such a case as the only son of a widow—a boy who has to support his mother out of his own earnings. Take a case like that. Is it not very important that there should be a hardship committee easily accessible in each district? It is, however, quite impossible to tell, from the terms of the Bill or from the terms of the Financial Resolution or from any information which we have received this evening, whether that is going to be the case. I know it will be said that there is no great hardship there, because the Minister is empowered, or will be empowered if the Bill gets through in the form which is now proposed, to grant travelling allowances; but the travelling allowances are only payable to the applicant himself. They are not payable to anybody else. We can all envisage the sort of applications that will be made where it might very well be the case that the applicant not only wants to give evidence himself before the committee, but wishes to call a member of his household who is dependent upon him or the employer or somebody else who knows the household well. If the committee were to sit at some distance from his
  198
  home, he himself, in the great majority of cases, would be, of course, quite unable to afford the expense of bringing witnesses.
  Therefore, although it is a late hour to-night and I do not want to delay the Committee, I think it is an important point to know how much it is proposed to spend on the constitution of the committees, so that we may be able to form some estimate as to the number of the committees and the districts in which they will sit. The same thing applies to the local tribunals and the appellate tribunals. Again, in how many districts are the local tribunals to sit, and how much money is it proposed to spend on them? Here again there is no provision for travelling allowances or for expenses for anyone except the applicants themselves. Then I think we are entitled to ask, without going outside the terms of the Resolution or without going outside the italicised Clauses of the Bill, how much is going to be spent on salaries. I did notice one rather remarkable provision as to the constitution of the local tribunals. It is provided that the chairman shall be a county court judge or, in the case of local tribunals for districts in Scotland, a sheriff or sheriff-substitute. These are judicial persons who receive certain salaries laid down in Acts of Parliament. What is the intention? Is it intended that they shall carry out these rather difficult additional duties without any additional remuneration, or is it intended that some additon will be made? We have been told nothing about that to-day. This again is rather a serious matter, because those of us who are familiar with the county courts know that in some cases it will be a matter of the greatest difficulty for some of the county court judges in busy districts to carry out these duties in addition to the duties they already have to carry out. A great many hon. Members know that from their own experience. I think you will find that with many sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes in Scotland. What will be their position? That is something germane to this Financial Resolution, as to which we have had no sort of information to-night. It does seem a rather remarkable proposal that we should take a judge and put on him some additional duties which are quite dissimilar from any duty which he now performs, and that we should be told

  199
  nothing about the terms of his remuneration or the terms of his service.
  Then we come to the appellate tribunals, which will be very important bodies. It may be that the number of conscientious objectors will only be very small, but even so, it is the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House to see that the genuine conscientious objector does get his scruples respected and to see that he is fairly dealt with. That is the wish of hon. Members opposite and on this side as well. The appellate tribunal becomes a very important body, but we do not know whether the chairman and all the other members appointed by the Minister are to be permanent or what sort of salaries are to be paid. If we knew the salaries they will receive, we might be able to form some idea as to the importance which Ministers and the Treasury attach to these posts. Although the hour may be very late, I certainly think we ought not to part with a Financial Resolution of this kind without having some little information from the Minister who is reponsible as to the only matters which are germane to the Resolution.
  1.6 a.m.
  Mr. Ede: I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the peculiar differences of wording that occur in the italicised portions of the Bill. In Clause 1, Sub-section (8, b), we find that the Minister may pay
  "to persons whose applications are referred to such Committees"—
  that is, the military training hardship committees—
  "travelling and subsistence allowances in accordance with such scale as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve."
  When we come to Clause 3, Sub-section (11, b), which deals with the case of conscientious objectors attending before the tribunals—apparently both the local and appellate tribunals—the same wording is used, but when we come to Clause 4, Sub-section (6, b), we read:
  "The Minister may pay … to persons undergoing medical examination under this section travelling and other allowances."—
  there is no mention of subsistence allowance here—
  "including compensation for loss of remunerative time,"—
  200
  I think the next words are "in accordance," though the spelling "in accordacne" and other typographical errors do show the hurry in which the Bill was prepared—
  "in accordance with such scale as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve."
  Why do we get here, for the first time, the mention of loss of remunerative time? After all, one can see some men will find the exercise of the rights conferred on them under the other Clauses seriously circumscribed if they have to conduct their appeals in their own time and suffer loss of wages as a result; and, of course, the ruling in law is always given that if in a number of Clauses that are very similarly worded you suddenly get introduced some special phrase in one of them, that would deprive the courts which may have to decide the matter of the right to rule that those particular words are included in the other Clauses.
  Furthermore, when I get to Clause 5, Sub-section (11), I find a new set of words altogether. It says:
  "The Minister may pay to persons required to present themselves in accordance with military training notices served upon them such travelling and other allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."
  Now there can be no question about the loss of remunerative time, because the man who has now received a notice, even if he has not acted upon it, has ceased to be a civilian and has become a militiaman. He is deemed to have been enlisted even if he does not present himself. For six months his remuneration is fixed at a figure that it is out of order to mention this evening, but which I have no doubt at some later stage of the Bill will again become in order. I have very lively recollections of being called up at the commencement of the last war. I was in what was called the National Reserve, and after being called up, when I arrived at the place at which I was to serve, I found there were no uniform, no boots, and not even a razor for me. There was no equipment at all. I was given an allowance because I was using all my own clothes and my own boots and my own razor. I provided my own two extra pairs of bootlaces. Having provided a complete kit, I received a certain allowance. Now we know that the first men come up at 1st July, or thereabouts. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to

  201
  be ready for them. He will not have their uniforms, and he will not have boots for them. I do not know whether they will be required to shave at this particular age, but if they are, can he assure us that there will be sufficient army razors for them? If not, are some of the allowances mentioned to be clothing and kit allowances such as were paid to men who came up at the beginning of the Great War? If that is included, what becomes of the statement that from the day they enlist they will be on terms of perfect equality? Anyone who saw the squads drawn up at the beginning of the Great War knows that you could, while they were enjoying these clothing and kit allowances, determine the stations in life from which they had been drawn. Some men in those days had to provide their own clothes for a considerable number of weeks, some, I believe for as long as three months, and during that time clothes wore out as they do under military training in a way they would not have worn out during their use in civilian life.
  I do not know what they are going to be paid, but I should like to be assured—if they are going to be paid anything like the figure which the Prime Minister mentioned as not in the Bill but one which the Ministers of the Crown had in mind—that these clothing and kit allowances will be sufficient to cover the replacement of clothes, and especially boots, because I imagine that although the men will largely be taken into the mechanised Army, there will still be a good deal of foot drill in the first weeks. I do not think the Army has become so unlike the place the Minister of Labour used to know before he was encouraging others into it. I did hear something about tea and biscuits before they get up; the sergeant-major does that when he forgets himself. But I cannot imagine that mechanisation has reached the stage where men are taken from bed to the mess room, from the mess room to the parade ground, and from the parade ground back to the mess room, and even to the billiard room and all the other amenities which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, without their feet ever touching the ground. I imagine there is still a considerable amount of foot-slogging to be done, and I hope that these allowances will be sufficient to ensure that the men shall be adequately clothed and shod during the period while the right hon.
  202
  Gentleman is waiting to provide them with clothing.
  The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office, mentioned that these men were going to be housed in hutments. I gather that it is out of order now to discuss that, because they are going to be provided outside the Bill, but I would like to ask that clothing allowances shall be sufficient to ensure that the men are properly clothed at night if they have to sleep in hutments anything like the hutments provided at the beginning of the last War. I am sure some of the men who will be coming up will not bring with them sleeping kit that will be suitable. I hope the Secretary of State, who has abolished the practice of men sleeping in their shirts and pants and now provides them with pyjamas, will see that the same facilities are available for them when they only have clothing and kit allowances. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) mentioned the question of the various tribunals and their membership, and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised the question of rates of pay. I gather from the Schedule that the appellate tribunal is to have as chairman a solicitor or barrister of not less than 10 years' standing, nominated in England by the Lord Chancellor. He is to be chairman of the appellate tribunal dealing with appeals from a local tribunal presided over by a county court judge. I should have thought it a peculiar thing to put a man with no higher qualification than that he has been at the Bar for 10 years as the chairman of an appellate tribunal dealing with appeals coming from a county court judges, but, when it was proposed to make chairmen of quarter sessions of people of the same legal standing as is proposed in the matter of the chairman of the appellate tribunals, there were persons who suggested that they were inferior in quality, taken as a whole, to the county court judges. I think we should have some assurance that if there is to be an appeal from a lawyer of practical experience like a county court judge, the chairman should have some real standing in his profession and even in active practice, and that he should have had some considerable experience of the rules of evidence and of subjects likely to arise in a matter of this kind.
  I understand that we are being asked to pass this Money Resolution because it is

  203
  the desire of the Government, a somewhat tardy desire, to defend the freedom of this country. I can only say, in conclusion, that if the way in which this Money Resolution has been brought before the Committee is an evidence of their respect for the freedom of this House, it is only another reason why we should have a speedy change of Government if the freedom of the country is to be preserved. Such examples of the way in which discussion is evaded by the way in which Resolutions are drawn will bring democracy and the so-called freedom of Parliament into complete contempt. I join with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in saying that I regard this as only the latest example of the way in which pledges given by the Prime Minister are rapidly broken. We had a most solemn assurance that Money Resolutions in future would be so drafted that we should be able to discuss the Bill in the widest possible way on the Money Resolution. I am not making any complaint about the Ruling that you, Sir Dennis, have given, because I was one of those who prophesied as soon as I saw the Money Resolution that we and you would get into the difficulty which has confronted the Committee to-night. On this Money Resolution we have been deliberately deprived by the Government of the opportunity of raising the one issue that the country really desires to have raised at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman may think that he has been as smart to-night as he was when he left out a phrase from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). He got his cheers, he secured a momentary victory, but I venture to say that when the means by which he secured it were made plain to the House, he fell in the esteem of the House as no Minister has fallen during the lifetime of this Parliament. This Resolution is another piece of the same way of deluding the House of Commons, of getting his goods, as he thinks, cheaply, but of bringing into contempt the whole democratic system.
  1.23 a.m.
  Mr. Poole: As I listened to the speeches which have been made, and saw the great difficulties into which we have drifted, I tried to picture what would be the reaction of the 200,000 young men whom the Minister hopes to bring under his con-
  204
  trol by the operation of this Bill. Is this Money Resolution of such a character as to inspire the confidence of those young men? I am, as other Members have been, very much concerned about the various tribunals and committees for which money is being provided in this Resolution. I find that there is provision for a hardship committee consisting of a chairman and two other members. It does seem to me to be a remarkably small committee, having regard to the nature of the work that it will have to perform. This committee is the one which will have to consider claims for exemptions, and all the hardship cases which are brought to it, and we have no knowledge tonight as to the areas over which these committees will function. We do not know whether they are to be area committees in a county borough, or county committees, or serving the needs of persons in one or two amalgamated counties. In any case, they are going to be charged with very great responsibilities to see that every case of hardship is fully and sympathetically investigated, to see that the young student who is completing his education receives facilities to continue that education, and that the man who is taking a course of training in industry does not suffer any interruption of that course, but is given every opportunity to fit himself for the place which it is hoped he will ultimately fill in life.
  I should like to know just exactly what has inspired the Minister in the setting up of these committees. I am amazed to find that the chairman of these committees is to be the chairman of the court of referees. I have, in the course of my public life, on many occasions had to represent cases before courts of referees. I am pleased that the Minister of Labour is in the Committee to-night, because I must say that if I had to go before a hardship committee knowing that the chairman was the same gentleman before whom I have had to represent cases under the Unemployment Assistance Board, I am sure I should go in fear and trembling that the case was lost before ever I went inside the door of the room. That may be a bold thing to say, but it has been my experience in season and out of season to find that, however good a case you may be able to establish before the chairman of a court of referees, for some unknown reason it is practically impossible to secure a favourable decision

  205
  in certain circumstances. I agree that there were days when the chairman perhaps had enjoyed his lunch better than on the previous occasion when one attended, or there have been some circumstances that caused him to give more favourable consideration. I well remember that the only case which I took before such a court was one in which I told the applicant before I entered that there was not the slightest chance of success in the case. Great was my amazement, when, without being called on to speak in defence of my application, the case was allowed with full benefit. But I have gone with half-a-dozen cases in one day which I felt were absolutely sound, and which my colleagues had advised were absolutely sound, and have had the experience of not receiving the favourable consideration of one.
  This is the chairman who is to be the chairman of the hardship committee which is to consider all the cases of young men who ask to be exempted, or that their time should be put back or brought forward. Who are to be the other members? There are only two. They are to be drawn from one of the panels set up under Section 41 of the Unemployment Act. You are following unemployment procedure very closely, much too closely for my liking. There is too much of the regimentation of the unemployed about the whole of the administration you are setting up and the machinery you are creating in this Bill to make me at all happy about the position. The Minister may elect one member representing the employers in one area, and the other representing the workers in the district, nominated perhaps by the local trades council. What is the result in actual working in every case? The vote of the trade union representative cancels out the vote of the employers' representative, and your court of referees and your hardship committee will resolve itself simply and solely into the chairman being the deciding factor. Therefore you will have in actual practice a hardship committee consisting solely of the chairman of the local court of referees. I wonder whether that is going to inspire the confidence of the 200,000 young men who are going to come under this Bill?
  You are also setting up local tribunals, and appointing a chairman and four members. My hon. Friend who has just sat down took the point that I desired to make, that as chairman of this local tri-
  206
  bunal you are appointing a county court judge. I do not know whether a county court judge is the most eminently suitable person to sit in judgment on a local tribunal of this character. You are not trying a man for any crime when he appeals to a local Tribunal to be exempt. He is not a criminal, and yet you take a county court judge as being the most suitable person. I cannot conceive that you will have the most sympathetic consideration, as you might reasonably expect to have, by having a county court judge in the chair. The same will happen with regard to your appellate tribunals. Here you have a court of appeal consisting of only three members. You have your chairman, who is to be a barrister or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing. With all due respect to my hon. and learned colleagues in this Committee, I do not think that either of those gentlemen are the people most suitable to sit as chairmen of an appellate tribunal. After all, it is not desired in these cases that you should have someone who can weigh up evidence. You want someone who has a great and deep understanding of human nature. You want someone who will be sympathetic and who will endeavour to put himself in the place of the person who is appearing, and not someone who calmly and dispassionately weighs up the pros and cons. Many of these men will be working-class men who will not be able to state their case adequately, and if they are to be left to the tender mercies of barristers or solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing, they will have a very poor chance of establishing their case, especially after they have been turned down by a county court judge.
  In every case these appointments are to be made by the Minister. I should like to have known just exactly what was the travelling and subsistence allowance which it is proposed to make under this Money Resolution. When a man is appearing before a tribunal, what are you to give him? It is to be given at the discretion or in the judgment of the Minister. With all due respect to the judgment and discretion of the Minister, we should have felt a great deal happier if we could have seen that amount down in pounds, shillings and pence, stated exactly. I appreciate the great difficulty in which the Minister must find himself in estimating hardship allowances, but I

  207
  think he could have given the Committee some guidance as to the scale which was to be given in cases of real hardship.
  Only yesterday a man came to me and said, "What am I going to do under this Bill?" I said, "Why, what is your position?" He said, "I am 20 years of age. Six months ago I put all my capital in a little hairdressing business. I shall have to go. It is a one-man business, no one else can take it on, and everything I have will be lost." What is to be the position of that man before the hardship tribunal? Can any compensation adequately compensate a case like it? And the point is that there are many such cases of young men who have made a start in life on their own and who will have to sacrifice their all through the operation of this Bill.
  Finally, there is provision for loss of time for travelling for medical examination only. We are entitled to say that it is a point which will have to be dealt with in Committee with regard to the loss of remunerative time when men are travelling to their local tribunals and appellate tribunals. If it is not done, it will destroy any signs of justice in the Bill. It will be impossible for these men to make appeals to the machinery you are setting up unless there is compensation for loss of time while making appeals. We are given to understand that this is a Bill which is going to treat all men alike.
  Great play has been made by the Minister on the fact that the working-class men and the rich men will all come under the scheme if they are in the age group of 20–21. If anyone is to be involved, it is as well that all should be involved, but I want to know how it will work in practice as to the granting of compensation for loss of remunerative time. A man working on the land has lost time which is probably valued at 4s. Some hon. Members might be able to estimate their loss of remunerative time at a much higher value. I am wondering whether there will be equality of treatment in the matter of the loss of remunerative time. Will it be a fixed sum which will be paid? We are completely in the dark as to the whole of the Money Resolution that we are considering. It is with the greatest of amazement that I have found myself getting so far without getting out of order. I hope that the
  208
  Minister will speak again, so that he can enlighten us on some of the points we have raised.
  1.37 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I rise principally for the purpose of adding my voice to the very strong protests of my colleagues against the treatment which has been meted out to the Opposition to-night. In discussing this Financial Resolution and its implications I want to say very frankly to the Minister that at least to many of us who have gone to our constituencies and listened to the opposition of our people to the Military Training Bill we have been strengthened by the restrictions placed on us to-night to return to them and strengthen their opposition against the Government and against this conscriptive measure. I would suggest to the Minister that until the Government are able to place before us the full financial implications of this Measure they cannot expect any support from hon. Members on this side who consider their constituents entitled to a full explanation of their commitments.
  I want to refer to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who introduced this Financial Resolution. I want to suggest to the Committee that he gave us not one particle of information with regard to the expenditure of this sum of money for which the Government are asking in this Financial Resolution. I noticed particularly that the Chairman was in very great difficulties himself with regard to this Resolution. I notice that it is stated definitely at the end of the Resolution that in accordance with your own estimate the Service Votes resulting from the provisions of the Bill would amount to £30,00,000 capital, expenditure and the maintenance costs in 1939 to £10,000,000. I would have expected the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in dealing with this Financial Resolution and asking us to accept those figures of £30,000,000 and £10,000,000—
  The Deputy Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): Capital expenditure has been ruled not to come under the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. Davidson: I am pointing out that when the Financial Secretary made his speech it had not been ruled out of order and I would have expected that, it then being in order, he would have explained to the Committee what this sum of money meant and how it was going to be spent.
  Mr. Stephen: On your Ruling, may I refer you to Clause 7 (1), where it says that "in pursuance of Section 19 of the Defence Act," and gives new powers in connection with the acquisition of land.
  The Deputy-Chairman: It has already been argued with the Chair that this Clause only adds new machinery, and new expenditure is not necessarily involved.
  Mr. Stephen: Powers taken under this Clause were not referred to in any of the previous points of order in connection with the Financial Resolution. As you said just now, there is new machinery and expansion of power under this Clause. The Financial Resolution itself is drawn in the most general terms in order to cover any particular aspect of the Bill, and under paragraph 19 of the Financial Memorandum is given the estimate of the cost resulting from the provisions of the Bill. I say there is additional capital expenditure resulting from the provision in Clause 7. That financial provision is covered by the general terms of the Financial Resolution, so I ask you, Colonel Clifton Brown, to reconsider the ruling in view of the new representations—
  The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid this has been discussed before and a ruling given quite clearly. I was present and heard the ruling myself. Capital expenditure does not come under this financial provision. All that it comes under is "expenditure in consequence of the passing of the said Act" excluding all expenditure which comes under Acts already on the Statute Book.
  Mr. Stephen: There is capital expenditure coming under Clause 7. There is an addition made to the previous Acts. The Financial Resolution being in general terms, I submit that under Clause 7, which has never been drawn previously to the attention of the Chairman, there is the possibility of capital expenditure resulting from Clause 7, and we should be able to discuss it.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: The same Clause says: "Where, in pursuance of this section"—not of any other Act—"possession of any land is taken." Obviously, by implication, possession may be obtained by payment for that land.
  Mr. Stephen: I would ask the Minister if it is not the case that there will be capital expenditure under Clause 7?
  The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause refers only to simplification of procedure, and does not refer to purchase. Expenditure does not necessarily mean capital expenditure. That has already been discussed with my predecessor. A definite ruling was given. We cannot go back on that.
  Mr. Ridley: May I suggest that the Committee in discussing this Resolution is labouring under a difficulty which ought not to be imposed upon it? The Financial Secretary introduced the Resolution in a statement that has been proved to be entirely inaccurate. No Member of this Committee—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Another hon. Member is in possession of the Committee; it is not a proper point of Order.
  Mr. Ridley: No one knows what are the terms of the Resolution before us. No one can discuss it in this way.
  1.43 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: In no circumstances would I trespass upon your indulgence, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I was not dealing actually with the capital expenditure; I was stating that I thought that the Financial Secretary would at least have given us some of the items in that capital expenditure that were involved in this Financial Resolution. He made no such attempt but skimmed over the Financial Resolution, obviously knowing little or nothing about it and with the same ability of tricking the Committee that his right hon. Friend and chief evidently has, which has been exercised during this Debate. Therefore, I want to refer to other points. I would stress the warning to the Government that, if they persist with this Financial Resolution and in placing this Committee in the position of voting on it with no guidance upon it, the Committee cannot possibly be competent to judge upon it, and must merely vote on party lines on an issue that affects the lives of young men brought for the first time into conscript service. If the Minister persists in that attitude he is strengthening the anti-conscriptionist forces in the country and strengthening the forces against the Government.
  Coming from an industrial constituency, I can assure the Minister that, after examining this Resolution and the Bill, I as an industrial representative will use

  211
  every effort to see that not a man from my constituency affected by this Financial Resolution will participate in the Government's scheme. I notice that, as this Government have always done and as the Minister of Labour has become notorious for doing, they look after their own particular friends. The only information upon which we can get any inkling is with regard to the chairmen and officials and county court judges, their expenses and fees. We cannot get a single word with regard to the payments or allowances to the young soldiers who are to be conscripted.
  What is the Government's objection to women serving on the hardship committees? They will suffer more hardship, perhaps, than the boys taken away from their homes. Why do the Government deny the women folk an equal right with the men to sit on those hardship committees? It is the mothers of the country who understand the needs and minds of those boys much better than we men do, and they are as qualified, if not more qualified, to sit on those committees and hear the evidence of young appellants, and make a decision whether a young man is suitable for service or whether the hardships are such that he should remain at home. The mothers of the country know much better than the fathers do the domestic hardships that can afflict the young men. I, therefore, suggest to the Government, even at this late hour, that they should make some concession to the women from whom they are asking so much and allow them to sit on these hardship committees.
  I would like to ask the Minister, also, if he can give the House any indication—even only an approximate one—of exactly what it will cost the country in fees in connection with these hardship committees, that is, if they have made up their minds. I remember the speech of the Secretary of State for War when he was answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He said this was not a small scheme, and not a scheme that had been idly thought out or made up in a few weeks' time. He said it was a careful scheme, and a great and practical scheme. If that is so, I submit that the Minister ought to be able to tell the Committee how many hardship com-
  212
  mittees the Government contemplate, and in what districts these committees will be situated; how many will there be in Scotland and how many in England and in Wales? How far will the young men have to travel, and will they receive full travelling allowances when they attend these committees, or any partial allowances? I ask this, because, like the hon. Member who spoke just befort me, I remember during the last War the difficulties which arose, not in the first year of the War, but in the middle of the War period—difficulties experienced by young men who volunteered even then and also those who served under the Derby scheme, in receiving their vouchers on going to the depots. Therefore, I ask the Minister, who has been such a braggart about the scheme, and has told the Committee what a carefully-thought-out scheme it is, and has told us clearly and concisely about some other parts of the Bill, whether, after receiving information about this Financial Resolution, he cannot now tell us how much they contemplate the expenditure will be on these various committees, what do they contemplate the expenditure will be in regard to travelling allowances, and so on?
  These are one or two of the points I would like the Minister to answer. I would further stress the point which has been made by many hon. Members on this side—why, in Scotland, must we have the sheriff or the sheriff substitute? Is the democratic Secretary of State for War, who has told the House so much about his love for democracy, afraid of the elected magistrates of this country, or does he need to go to Government-paid officials in order to make up committees to deal with appellants who state their case before such committees? Must they be officials paid by the Government and appointed by the Government who are to decide whether these young men are conscientious objectors in the true sense or not? I ask the Minister, further, why is it—and I would respectfully point this out to my colleagues on this side of the House—that the great trade union movement, whose loyal co-operation the Government so sincerely desire, have not been considered in regard to the setting up of these committees? Not one word has been said from that section of the community whose support you must have, and without whose support your scheme

  213
  will fail. Why is it that nothing has been done in regard to asking their advice as to the most suitable persons to decide on the conscientious objections of the young men of this country who are to be used to kill other men abroad? I say that this Financial Resolution has been so framed that one can see exactly what it is—an attempt to place on one section of the community the burden of defending the pleasures, the wealth, the capital and the good things that that other section of the community have. This Financial Resolution shows the Military Training Bill to be something that the Government desire to use against the workers. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, this whole business has disclosed what the nature of the Government is—a Government which is deplorable and dishonest, and so I ask that every step that can be taken should be taken against this Measure.
  1.57 a.m.
  Mr. McEntee: I think every hon. Member of the Committee will agree with me when I say that in the experience of all of us, even of the oldest Members of the House, there has never been an occasion when a Minister who has been put up to explain a Financial Resolution knew so little about it as the Financial Secretary to the War Office did about this Resolution which he was put up to explain to-night. I do not know who prepared his case for him—whether he prepared it himself or whether somebody else did it—but there is one thing that is perfectly certain, and that is that the explanation of the Financial Resolution which he gave had not the remotest relation to the Resolution itself. Because of that, I think we are entitled to better treatment than we have received. Surely when such a blunder was made by the representative of His Majesty's Government in explaining a Financial Resolution, one would have imagined that he would have taken the earliest opportunity to apologise for the mistake that he had made and would at least have endeavoured to put before the Committee in clear words some explanation of what his own Financial Resolution meant. All of us would like an opportunity to discuss the same points that were put by the Financial Secretary. After he had explained something that was not in the Financial Resolution and told us it was there, we were then ruled
  214
  out of order, and rightly so, by the Chairman, and we were left in the position that, so far as the Government are concerned, not the slightest explanation of the actual terms of the Resolution has been given.
  There are one or two points in connection with it to which I want the Secretary of State for War to give consideration. It appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that in all the committees and tribunals that are mentioned and which come under the Financial Resolution, it is lawyers who are selected in every case as chairmen of the committees. You will have a county court judge—a lawyer—on one committee, a barrister or solicitor to appeal against the decision of the county court judge, perhaps, and a barrister or solicitor of 10 years' experience. You then have the chairmen of tribunals under the Ministry of Labour referred to in the Schedule. The chairman of the military training (hardship) committee is to be a person holding the office of chairman of a court of referees. I do not know whether all chairmen are to be lawyers, but I think they are. I have never met one who was not a lawyer, and I want to add my protest to the protests already made with regard to the selection of that type of person to act as chairman of the tribunal where the hardship cases have to make their appeals.
  I should imagine, if you are considering questions of hardship, that you should have some kind of social worker, someone with long experience of social work, someone who is independent and not in the pay of the Government, who will not feel himself under an obligation to the Government to give decisions of which the Government would approve. I cannot help thinking that the fact that the people holding these positions are under another Government Department will make them feel under an obligation to treat hard cases in a harsh way. I hope that further consideration will be given to this question of chairmen of tribunals and that someone more satisfactory and more fitted to consider this dispassionately and without prejudice should hear these appeals.
  With regard to expenses, surely it should be the intention of the House, and I believe it will be, that if a man is to appeal on grounds of hardship or con-

  215
  scientious objection, he should be given every opportunity to present his case adequately and well. For that purpose it will be essential in some cases that the person concerned shall have an opportunity of calling witnesses. What chance on earth has a young man from a working-class home to bring witnesses to a tribunal that may sit many miles away from his home? He has no earthly chance, because he cannot afford to pay for them and they cannot afford to pay for themselves. The War Office ought to consider whether, if they are going to give them a legitimate and fair trial, they should not give them the opportunity which is given to the ordinary criminal. If he is to be defended by someone set aside by the court on his behalf, he should have an opportunity of calling witnesses to enable him to present his case properly.
  I think the explanation given by the Financial Secretary was so hopelessly inaccurate that we are entitled to a further explanation before we are asked to decide on this Financial Resolution. I hope the hon. Gentleman makes a second speech or else that someone better qualified will explain what the Resolution means. I would not like to be in the position of the Financial Secretary to the War Office that, having made such a hopeless mess in the first instance, he has to try to explain why he made such a hopeless mess or say who misled him into making such a hopeless mess. Someone better qualified ought to be put up by the Government. I thought perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has some knowledge of finance, could have come in and given us some explanation. Many years ago, when I was a young man, I remember that in Ireland they held juries and tribunals and called them packed juries. I cannot help feeling that with regard to these tribunals the men are coming before packed juries.
  There is to be a lawyer chairman. I do not object to him because he is a lawyer, but it is an extraordinary thing that only lawyers should be selected. The other thing is that the remaining members of the tribunal in all cases have to be selected by the Minister. Why? I suggest that this is because he desires to have packed juries and to select people who will deal harshly with the applicants and save money for the Government and
  216
  will get as many men into the Army as it is possible for them to get. I do not think we can expect any man to receive fair treatment under such tribunals. I do not think they can get any fair or reasonable treatment with regard to hardship under the tribunals dealing with hardship. I do not think they can get any reasonable treatment in the appellants' court or appeal court in any case where there are lawyer chairmen and members of the committee selected in every case by the Minister. Frankly, I hope hon. Members will give consideration as to whether we should approve this Resolution or ask the Committee to meet again and have some reasonable explanation given as to what this really means.
  2.7 a.m.
  Sir V. Warrender: I feel that I owe the Committee, not an apology, but perhaps an explanation. To-night I have been accused on the one hand of giving far too little explanation and on the other of giving far too much. The last hon. Member who spoke accused me of giving far too little.
  Mr. McEntee: I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of giving far too little but of such explanation as he did give being entirely wrong and having nothing to do with the Resolution.
  Sir V. Warrender: If I understood the hon. Member aright, he said that he had had no information.
  Mr. McEntee: No.
  Sir V. Warrender: I do not want to split hairs, but I believe there has been a good deal of misunderstanding this evening. This Resolution has been described as being so tightly drawn that little or no discussion is possible on it. During the time I have been in the House—it is not a very long time, but it is as long as most of those hon. Members opposite me—I cannot remember seeing a financial resolution which has been more widely drawn, and although in spite of the width of the drafting it may have put hon. Members opposite in a little difficulty, and I sympathise with them, the drafting as it is leaves them ample opportunity for moving Amendments in Committee and discussing in great detail all

  217
  the points that I have heard mentioned this evening. Whatever they have lost on this evening's Debate when they come to Committee they will more than gain in being able to put down Amendments.
  Mr. Johnston: Are we to understand that we shall be unable to put down Amendments dealing with the men's pay?
  Sir V. Warrender: No, only on those portions of the Bill which are italicised. That is as far as my statement goes. There has been a large number of questions raised to-night, and I will, without keeping the Committee too long, endeavour to reply to them. When I spoke before I referred to the headings under which expenditure on behalf of the Minister of Labour would fall under this Bill. Some hon. Members perhaps were not in the Committee at the time. Let me amplify what I said then. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked me the number of medical boards that would be set up throughout the country, and also the number of hardship committees. I can tell him that there will be 120 medical boards and a somewhat similar number, perhaps rather more, of hardship committees. They will roughly cover the same area as the courts of referees. He also raised the question of travelling allowances and asked whether they would be substantial. I think I can tell the Committee that the intention is that no men who are put to the expense of travelling shall be out of pocket. They will claim and will be paid full travelling fare. In cases where they have to go long distances and have to be away from home for some considerable time, they will in addition be paid subsistence allowances for food and such other necessities as they have to purchase as a result of the journey.
  Mr. McEntee: Would that include the loss of remunerative employment in all cases?
  Sir V. Warrender: The point of the loss of remunerative time was raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I am going to deal with that point in a moment. I do not expect to be able to convince hon. Members of this, but let me say that it is not the intention in this Bill to put any man to any expense which he incurs as a result of conditions which have been imposed upon him at
  218
  this particular age. After all, if a man feels himself aggrieved, or is unable to get what he feels is justly due in the way of travelling or subsistence allowance, there is always this House to which he can appeal through his Member. These points, very important as they are, and about which Members opposite will very naturally be anxious, can all be raised in Committee, and that seems to me the time when it will be for the Government to satisfy hon. Members that their proposals are fair and just. The point about the witnesses will be dealt with by a Government Amendment which will be moved in Committee. I am glad the point was raised, because it gives me an opportunity of satisfying hon. Members that that point is being met by means of a Government Amendment. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) asked me about the fees which are to be paid to the members of the hardship tribunals. These are all administrative details, and they have not yet been thoroughly settled, but I can tell him that the fees will be similar to those given to courts of referees. The last point to which the hon. Member referred was the salaries of the judges who will preside. That is a matter still under discussion and has not yet been settled.
  Mr. Foot: There is one point that I would like to mention, and it is this matter of the appellate tribunal. Only one appellate tribunal is referred to in the Clause of the Bill. In the Schedule it says that the appellate tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members appointed by the Minister, and the chairman shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and in Scotland by the President of the Court of Session. Does that mean that there are to be two tribunals, or that one tribunal is to move from England to Scotland with different chairmen on each side of the Border?
  Sir V. Warrender: The intention is to have one tribunal for Scotland and one for England.
  Hon. Members: What about Wales?
  Sir V. Warrender: One for England and Wales.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Will the chairman be a Welshman?
  Mr. Poole: Do we understand that every applicant who desires to make an appeal to the appellate tribunal has got to travel from the furthest corners of this country to one central position, presumably London, where the tribunal will be located?
  Sir V. Warrender: In cases of this kind it is not uncommon for long distances to be travelled, and there is full machinery in this Bill for compensating for loss of time and financial loss. Let me come to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields. He asked why under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (6) of Clause 4 the word is different from what it is in the other Sub-sections dealing with compensation for men attending before the various bodies. The reason why in this particular case a man is to be compensated for loss of time is that his appearance before the hardship committee takes place on a day, on which he probably would not be at work, and is not in reply to a particular and personal summons. Where a man has attended in reply to a particular and personal summons, the probability is that he will have to appear in his own working time, and therefore it is necessary to see that proper compensation is paid to him.
  Mr. Ede: Does that mean that the men who have to go before the appropriate body under Clause 1 and Clause 3 will be able to say to the body: "The time you have fixed is in my working time, and as I shall lose time to come, will you please fix another date?" With regard to the people for whom Saturday has been fixed, suppose they happen to be people who, owing to some shift arrangement, on the firm or for other reasons, have in fact to work on Saturday night, what arrangements will be made?
  Sir V. Warrender: Most certainly arrangements will be made to take into account exceptional circumstances of that kind. I am speaking from the general point of view. In this part of the Bill, when a man is sent for by means of a particular summons making it obligatory on him to appear at a certain time, he shall be entitled to recompense in respect of any loss of wages that he may suffer.
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask something to make this clear? It is not clear to
  220
  anybody, and certainly not to hon. Members opposite. Does the payment for the loss of remunerative time depend upon the tribunal to which the applicant is called, or does it depend upon whether he is called to appear before that tribunal at any fixed time? According to the Bill, the loss of remunerative time is only paid to a man who is summoned before a medical board. It is not paid to a man who applies to a tribunal on the ground that he is a conscientious objector, and it does not apply if he comes before a hardship committee. Now the hon. Gentleman is saying that if a man is called to appear before any one of those tribunals, he will be paid in respect of loss of remunerative time, but that is not what is in the Bill.
  Sir V. Warrender: The argument which has taken place only shows how much more appropriate it would be if this point were discussed in Committee. These really are Committee points. I would, however, ask the Committee to accept the assurance from me that there is no desire to penalise any man sent for to appear at any particular time, not at his own request, but by the appropriate body.
  Mr. McEntee: I want to know how the remunerative time is to be measured. Is it to be measured according to the scale the man happens to be earning? The point was put earlier in the Debate. A lawyer may estimate his time at £3 to £4, and others may be earning only is.
  Sir V. Warrender: I think that the hon. Member is looking for difficulties. These questions can be settled with reasonableness on both sides. There is precedent in this. It often happens in other walks of life. Now I will turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson), who asked why there would be no woman on the hardship committees. It is perfectly true that the Bill provides for male personnel, but that seems again to be a Committee point. I can hardly think that most men would wish to have women sitting in judgment on them. That is a point which could be the subject of an Amendment. The same hon. Member also asked me why no greater use had been made of trade union personnel in the setting up of these bodies. If the trade unions are anxious to give us their co-operation, we shall welcome it, and there would be no difficulty in that

  221
  direction. There again an Amendment could be put down. I hope that in spite of the indifferent progress that this Financial Resolution has made, I have been successful in answering some of the points put by hon. Members opposite and that they will now allow us to have it.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Member has not answered the very serious point which I put to him with regard to the allowances under Clause 5, Sub-section (11), where he has again got a new set of words. Is that supposed to cover clothing and kit allowances for the men for whom clothing and kit are not available when they report? The hon. Member had no excuse for neglecting that point, because I made it with great clarity.
  Sir V. Warrender: I am sure that the hon. Member will not accuse me of discourtesy. Here again, this is a general provision giving the Minister certain powers. They are for the comfort of the men, and they will be so employed. If the hon. Member wants to question them in any way, he will have an ample opportunity of doing so at a later stage. I cannot give an estimate of the cost. I cannot tell to how many men they will apply.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member has not answered the specific point that I put. Do the words employed in this Clause cover the clothing and kit allowances for those men who will be called up and for whom the clothing and the necessary kit will not be available? That is quite a clear question. It does not arise on the next stage of the Bill, and the hon. Member can give me an answer "Yes" or "No."
  Sir V. Warrender: Clothing allowance will not be a responsibility of the Minister but of the Secretary of State for War under the powers of the Royal Warrant under which the man will be paid.
  Mr. Stephen: I asked the Minister what were the other allowances under Sub-section (11) of Clause 5 under the head of "travelling and other expenses." I still have not got a specific reply of any kind.
  Sir V. Warrender: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. The other allowances are in respect of men who will have to travel a long way, and they will be subsistence allowances.
  Mr. Stephen: Will that not be provided under the Royal Warrant? Surely that is one of the things which are provided under the Royal Warrant. Why is there a difference here? It is just another instance of the absolute confusion which seems to have overtaken the Government.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Where subsistence allowances are to be given, if some of those involved are unemployed, would the unemployment allowance which was given to them be counted?
  Sir V. Warrender: These men come under the Royal Warrant once they become militiamen. So long as they are under the Minister of Labour they receive the grants under his control.
  2.26 a.m.
  Mr. Alexander: The Financial Secretary to the War Office has just completed a series of answers which are not very long and not very illuminating, but they are sufficient to indicate to the Committee the vast amount of trouble the Government are yet going to be in for in the administration of this Measure and the extent to which already the Ministers have been forced to make considerable concessions in machinery which will cost the country a great deal of money and delay, and the net yield to the Government from their scheme is far less in man-power than the Secretary of State for War has been prepared to admit. We are in Committee for authorising this huge expenditure asked for by the Government in consequence of the introduction of this new service of compulsory military training, because the fact that it is compulsory makes it a new service. We have had no reasonable estimate and no idea from the Chair as to what was the amount of expenditure covered by this Money Resolution.
  The hon. and Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office talked about the unsatisfactory progress made in this Committee to-night. The Chairman had to ask the Secretary of State for War as to what expenditure was covered by the Resolution, and ever since then we have been trying to get within the rules of order on the assumption put to the Chair by the Secretary of State for War as to what was really the expenditure covered by the Money Resolution. If that is the basis on which we are to be asked to discuss it, not only to-night but in the detailed stages of discussion of this Bill

  223
  as to the financial provision to be made, I can promise the Government that this is not the only night on which they can expect to make very unsatisfactory progress. It is ridiculous that the Committee should be put in the position in which it has been put to-night. A cursory explanation was given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office at the outset, but there has been no estimate before the Committee as to what we are being asked to authorise. We have had no statement from any representative of the War Office as to what are the financial measures to be taken to secure either reasonable economy in the administration of this very heavy increase of military expenditure or what steps are being taken to see that the expenditure which we authorise is going to be put to proper use with an absence of profiteering and without undue increase in capital cost in the acquisition of land. We have had certainly no guarantee that the expenditure is going to result in such a speeding-up of production that the newly compelled conscripts of the nation shall be properly clothed, equipped, and housed for military training.
  The more I have listened to-night the more I have become convinced that there has been no real study of what the financial provisions should be either in the interests of the dependants of the conscripts or—what it is vital to remember in voting the money—in the interests of the health of those boys who are to be called up. We have heard a great deal on what a fine thing it is for boys to be called up for military training.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that we are getting on to a Second Reading speech. The new service will come under a Supplementary Estimate and not under this.
  Mr. Alexander: I have no wish to come into a clash with the Ruling of the Chair, but I think I am entitled to ask, as this is general financial authority that is being asked for, what steps are being taken by the Government to see that the money is properly and economically expended for the health of the people concerned as well as in the keeping of the books and in seeing that there is no undue profiteering. We are also entitled to ask at what stages some of this expenditure is
  224
  to be made. We have been told that the first real expenditure is likely to occur about the end of June or the beginning of July. The Financial Secretary pointed out in his explanation of the Vote to-night that it was to include the provision of accommodation for and the maintenance of recruits when called up. One of the things that I am most concerned about in the expenditure of this money is the health of the recruits.
  The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about medical services in this.
  Mr. Alexander: I am not going to say anything about medical services on the money to be paid out of the expenditure which we are authorising.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The accommodation is not included in the Resolution either.
  Mr. Alexander: It is a most extraordinary state of affairs, and apparently there is a conspiracy by the Government to prevent us from discussing the real financial provisions of this Measure and also the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. I want to draw attention to certain phraseology in the Resolution. It states:
  "It is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder,"
  which separates the two things. Does not the first part bring in medical services?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Those services are dealt with under existing powers.
  Mr. Alexander: Under what Act is the Minister going to spend the money for the provision of temporary accommodation?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: There are the Army Estimates. To maintain a certain number of men in the Army we would come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate, and all these matters would be discussed in relation to the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. Alexander: That is not an answer to my question. The Deputy-Chairman ruled that there was an Act under which this expenditure was already authorised. I have asked the Secretary of State what

  225
  is the Act, but he cannot tell me. The Resolution reads:
  "for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for rendering persons between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training."
  What is the temporary provision? I am submitting that making temporary provision includes provision of temporary hut accommodation. What will be the effect on the health of boys of 20 years if the temporary provision is not of the right type? On the last occasion when there was a conscript Act men died by the hundred from overcrowding and from cerebro-spinal fever. There was a complete departure in the temporary provisions of the War Office for dealing with recruits under conscript service from the standard laid down by Royal Commission with regard to minimum cubic space.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must again remind the right hon. Gentleman that the provision to which he is now referring has nothing to do with barracks or accommodation.
  Mr. Alexander: I am reading the whole Preamble to the Bill. It says:
  "Make temporary provision for rendering persons between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training in the armed forces of the Crown; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid."
  I think that is a very reasonable Preamble, and I have no complaint to make about it. My complaint is that we are not allowed to discuss the matter. That is the real trouble that we are faced with, and certainly I consider it to be a very grave thing indeed that to-night the House of Commons, in Committee, is asked to vote a sum of money for this purpose, and among the purposes for which it votes this money are surely the training of and proper, healthy accommodation for the men who are to be called up. Certainly we ought to be concerned about this matter in the interests of the mothers of the boys who will be called up, and to see that they are properly accommodated and that they do not run the risk of those grave epidemics which they suffered on the last occasion. Anything of this sort surely cannot be ruled out of order. The provision of the money that we are asked to vote includes the provision of equipment.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me where any reference is made to equipment.
  Mr. Alexander: I should have said that the phrase "purposes connected therewith" meant that the men who are called up and trained would require proper equipment in order to have such training.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That matter does not appear either in the Money Resolution or in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it now.
  Mr. Alexander: I was going to explain. An hon. Member has already asked a question about the scope of allowances referred to in the Bill, because of fears, based on previous experience, that when these recruits are called up there will not be the necessary equipment, and we shall be required to vote under this Bill extra allowances. At any rate, Colonel Clifton Brown, I am sure you will agree with this, that we are entitled to ask in Committee, in regard to the expenditure of money, that in the moving of a Bill for the requisite and necessary supply of what is required for the training of soldiers, there should be proper economy in the spending of public money which we are authorising to-night. I hope that is in order. As I said earlier in the course of points of Order, I should have thought that when a Financial Resolution, drawn in much wider fashion than I have ever remembered on any previous occasion, is brought forward, we are surely entitled to ask that the expenditure of money is going to be with reasonable economy in the public interest, and I am still very unhappy about that. It is true that we have now got a new Minister of Supply, and perhaps his work will assist the War Office to some extent to effect some change by way of economy in the spending of this money, but my own information at the moment is that there are still large areas of those who might be engaged in the supply of goods that will have to be purchased which are still not being asked to compete and where there is no competitive basis of tender. This will probably result in a much heavier expenditure out of the public purse than would otherwise be the case.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the question of supply cannot be discussed on this Financial Resolution.
  Mr. Alexander: You, Colonel Clifton Brown, seem to be as alert as even your predecessor in the Chair was in the earlier stage of our proceedings. I might perhaps say that if the representatives of the Treasury were as alert in their protection of the public interest as you have been alert in the protection of the Rules of the House of Commons, we might be saving a great deal for the public purse. As to the discussion with which we have been faced to-night, let me end by saying this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members who say "Hear, hear" will have to face a lot more of this, but they might have had to face a lot less of this type of discussion which has been forced on us to-night had we received better treatment from the Government. There are limits to which the Opposition can go in dealing with matters of this kind, and unless hon. Members are prepared to treat the Opposition with reasonable respect for our rights, then they must expect to be kept up late at night. Let me say that, in view of the magnitude of the expenditure, as well as the purposes for which we are asked to vote it—purposes with which we are totally disagreed in principle, because we believe the expenditure of this money is unnecessary in view of the number of recruits that were available and who are still to be available by voluntary means—I wish to ask all my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to vote against this Resolution with great clearness of conscience and great determination.
  2.48 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I want to say a few words with regard to these matters because of the generally unsatisfactory position, and to put some questions to the Secretary of State for War. One of the weaknesses in connection with the Bill was said to be that there was no provision for the conscripts getting the necessary birth certificates without paying 3s. 7d. for the certificate. I want to know now if there is any provision in this Financial Resolution for providing free birth certificates for these conscripts, who have to supply them? I can see no reference to this matter in the Financial Resolution and I want to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the Bill, free birth certificates will be provided. It has already been made plain that the Government are introducing a scheme in which, under the Financial Resolution, these
  228
  conscripts are to be unpaid, and it has now been made plain after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that they are not only to be unpaid but have to provide their own equipment, training grounds, accommodation and clothes. There is nothing at all provided for them in this Bill or in the Financial Resolution, so that we are going to have the most extraordinary conscription in this country. The only thing we got was the statement made by the Prime Minister.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I really think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the subject now.
  Mr. Stephen: I am only saying that they are not in the Financial Resolution. I did not wish—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can only discuss matters inside the Resolution.
  Mr. Stephen: I am not anxious to discuss things which are not inside the Resolution, but in seeking to discuss what is in the Resolution I mentioned incidentally some things that were outside. I will conclude simply by saying that the Government evidently are not only going to use the bodies of the working class but are going to make the working class provide everything, who are also to be used for the protection of millionaires' property.
  2.51 a.m.
  Mr. Silverman: We have been discussing this Resolution for well over three hours, and the result of it all appears to be that no one in the Committee, least of all the Financial Secretary to the War Office, knows what amount of money the Committee is being asked to vote under this Financial Resolution; nor have we even an approximate estimate of it. There is no clarity at all as to what powers the Government have, in order to provide for the finance required by those parts of the Bill not covered by the Resolution. There is complete confusion. No one seems to have thought it out. No one knows what will happen if the Committee passes the Resolution. No one knows what opportunities there will be for anyone to discuss other matters of finance apparently not covered by this Resolution. I do suggest to the Minister that it is a mistake to have two revolutionary measures at the same time. It is admitted that the Bill involves a complete

  229
  change in our military system. If, at the same time, we are to have another revolutionary change with regard to the voting of money, the Government are asking the Committee, the House and the country too much by bringing all those revolutionary things in at once.
  I suggest to the Minister, in view of what has taken place—and in fairness to him I say that I suppose it must have taken him by surprise as much as anyone else—that the proper thing to do is to withdraw the Financial Resolution, reconsider the matter, and come forward with a financial resolution framed so that we can understand what it is about, with some sort of estimate as to what it is to cost and some sort of plan as to how the money is to be spent. If he does that, he will not be doing anything which the traditions of this House do not require. None of these things has been done to-night. The Financial Secretary made a speech which later appeared to be completely out of order and which was entirely irrelevant to the Motion he was moving. It was true that the rest of us could not discuss it, but no one thought to make another speech. I think the general sense of the Committee will be that we ought not to proceed with this matter any further at this time and that we should not be invited to proceed to
  any vote. If no suggestion of withdrawing the Resolution is coming from the other side of the Committee, I ask leave to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Deputy-Chairman: With regard to the Motion the hon. Member has attempted to move, that has already been done, and cannot be moved again.
  Mr. Silverman: I was under the impression that it was within the discretion of the Chair to accept the Motion if it is moved more than two hours after the last occasion. It is considerably more than two hours since it was moved, and there was then no Debate, as it was on a different point.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I will quote:
  "A Motion to report Progress having been negatived, cannot be repeated during the currency of the same question."
  Mr. Silverman: Would I be in order, therefore, if I moved that you do leave the Chair?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That Motion would be in order.
  Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 177.

  Division No. 98.]

  AYES.

  [2.57 a.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Garro Jones, G. M

  Pearson, A.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Poole, C. G.

  Amman, C. G.

  Groves, T. E.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Ridley, G.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Barr, J

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Batey, J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  Jagger, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Daggar, G.

  Logan, D. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lunn, W.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Dobbie, W.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

  McGovern, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Marshall, F.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Frankel, D.

  Maxton, J.

  Gallagher, W.

  Messer, F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Aster, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Beechman, N. A.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Remer, J. R.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Hepworth, J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bull, B. B.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Burghley, Lord

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Rowlands, G.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Cary, R. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Salt, E. W.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Channon, H.

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E, Grinstead)

  Hunter, T.

  Scott, Lord William

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Critchley, A.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Levy, T.

  Somerset, T.

  Cross, R. H.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  De la Bére, R.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Dixon, Cant. Rt. Hon. H.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Donner, P. W.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Duggan, H. J.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Dunglass, Lord

  McKie, J. H.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Markham, S. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Emery, J. F.

  Medlicott, F.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Furness, S. N.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Munro, P.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Gledhill, G.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Petherick, M.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Wise, A. R.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Porritt, R. W.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wragg, H.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  York, C.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Captain Dugdale and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.

  Original Question again proposed.
  3.5 a.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask a question and get some satisfaction. I want to ask you, Colonel Clifton Brown, or the Minister, or maybe the Patronage Secretary, if there is at our disposal any means whereby we can force one of those profitmakers on the other side to say a word or two on this Resolution. It is a remarkable fact that while they have made such claims to be concerned with all that is being effected by this Resolution, not one of them has been prepared to get up and even make an effort to put in a word or two.
  3.6 a.m.
  Mr. Liddall: On a point of Order. Is it in the interests of this country that at this stage this man, who is the only representative of a party—
  The Deputy-Chairman: An hon. Member must not make any imputations against another hon. Member. I must say, however, about the hon. Member himself, that he has not been very much in order because he was not referring to the Money Resolution, but to hon. Members in regard to it, and that is also out of order.
  Mr. Jagger: Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member as "this man"?
  Mr. Liddall: On a further point of Order. Considering that the hon. Member who has spoken so often in this Debate to-night is a Member who has taken the oath falsely in this House—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  The Deputy-Chairman: An hon. Member has no right to make such statements

  233
  about another hon. Member, however much he may disagree with his politics or his views.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I ask that the hon. Member should withdraw that statement.
  Mr. Liddall: With the greatest respect, Colonel Clifton Brown, the hon. Member who has spoken so often in the Debate to-night—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I asked the hon. Member to withdraw what he said.
  Mr. Liddall: If you ask me to withdraw, I shall certainly withdraw.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry my effort to induce one of the hon. Members on the other side to assist us in the understanding of this Financial Resolution should have brought such an undesirable interlude as we have had. But we will leave that. Let us get back once again to the Financial Resolution. This Resolution, as a result of the introduction made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, has been the cause of very great disturbance and confusion on these benches. We have tried by every means to get the assistance of the Chairman to eliminate the confusion and to get an understanding of what is implied by the Resolution. I would like to get an answer to this point. On this Resolution, if we refuse to pass it, would the Minister be in a position to acquire land for the purposes of this Bill? Would he be in a position to acquire land or does this Financial Resolution not provide him with the financial means of securing land, and have we not a right as a consequence to discuss whether he should get the financial means of getting land without financial means?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Powers to acquire land are already there and this Money Resolution does not make any alteration of that.
  Mr. Gallacher: Then the question is out of order, and it is out of order to expect hon. Members on the other side to say anything.
  3.13 a.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: It has been decided by a large majority that you should not leave the Chair, and in those circum-
  234
  stances it would be a little discourteous if the House were not to continue the discussion for half an hour or an hour longer. I propose to say a few words on the subject now before the Committee. I must say that I agree with what my hon. Friend has just said that it has been a very uninspiring spectacle to watch the serried rows of the Government supporters saying nothing in regard to this Financial Resolution. The opposition to this Financial Resolution has arisen very largely owing to the fact that the Government have endeavoured to take advantage of the complexity of the procedure of public finance in order to try to push this thing through. Even now the Committee is not aware in what respect the money will be spent except in regard to certain details which have been specified. It has been moved to report Progress. Never was the Chair more justified in refusing to accept such a Motion. I should have wished that we should have moved to report no Progress. No one seems to know what the money is to be spent on. There are certain matters on which we could, if we wished, enlarge, such as the nature of the hardship committees, the committees which are to consider the cases of conscientious objectors, the medical boards, the examinees, and the travelling and other allowances in respect of conscripts who are actually being called to the Colours. But, apart from certain general items which the Financial Secretary to the War Office has specified but which he has since been compelled to repudiate as coming within the Bill, we do not know on what the money is to be spent. The Financial Memorandum-says:
  "Capital £30,000,000 spread over two years. Maintenance cost in 1939, £10,000,000, rising … to £25,000,000 in 1941."
  The Chair has ruled that those items are not eligible for discussion. If that is the case, and assuming that the Chair has been correct throughout the evening in that ruling, what is the expenditure to be incurred under Clause 13 of the Bill? Surely we are entitled to ask that? I disregard the artificial distinction between capital expenditure and revenue. That is a distinction which is extremely vague in our system of public accounts. There is no accountant on either side of the House who can say that there is any rhyme or reason in the system of public finance in regard to the separation of

  235
  capital expenditure and revenue. Our Budget is made up very largely every year of capital expenditure in the strictest sense of the term. What is the reason for this sudden artificial distinction between the two? There is a reason. That reason is that the Government are seeking excuses for refusing to pay Defence expenditure out of revenue but are charging it to loan, and I am sure that we shall find in the classification of the different accounts in future an increasing tendency—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see how this arises out of the Money Resolution we are discussing.
  Mr. Garro Jones: That is precisely my difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman who has been sitting there all the evening looking very satisfied with the speech he made earlier in the day, has refused to give us any explanation of these items. Let me came down to a very specific question. Much light would be thrown on our discussions if the Minister would say what items of expenditure come within Clause 13. If he did that we should have something to discuss, and then indeed, after a few more hours, it may be possible that you do leave the Chair and we succeed in carrying that proposal.
  3.30 a.m.
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I feel that I am, perhaps, the most unsuited person to take part in this Debate. I say that for the reason that I am not knowledgeable of the rules of procedure, and I have been bewildered more than once as to the procedure. But I find myself one of the least bewildered Members of the House, because I have observed on the opposite side of the House considerable agitation among certain hon. Members. It would be quite useful to some of those who are new to this House to have explained what we really are discussing to-night. It will soon be daylight outside, and I am wondering whether we may get a little daylight inside. We are told there are to be 120 medical boards. Will one of them be in London, and will the Government submit itself to that board to see if it is fit and capable of carrying on? I am not happy to think that the fate of 200,000 conscripts should be placed in the incapable hands of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say incapable
  236
  because they bring a Money Resolution to this House and find it impossible to explain it. Rudyard Kipling wrote a famous song during the Boer War which ended with the words, "Pay, pay, pay." What the Government want is that the community should pay, but that the House of Commons shall have no indication of how that money is to be spent or how we are to have control over the spending. It is of supreme importance to us that we should know how these conscripts are to be acommodated, how they are going to be fed—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member had better ask those questions on some other occasion.
  Mr. Beaumont: I shall be delighted to have the opportunity of asking them. I am perturbed that on everything for which money is to be used it seems we are not to ask questions. Is there some secret scheme which the Secretary of State is going to disclose? If I talk about the case of a widow whose son, on whose earnings she is dependent, may be conscripted, I am told I am out of order. If Sir Dennis will not think me discourteous, may I mention this particular case? I have a letter from a constituent to the effect that her son, 20 years of age, is now contributing 30s. a week to the maintenance of the family. The woman is dependent on that, plus a small amount of money.
  The Chairman: If the hon. Member had given as much attention to the Debate as I gathered he had done he would have known that was out of order.
  Mr. Beaumont: So many other people have been fortunate that I wondered if I could follow them up. I am hoping that as we get nearer to the lighter hours of the morning the Members of the Government will waken to the fact that we do not know what they want and we would like them to tell us.
  3.28 a.m.
  Mr. Logan: When the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in an important discussion on the anomalies of this Resolution argued that the question of providing clothing or boots was necessary he was ruled out of order. He was told that as it was not specifically mentioned in the Resolution, it was out of order. It would take a necromancer to know what is meant. It appears to me there is to be no clothing because there is to be no

  237
  expenditure, and it would appear that this is to be a nudist colony. That is my deduction. When we discuss the Money Resolution, we are told it has no application to the Bill; when we deal with the Bill we are told there is no question of the Money Resolution. I am not joking about this, for it is beyond a joke. Is it a. reasonable proposition when a Minister of the Crown gets up to make apologies in regard to the meaning of particular words? I am at a loss to understand why the House could not adjourn to enable the Minister to come forward with a more detailed statement, so that the House and the country could really know what we have been discussing. It is a most ridiculous situation that this House should be here at half-past three in the morning in this position, after three hours discussion of a nonsensical Resolution which contains nothing specific. We are told that what it mentions has nothing whatever to do with the Bill and I would like to know, in that case, what we have been sitting here for all this time.
  3.31 a.m.
  Mr. Ede: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) the Secretary of State for War said that he proposed to bring in a new Vote A to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. Will he give the Committee a specific pledge that a new Vote A will be brought in for the Militiamen proposed under the Bill? I gather that he gave that pledge.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is surely not addressing that question to me?
  Mr. Ede: No, I am addressing it, through you, to the Minister.
  The Chairman: I rose to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he was addressing a question of that sort to anyone on the Government Bench or anyone else, it was quite out of order.
  Mr. Ede: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that he made such a statement to my right hon. Friend. I want to draw attention to the amazing position we have reached by virtue of the answer that the Financial Secretary gave to me to the question I asked with regard to the various allowances that are mentioned in the italicised portions of the Bill. I can see that right up until we get to
  238
  Clause 13, which no one has yet explained to us, all the expenditure authorised is expenditure by the Ministry of Labour and not a penny of it is expenditure by the Secretary of State for War. In Clause 1, in Clause 3, (11), in Clause 4, (6), and in Clause 5, (11), it is in each case "The Minister may pay." It is only when we get to Clause 13 that we get the words, "any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown." It would appear therefore that the expenses that we have so far been able to discuss to-night all refer to the expenses that are incurred up to the moment when the man becomes a Militiaman and is deemed to be in the Army. Here is a Bill that is supposed to be dealing with the conscription of 310,000 men this year, because, after all, the Secretary of State for War may be hoping that he has underestimated when he says 200,000; but 310,000 men become liable to conscription this year as a result of this Measure, and the only expenditure which we have had explained to us to-night by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whose job is to explain this expenditure to us, is that which will be made under the aegis of the Minister of Labour.
  Inasmuch as we have had during the whole of the evening the presence on those benches of the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Secretary of State for War, it would be interesting to know what expenditure is to be incurred under this Bill and on whose responsibility. Clearly it must be the expenditure under Clause 13, and what is it? We are told it is not for hutments, and that it is not pay and allowances or for the land. There is some expenditure that the Secretary of State for War and possibly some other Secretary of State is authorised to incur under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Send for the Minister of Labour."] I do not think he can help us in this. He might have been able to help us on some of the questions I put previously. I can understand, in the light of the Financial Secretary's answer, why the Minister of Labour was so obviously coaching, during the early part of the Debate, both the Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary in the answers they were to give, because clearly all the questions then raised were really on Ministry of Labour expenditure and not on War Office expenditure. The presence of these

  239
  hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench indicates that there is some money for which their Department is responsible, but up to this moment, throughout the whole discussion, they have not mentioned a thing for which the War Office will be responsible after the passing of this Bill into law. That is an amazing situation. The Financial Secretary made a preliminary speech in introducing this Resolution and, as has been complained, he did not deal with a thing with which hon. Members who spoke after him were able to deal. There must be something for which he is responsible that is covered by Clause 13. I do not know whether it is a mixed word puzzle by which the War Office think they will stop hon. Members on this side of the House, but they cannot complain if we find it impossible to believe that they are as ignorant of their own Department as they appear to be. Will they tell us of any item on which they expect to spend as much as a five pound note arising out of this Bill which is covered by this Financial Resolution? Will they tell us what the things are for which Clause 13 was put in the Bill in order to get Parliamentary sanction for expenditure?
  All the matters with which the Financial Secretary dealt in his answer were matters that concerned the Ministry of Labour. All these medical boards, the military hardship committees, the local tribunals and the appellate tribunals are things for which the Minister of Labour is responsible. Apparently they are not even to employ Army doctors on the medical boards. Clause 3 provides that the Minister, meaning the Minister of Labour, may pay to members of medical boards constituted for the purpose of the Bill and to consultant examiners employed for these purposes, such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine. Are these to be civilian doctors, sitting in civilian dress and with no responsibility to the War Office, and holding the position of being able to pass or reject the men who have come up for medical examination? Are the whole of the rules that are to govern the action of these medical men to be drafted by the Ministry of Labour and will the doctors employed on these boards be under any disciplinary control from the War Office? The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary
  240
  of State, as one who served in the last War, will know the important difference between having a medical officer subject to the commands of the higher branches of the medical staff of the Army, constituting a medical board, and having civilian doctors who have no other responsibility than the code of professional honour set up by their own profession. I venture to say to the two Members of the Government responsible for the War Office that it is time they told the House what expenditure under this Bill is to be spent by the Ministry of Labour, or they should tell us what they are going to spend under this Bill, because that has not yet been disclosed to the Committee. Until we can get that explanation they must not be surprised if we believe the Committee ought not to part with this Money Resolution.
  3.41 a.m.
  Mr. E. Smith: It is regrettable that we should be discussing this matter at this time in the morning and I desire to protest that the House of Commons should have been put in this position. The responsibility for it is entirely the responsibility of the Government. This Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority and the Prime Minister last week made an appeal that in the event of the Bill being carried by the House we should then endeavour to improve it and make it better for the men who are to be asked to serve when it becomes an Act. Some of us were determined to move Amendments with that object. One of the most important subjects we desire to improve is the lot of the man who will be called up under the Bill, for in no circumstances are we prepared to be a party to our men being paid only 1s. a day. We desire to move Amendments—
  The Chairman: I think the hon. Member realises that he is quite out of order.
  Mr. Smith: I respect that Ruling and I shall not proceed too far. I was only mentioning it as an example of the difficulty in which the whole House has been placed by this Money Resolution, and I was going to show that that was one of the typical instances of how the Government has been most unfair to the House. Earlier, hon. Members on the other side of the House were indicating by their manner that they were not satisfied with the 1s. per day.
  The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to obey the Rulings of the Chair.
  Mr. Smith: I intend doing that and I shall continue to do that, but one is entitled to speak about the difficulties of the House under the conditions in which we are carrying on this Debate. I saw by the manner of a few hon. Members on the other side of the House what they thought about the position we had been put into. This kind of thing has been carried too far when by it the Government place the whole House in a difficult position. It is time hon. Members asserted themselves to deal with that position. Therefore, I desire it to be placed on record on behalf of myself and other hon. Members that we have been placed in a most unfair position, that the responsibility is that of the Government, and that in Committee, we shall do all we can to improve the Bill for the men who will be called up. We regret we shall not have an opportunity of improving the position financially as a result of the way in which the Money Resolution has been drawn.
  3.44 a.m.
  Mr. Messer: I did not intend speaking on the Financial Resolution after having heard some of the speeches and having noticed the difficulties of anyone who had a case to make to keep within its terms. I have viewed the passage of the Bill with great concern, but now it has passed I want to find out under what powers it will be possible to deal with certain difficulties that will arise. I thought the Financial Resolution was drafted widely enough to enable us to get information on important points such as this: that during the six months of training thest conscripts will be suspended from their ordinary industrial occupations. Were they in industry and met with an accident, they would be entitled either to workman's compensation or, if negligence were proved on the part of the employer, to damages under common law. I desire to ask that in the event of these conscripts meeting with accidents during their training period—
  The Chairman: I am afraid that does not come under the Resolution.
  Mr. Messer: I wanted to know whether it would come under Class A of the Army Estimates, so that in the event of our wanting to raise the matter we would be able to do so then.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is definitely out of order.
  Mr. Messer: I do not want to pursue the matter if I am out of order.
  3.47 a.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I have been in the Chamber for a good many hours and I have even heard some of the discussion. I am considerably puzzled by a good many things. I see clearly that, much to the convenience of the Government, the vital matter of the pay of the conscripts does not come under the Bill at all. The general impression has been given as if practically no expenditure comes under the Bill and, as for the Money Resolution, it was merely moved in case someone had to buy a three-halfpenny stamp. When one examines it, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, Clause by Clause lays duties on the Minister of Labour, such as matters concerning the preparation of a register, and it is right or wrong, as the case may be, that the Money Resolution should be carried to enable the Minister of Labour to meet these various expenses. Then we find that the Minister of Labour is conspicuous in everything except his physical absence from the discussion. We have the double advantage of seeing him here and getting no assistance from him. Throughout the night and morning the brunt of the business has been turned on to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He has been continually displaying all night and morning the amazing grasp he has of all the details of this expenditure without the assistance of his chief. I suppose we should be in order in discussing on this Resolution every bit of expenditure that the Minister of Labour might incur, and then some Minister, either the Minister of Labour or the Financial Secretary to the War Office, would sit silent while he was asked questions of which he did not know the answer.
  I would like to see what there is in the Bill which throws expenditure on the War Office. We are asked to pass a Resolution to meet expenses incurred not only by Ministers of the Crown other than the Secretary of State, but also expenses incurred by the Secretary of State. The suspicion at once arises that the thing will be presented to the House with the innocent air of the Secretary of State really having no expenses to meet at all,

  243
  and nobody being able to tell us what the Secretary of State is seeking to meet; and then in a week, or a month, or six months time, it will be explained that the Secretary of State is doing this, that or the other thing, and although you did not know it, on the 8th or 9th of May you actually authorised him. Therefore, I would like to look at one or two things in which the Secretary of State is mentioned. The whole Bill, although it has been drafted so quickly that it is not even grammatical, is really a master-piece of that intricate camouflage into which our ruling class has got of late. It is a Bill to conscript the ordinary citizen and put him in the Army, but the word "Service" is hardly mentioned and the word "conscript" is not mentioned at all. I am not sure that the word "militiaman" is mentioned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] I am much obliged. The Secretary of State for War is not mentioned from the beginning to the end of the Bill. The Army Council is only mentioned once. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office some questions—and I am sure he will leap up and answer at once. On page 10, Clause 5, Sub-section 4, it says:
  "The Admiralty, Army Council and Air Council shall make arrangements whereby any person who is deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of Sub-section (2) of this Section"
  may do this, that or the other. Is the duty laid upon the Army Council by that Sub-section one of the duties in which it is contemplated that it will incur expenses in consequence of the passing of this Bill? In Clause 10 it is said that
  "subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to him expedient to provide for by reason of the passing of this Act, and may by any such Order modify any enactment relating to such matters."
  Is it at present intended or contemplated that Orders in Council shall be made on the advice of the Secretary of State for War, and that as a result of such Orders in Council expenses will be incurred by the Secretary of State, and what is the nature of those expenses which the Secretary of State expects to incur? My third question, which I would particularly like answered, is, what other expenses does the Secretary of State anticipate having to meet as a result of the "Act of the present Session" mentioned in the Financial Resolution? I hope those
  244
  questions have been understood. If they have not been understood, could I be told they have not, and I will repeat them in words of one syllable. If they have been understood, will they please be answered?
  3.55 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I want to ask the Financial Secretary to make another attempt to clear up the many points which have been put to him as carefully as they could be put, and to try to convince the Committee that he, the Minister and the Minister of Labour know exactly what they are asking us to accept. I want to stress again the question of the military training hardship committees.
  The Chairman: I am obliged for the information the hon. Member has given me. Perhaps I may remind him that he must not make the same speech over again.
  Mr. Davidson: I can assure you that with that versatility for which I am well-known in my constituency I will not make the same speech. I want to stress one or two points I did not have the opportunity of stressing before, with regard to the paragraph dealing with the military-training hardship committees. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government know exactly how many of those committees will be established in Scotland. As the Bill applies to Scotland and Scottish youth will be conscripted, some of the finance authorised in this Resolution will be expended in Scotland; what is the estimated total cost of the Scottish hardship committees? I would draw attention to the fact that these committees consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister; and again I would ask, Which Minister of the Government makes these appointments? Is it the Minister for Labour, or the Secretary for Air, or the Minister of Supply? We have had no indication at all which Minister will be definitely affected by the expenditure involved with regard to those committees. If the Government are serious in telling the Committee that the scheme and the financial expenditure are carefully drawn up, can they tell us, without any draperies or verbiage, what sum will be expended in Scotland on these hardship committees?
  I also want to ask about the appointment of the chairman and the two other persons selected by the Minister to be a

  245
  panel under the Act. Will he inform us what qualifications these persons will need in order to undertake the job and to draw fees from the Government? I also want to ask, if that question can be answered, What is the Government's total estimate of the amount of fees to be paid in Scotland? I submit to the Committee that as the number of boys who are to be called upon is known, we should know also the total expenditure involved. Out of that total expenditure on the hardship committees, how many of the committees will operate in Scotland? Secondly, what qualifications will the members of those committees need to have in order to qualify themselves to draw the fees provided by this Financial Resolution? Thirdly, what will be the total expenditure in Scotland in respect of hardship committees? Those are simple and reasonable questions which ordinary constituents would ask the ordinary Member of Parliament if he were placing a financial scheme before them, and they are questions which the Government should be able to answer. The answer should be that the scheme which they have evolved will cost approximately so much. I do not ask exactly what the cost is, but I do ask for some idea and some opinion as to what the total will be.
  I also want to ask, with regard to local and appellate tribunals, what influenced the Government when they came to a decision, that for local tribunals in Scotland we should have a sheriff or a sheriff-substitute? He is paid out of the Consolidated Fund; he is not an elected representative or a person who one could say deals with the human side of the people of Scotland, as a magistrate or a justice of the peace would be well qualified to claim. Why were all these democratic institutions passed over, and why was a person over whom the ordinary men and women of the country have no control selected to act as chairman of this tribunal?
  Can some indication be given to us in Scotland as to the parts of Scotland in which these tribunals will be instituted? They may be in Edinburgh and they may be in each industrial town in Scotland. They will have to provide for the scattered areas in the North of Scotland, and they will be involved in very great difficulty and expense if they really mean to meet the travelling expenses of the appellants. I trust that there will be no attempt by
  246
  the Government to bring them down to Glasgow from the Highlands of Scotland, that long dreary journey, in order to have their case established or turned down. The Highlands have already been depopulated sufficiently by the Government's policy. I trust that these tribunals will be set up in many areas and that the Secretary of State for War will be able to tell us all that he knows in regard to this Financial Resolution. I do not suggest that he can tell us very much, but I would like him to let us into the secret of what other Departments will have a part in this Bill, other than the Ministry of Labour.
  Then there are the appellate tribunals and I hope that we shall be able to get a clear and concise statement on this. It states in the schedule to the Bill:
  "The chairman shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than 10 years standing nominated in England by the Lord Chancellor and in Scotland by the President of the Court of Session."
  I understand from the reply of the Financial Secretary to the War Office that we are to have a separate tribunal in Scotland and that the appointment will be made by the President of the Court of Session. I wonder what my Scottish Friends think of this decision. I understand that the expenditure will be governed by the decision of the President of the Court of Session as to who shall receive the fees. It seems that in this. Financial Resolution everything has been done to meet the fee needs of judges, sheriffs-substitute and those who are to be appointed, either by the Minister of Labour or the Secretary of State, for these jobs of making decisions in regard to the future of the youths who are to be conscripted, but what about the financial provision for the men who have been conscripted? Cannot we hear from the Government a plain statement with regard to the expenditure involved here, because it must come to many millions of pounds.
  No Member of the Committee can say even approximately the total involved in this Financial Resolution. It was stated to be £30,000,000 earlier on, and £10,000,000 in the current year, but it was stated to be out of order to deal with the capital sum. I would like to ask what the estimated cost is of preparing these young men for their service in defence of

  247
  the country. What does the Secretary of State for War mean by this preparation?
  The Chairman: Did I understand the hon. Member to say that he had already been ruled out of order on that?
  Mr. Davidson: No, Sir. I said it had already been pointed out, with regard to the capital expenditure, but I am raising now the question whether we can receive any information at all within the bounds of this Financial Resolution as to the cost of preparing these young men for their service.
  The Chairman: That is out of order. The hon. Member must realise that. He does not put himself in order by quoting the words of the Resolution. He knows quite well that the matter about which he is asking is not relevant.
  Mr. Davidson: I am attempting no Parliamentary trickery. I am asking the Chair for guidance. I asked the Chairman whether the Minister could possibly do such a thing, and I am content with the guidance that the Minister cannot possibly do it. I have always thought so. I wanted to have verification of that. The Government have said that they would have welcomed approaches from the trades union movement on particular points. The Government have brought in their Bill and the Financial Resolution, and have laid it down that the composition of the committees shall be regulated by the Minister. They have formed the committees already and arranged the finance, and then they turn to the trades unions and say: "Of course, we shall welcome approaches from the trades unions." The Government are trying to hoodwink the trades union movement.
  4.21 a.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I have waited all night in the hope that some enlightenment must come from the Government benches on this Financial Resolution. I am amazed at the obstinacy that has been shown. The only information we have been able to elicit has been about something that will obviously cost the State very little. What I cannot understand is that we are told in the financial explanatory memorandum that in two years this Bill, when implemented and operated, will cost about £65,000,000; but all we have heard to-night is something about
  248
  committees and tribunals. Apparently the Bill is almost entirely a descriptive document. I press this question: How is this £65,000,000 to be spent?
  The Chairman: That expenditure is beyond the terms of the Resolution.
  Mr. Davies: I will not proceed with that point any further; but why this obstinacy in a matter which is causing such consternation in the country? The Government have absolutely refused to give us the information to which we are entitled regarding this Bill. As to the meaning of Clause 13, we have had no explanation at all. What are the expenses to be incurred by the Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown as a consequence of the passing of this Act? Does that not imply the spending of money to be authorised by the Resolution? I am forced to the conclusion that there is a deliberate conspiracy behind this attitude of the Government. Why has not this Committee been taken into the confidence of the Government? I presume that before this Bill becomes law we shall have many an appeal made to us for co-operation. The attitude in which the Government have persisted till this hour is an indication of the panic in which this Bill was drafted and the utter insincerity in their declaration that this Bill was an absolute necessity. I hope my colleagues will continue to press for answers. If these are not forthcoming, we shall avail ourselves of other opportunities to insist on a more respectful response. We shall insist on having explanations, or we shall carry our protests into the country and explain to our people the Government's attitude.
  4.20 a.m.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I must apologise for addressing the Committee without my teeth.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. Is that within the Bill?
  Mr. Tomlinson: I was only going to say that I listened with a little more intelligence and with a little more sympathy than some hon. Members in attempting to understand not only the Rulings of the Chair but the different regulations which govern procedure in this House, and I have just learned some things from this Financial Resolution. One is that the hardship committees are

  249
  provided for but the jobs for which this money is to be voted are not known. I want to draw one or two conclusions from that. We have learned that the Minister of Labour is the Minister who is responsible for the spending of this money in the first portion of the Bill. I know something of the way in which those tribunals have worked which have given us the pattern for the tribunals which are to be set up in the Bill, and I have heard it suggested on more than one occasion that sufficient numbers of cases have been created in order that the individual who receives fifty shillings for a session might not be kept unemployed. I have taken many cases before such individuals, and whatever may have been their qualifications for drawing fees in other walks of life, from the standpoint of work they have certainly not earned the money that they receive for sitting in the capacity in which they are called upon to sit.
  The question I want to ask is, what guarantee is there to be that in the setting up of these hardship committees, which I believe are to be fixed on the same basis, we are going to get value for money so far as dealing adequately with these cases is concerned? That comes under the Financial Resolution, which deals not only with the constitution of the Committees, but with the payments to be made to the individuals who preside over them.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: On a point of Order, may I ask whether it would be in order to move that the Chairman report Progress, in view of the fact that in considering this important Financial Resolution there are no Members of the Opposition Liberal party present?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order. It is for the Chair to decide whether it accepts such a Motion or not.
  Mr. Gallacher: Arising further from that point of Order, is it not the case that Members of the Liberal Opposition are taking as active part in the Debate away from this House as Members on the other side are taking in it, although present?
  Mr. Tomlinson: When that interruption occurred I was about to say that the constitution of the committees under this Bill, which is provided for in the Financial Resolution, is of very great importance.
  250
  When the Bill was being passed through its Second Reading, it was urged that the individuals who were responsible for understanding the attitude of the conscientious objector should be suitable individuals with real understanding. If that is true in regard to conscientious objectors, whom we are all desirous of seeing treated respectfully, I submit it is more true with regard to cases of hardship which will come before the committees. It depends entirely on the individual who is chairman of such a committee, and judging from the way in which these tribunals, upon which these committees are to be based, are conducted to-day, it depends almost entirely on the character and outlook of the individual as to whether or not the hardship is substantiated before the committee.
  Further, if these same tribunals are following, as I gather they are, the procedure laid down for the examination of cases, then I submit that in the first few weeks after the setting up of these committees you will have what is known as case law so far as these bodies are concerned, and what the committees decide with regard to hardship in one case will determine whether or not in other cases any hardship can arise. It is of the utmost importance not only that we should see to it that the right people are there, but that people capable of doing the work adequately should be paid adequately. I do not know whether under this Financial Resolution provision is made for adequate payment of these individuals. The individual who is selected to be a chairman of these hardship committees is a most important individual in the working of this scheme. Under the scheme I gather that the salaries of judges and solicitors are safe and with my conception of the law and of lawyers I expected that that would be provided for, and I am not surprised, but I do wish that under the terms of this Resolution it would have been made equally safe for us to assume not only that the individual who is to be conscripted would be all right, but that his dependants would be safe also. I understand from one reply given by the Financial Secretary that it will be possible that there will be one of the appellant tribunals in London. Probably these tribunals will be worked on the basis of what is done in connection with unemployment insurance as regards appeals.

  251
  I want to give a word of warning in regard to that matter and to point out that of the appeals to the umpire, about 99 per cent. of the cases are brought by the trades union organisations; at least, if not 99 per cent., I should say 90 per cent. You find in almost every instance that it is these organisations which send these cases forward. What happens is that the young man who is turned down by the local committee appeals to the tribunal and the case is heard in London. Many of these men will never appeal to London if they have to travel so far. Many of them, unless the means of travel were established beforehand, would not be able to come to London. I suggest that in the interests of justice you consider the advisability not only of establishing appeal tribunals in London but one in the provinces, rather than that expense should be incurred which all the difficulties of travelling to London would make.
  Those are things which have not been thought out as they should have been. We have assumed too much that what has worked with regard to civil matters in connection with unemployment assistance and cases of that kind can equally be applied in the application of a military measure which, I submit, is definitely contrary, or at least alien, to what we have understood in civilian administration. Before we embark on such steps we ought to know where we are going and on what lines we are going to work.
  4.32 a.m.
  Mr. McEntee: It was given as a Ruling earlier that, broadly speaking, the italicised Clauses in the Bill were Clauses that would come under the Financial Resolution. I understand from these italicised Clauses that the payments that could be made under them are all subject to the approval of the Treasury except the last one, Clause 13, which provides the money for the other Clauses. This is money provided by Parliament. I have stated the issue in the hope that someone who is responsible to Parliament for money provided by Parliament would tell us how much the estimate is that is to be expended under the italicised Clauses. I believe every Member of the Committee will agree, when we are being asked to expend these very considerable sums of money and have a Minister present under whose Department most of the money is
  252
  to be spent, and when we have present also the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that we are entitled to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give an estimate of the expenditure under the Financial Resolution we are being asked to pass.
  Surely it is not reasonable to expect the Committee to pass a Resolution without any estimate whatever of the amount of money it is expected to expend? We have been asking the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He has gone, after having made two speeches. He did not give us any estimate whatever. The Secretary for War intervened on two or three occasions, but he gave us no estimate. Repeated appeals have been made to the Minister of Labour to take part in the discussion with regard to expenditure under the italicised Clauses for which he is responsible, presumably, but we have had no estimate from him. In the last resort I am making an appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is finding it difficult like many of us to keep awake. [Interruption.] I can only say I am sorry if I was misled. I find he is thoroughly awake. That is all the more reason why we should expect him to give some estimate of the expenditure which we are being asked to vote. I wish he would indicate that he is prepared to do so, or if not he, someone on the Government side might do so. We have been kept here all night, in the first place, by a statement that was all wrong, made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
  I do hope someone on the other side will speak. The hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is always wide awake and always very anxious to see that expenditure passed by this House has been properly authorised. I was hoping that he would have got up and made an appeal to the Members of the Front Bench. There was one hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who raised a point of Order. I commend him to the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that when the distribution of honours is being considered, he will be considered.
  4.37 a.m.
  Mr. Poole: As a result of what has been revealed since I addressed the Committee yesterday I do want to make a further appeal to the Minister with regard to one

  253
  point only, the appellate tribunal. I can see that the whole of the machinery laid down in the Bill has been put in, lock, stock and barrel out of the Unemployment Assistance Board scheme. I know the Bill had to be hastily drafted and that many people responsible for it have spent many night hours getting it ship-shape. If this machinery, if this provision is allowed to stand, a grave injustice will be done to thousands of young men. When you take the machinery of the Unemployment Assistance Board—the right of appeal to the court of referees—we realise, once you have established a judgment on a principle, that that judgment is applicable to hundreds of thousands of cases in the country. But here for every case it will be different, and each case will require individual consideration. There is a right of appeal to the appellate tribunal. Therefore you will have innumerable appeals from the decisions of the local tribunals to the appeal tribunals, and these appeals will have to be considered individually, and each case will have to be separately assessed. To locate a tribunal in London and expect it to function and deal with every appeal made from all quarters of the country is quite wrong.
  I do hope that the Money Resolution will be increased—I do not know from what or to what, because we have no amount before us—but I hope that it will be increased in order to permit of further appellate tribunals being established in the industrial Midlands, in Yorkshire and Lancashire, on the North-East Coast, and in South Wales and Monmouthshire. Is it reasonable to expect that a man from Newcastle-on-Tyne who wishes to appeal to the appellate tribunal should have to travel to London from Newcastle-on-Tyne, losing probably two days' work, because he is a conscientious objector whose case has not been upheld by the local tribunal? There is no provision at all in this Financial Resolution for the repayment to that man of the time that he will lose. I know the remarks of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but I should be much happier, and feel there is a greater possibility of that becoming an accomplished fact, if it were embodied in the Bill. Is it reasonable to suggest that men should come from Devonshire and Cornwall to London, and lose time, in order to appeal against war service
  254
  because they are conscientious objectors? What is going to happen is that the men will not be able to exercise the right of appeal to the appellate tribunal. They will be turned down by their local tribunals and will not be able to take advantage of the machinery provided. I would urge that the machinery should be revised between now and the final passage of the Bill so that we may have more reasonable arrangements.
  4.43 a.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask the indulgence of the Committee for the few moments that I would like to speak on this question. I am sure that no Member of the Committee will consider that I am speaking simply for the sake of keeping them out of bed. But I would like to say that if I had the energy and the vocabulary to go on speaking until the House was forced to adjourn and this Resolution was withdrawn and the Bill made inoperative, then believe me, I would go on talking. I would do anything to defeat this Financial Resolution. The Prime Minister said on one occasion, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." If the Prime Minister had applied that remark to good causes instead of to evil causes we would not be discussing this Financial Resolution to-night. I have tried and tried, and now I am trying again. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) referred to the italicised paragraph in Clause 4, Sub-section 6 (b), where reference is made to the payment to persons undergoing medical examination of travelling and other allowances. The Financial Secretary said that "other allowances" meant subsistence. But when it is a case of the hardship tribunals what do you get? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hardship."] It is a very serious question for poor people going to hardship committees. The people who are called to Medical Boards will not only be poor people, so instead of getting travelling and subsistence they get travelling and other allowances.
  I know some hon. Members on the other side, who if they were of the age affected and were called to London from the country to attend a medical board would want a cabaret to go along with them. I want the Minister to explain why it is that in the case of hardship committees it is

  255
  laid down clearly and specifically that travelling and subsistence allowances shall be payable, but when it comes to the medical boards, where some of their own friends will be called to attend it is travelling and other allowances. Will that be just the railway fare and a hand-out on the road? Oh, no. Maybe you will have to supply them with a bottle or two of champagne. That is one thing where I want some clarification. There is another point. I do not know whether this Financial Resolution will cover it or not, because I am quite certain that the Minister has never given it one thought—neither the Minister for Labour nor the Secretary of State for War. When these lads are called up, they will not only be due for six months' training, but they will have to take a week or 10 days off because the pits or factories will be closed. The six months that you have taken them away disqualifies them for holidays with pay. Is there any allowance in the Financial Resolution for meeting that?
  What is going to happen to these lads? Have the Government given it any thought? The one thing which is absolutely apparent in the discussions we have had to-night is that it cannot be disguised that neither the Minister for War nor his assistant, the Financial Secretary, knows anything at all about this Financial Resolution. It has been handed to them by some of the officials of their Department. Not a member on the other side of the Committee has the faintest idea what it means. I have not had a long experience of this sort of thing but I have had an opportunity during the period I have been here to get an understanding
  of the procedure of the House and of the character of resolutions which may be presented now and again, and I am safe in saying that never in the history of Parliament was there a Committee faced with such a situation as we have been faced with during these proceedings.
  These young men have to come completely unprovided for, no accommodation, homeless; no rations, hungry; no clothing, naked. What a sermon the Minister of Labour could preach about that. I ask the Minister to have a little consideration, if not for this Committee, for himself, and to withdraw this Resolution and bring forward in its stead a Resolution which will allow the whole of the Committee to discuss the conditions that still obtain in connection with this Bill, because I am quite certain that there are many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who are tied down by mistaken loyalty at the present time to a Government which is not worth their support, but who are not loyal to the people, and many of those hon. Members would be glad to have an opportunity of discussing it.
  Question put,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for rendering person between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training in the armed forces of the Crown and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 99.]

  AYES.

  [4.55 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Adams, s. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Cary, R. A.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Emery, J. F.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Channon, H.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Critchley, A.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Furness, S. N.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cross, R. H.

  Gledhill, G.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  De la Bére, R.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Donner, P. W.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Bull, B. B.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Burghley, Lord

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hannah, I. C.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hepworth, J.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A, (Monmouth)

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Higgs, W. F.

  Petherick, M.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Turton, R. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

  Radford, E. A.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Hunter, T.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  James, Wing-commander A. W. H.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Water-house, Captain C.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Renter, J. R.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Levy, T.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Lindsay, K. M

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Rowlands, G.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lyons, A. M.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Salt, E. W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Wise, A. R.

  McKie, J. H.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wragg, H.

  Medlicott, F.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  York, C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Somerset, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pearson, A.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Poole, C. G.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Ridley, G.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Barr, J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Batey, J.

  Jagger, J.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Stephen, C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Daggar, G.

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGovern, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Ede, J. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Mathers, G.

  Frankel, D.

  Maxton, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gallacher, W.

  Messer, F.

  Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 40.

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES.

  [5.4 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hunter, T.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Levy, T.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

  Furness, S. N.

  McKie, J. H.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Bull, B. B.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Medlicott, F.

  Channon, H.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Hannah, I. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Critchley, A.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Munro, P.

  Cress, R. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  De la Bére, R.

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A, (Monmouth)

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Petherick, M.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Wise, A. R.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Salt, E. W.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  York, C.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Grimston.

  Snadden, W. MM.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Poole, C. C.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Gallacher, W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Amman, C. G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Groves, T. E.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Batey, J.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Stephen, C.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Broad, F. A.

  Logan, D. G.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Westwood, J.

  Burke, W. A.

  McGovern, J.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Maxton, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Messer, F.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

  Ede, J. C.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Welling-borough Gas Light Company, Limited, which was presented on the 28th day of March and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bodmin Gas Consumers' Company, Limited, which was presented on the 18th day of April and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Middlesbrough, which was presented on the 19th day of April and published, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a Quarter after Five o'Clock a.m.