HC Deb 10 May 1939 vol 347 cc504-29

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of each of the Bills aforesaid, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

Any day including the day on which this Order is passed on which the Military Training Bill is put down as the First Order of the Day shall be considered a day allotted to that Bill for the purposes of this Order and any day on which the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill is put down as the First Order of the Day shall be considered a day allotted to that Bill for the purposes of this Order: Provided that, where a day so allotted is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for references to 7.30 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., and as if for references to 12 midnight there were substituted references to 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order, and. which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time so appointed, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a Second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules), and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded and, in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendments be made, or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, on any day allotted to the Military Training Bill shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on that Bill or under this Order for that day, or, if the Order for the Report stage of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill is set down as the next Order of the Day after the Military Training Bill on that day, on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill, or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, those proceedings shall be exempted from the operation of Standing Order No. 1 notwithstanding anything in that Standing Order.

Notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders of the House relating to the precedence of business, the Military Training Bill may be set down as the First Order of the Day on any Friday and if so set down shall have precedence of any other business.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to proceedings on either of the Bills aforesaid or under this Order, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, or to recommit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
  2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, if any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."—[The Prime Minister.]

3.58 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)

I informed the House yesterday of the intention of the Government to put on the Order Paper a Motion for a Time-table in respect of the two Bills, the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill. I said that in our opinion it was of the greatest importance that these two Bills should receive the Royal Assent before the Whitsun Recess, and in order to do that it is necessary that they should pass through all their stages in this House by the 18th of this month. I think that the reasons for the urgency of this matter are self-apparent. It is common knowledge that our proceedings in this matter are being watched with close attention in other quarters, and anything which appears to be in the nature of dilatory proceedings would certainly have a very discouraging effect upon our friends in Europe. But there are other good reasons why we are anxious to get these Bills on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, because after they have become law quite a considerable period of time must necessarily elapse before they can be put into operation.

I am not quite sure whether hon. Members have in mind the various steps which have to be taken before a Militiaman can be called up for training, before the first batch can be called up. But there are five successive steps which take up a considerable period of time. First of all, notice must be given before registration is required. That may not be very long, but it must be a matter of several days. Then those who have been registered will have to attend to be examined by medical boards, and once again there will have to be adequate notice of the time at which that attendance is needed. The process of medical examination of these considerable numbers of men will be a lengthy one, and it will probably be at least a fortnight before the medical boards can pass a sufficient number of men for the first calling up by the War Office. When their work has been concluded upon this first batch, the results will have to be examined by the War Office, and they will have to decide what are the proper units to which to allocate the men. That, which is the fourth step, will again take anything from a week to a fortnight.

Then, finally, there will be the posting of notices to those who are called up, and that, I expect, will require another fortnight. So, even if these Bills get through according to the Time-table which appears in the Motion, it is apparent that the first batch of Militiamen cannot be expected to enter upon their training before the beginning of July, and if the Bills were delayed until after Whitsuntide they would not be able to begin their training before August. I am sure that everyone will agree, whether they agree with the Bill or not, that if we are to pass a Measure of this kind the sooner we can put it into operation the better.

The Motion, which deals with two Bills, looks rather formidable on the Paper, but I do not think it is really as serious as it might appear. It will be seen that for the Military Training Bill we have allotted four days and one Friday for the Committee stage, and one day for the Report and Third Reading. For the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill, which is practically a non-contentious Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—then I will say not so contentious as the other BUI, we have allotted half a day for Committee and a short time for Report and Third Reading. But I would remind hon. Members that there are a certain number of Clauses which are common to both Bills, and I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to debate those same Clauses twice over. Therefore, it will be sufficient probably to discuss them on the Military Training Bill, and any Amendments which are made in accordance with the discussions can be and will be transferred to the corresponding Clauses in the Reserve Forces Bill.

Originally we had proposed three days and a Friday for the Committee stage of the Military Training Bill, but we have now decided to give extra time to-day for that purpose, and accordingly we have postponed the discussion which was to have taken place to-day on the Civil Defence Bill. Under the present proposals, therefore, when we have disposed of this Motion for the Time-table, it will be possible at once to begin the Committee stage of the Military Training Bill. I much regret that owing to the exigencies of this Bill it has been necessary to take private Members' time on Friday. Two at any rate of the Bills which were to have been discussed on Friday are of a non-contentious character, I think, and I hope it may be possible for them to obtain their later stages in spite of the fact that they cannot be taken on Friday. Practically the whole of the time of the House from now to 18th May is to be given to these Bills, although in view of the very congested legislative programme that the House has before it we can ill spare this amount of time.

I shall not discuss any further the allocation of time suggested in the Motion. We quite recognise that there are a number of important points on which the House will desire to express its views, but we hope that in the allocation which we have made, which has taken account of the number and the importance of the Amendments which have already been handed in, we shall give hon. Members a reasonable opportunity of raising and discussing all the matters which they wish to put before the House.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. I am not very clear on one point and I would like to get a Ruling on it. Can we discuss this Motion and discuss the proposal to continue sitting till 12 o'clock to-night against the Standing Orders of the House?

Mr. Speaker

This Motion proposes to suspend several Standing Orders, so of course hon. Members can discuss that point.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston

If we get on to-night with this Measure will to-day's discussion and to-morrow's relate only to Clause I?

The Prime Minister

My hon. and gallant Friend will see from the Motion that that is not so.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood

I rise on behalf of my party to enter a most emphatic protest against this procedure. We have no desire to prolong unnecessarily this part of the Debate, because we are very anxious to get on with the Bill as early as possible, and I see no point, in view of the massed forces opposite, in doing more than make our protest against the procedure. I might as well say now the one relatively kind word I am likely to say, by stating that I appreciate that the Government have given us rather more time than they originally intended. But that in no way satisfies us; we regard the time as totally inadequate, in view of the departure from the long-established British tradition of voluntary service, and in view of the far-reaching implications of the Bill, of which so far the Government do not seem to be aware.

The Bill has been described as a limited Measure of conscription. It has been described as a temporary Bill. We suspect that there are a large number of Members on the Government side of the House who would like to make it a permanent Measure, and who, whether it be peace or war, would shackle conscription on the country. Though the Measure is limited with regard to the age group it is in fact universal compulsory service, because every man who reaches the age of 20 will become a conscript, and, therefore, what we are doing now is not just making a little breach in the system of voluntary service: we are destroying its foundations. A Bill of that kind is one which requires very full consideration from Members of the House. Pledges these days, according to a Continental custom which has now invaded this country, have become like piecrust, made to be broken.

We are told that the Bill is to be temporary. Who knows? We were told by the Secretary of State for War the week before last, when he followed me in the Debate on the question of compulsory service, that there was to be no industrial conscription. Who knows? No one in this House knows what may be the ultimate outcome of this Bill, and it ought not therefore to be thrust through the House at this unseemly speed. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that the urgency was self-apparent. He talked about "discouraging effects on our friends in Europe." The right hon. Gentleman, against our will, got his way on the question of principle. Therefore, now there can be no discouragement to our friends in Europe, and no one is going to pretend that if the worst were to befall this country in Europe, 18th May is the critical day which will result in the calling up within a reasonable period of time of conscripts who will be ready to take the field. That is sheer nonsense, and even if it be that we cannot get the first batch of men until early July, that is not going to settle the question of Britain's safety, obviously. Therefore, the urgency which the Prime Minister pleads is not in our view real urgency. Yet this Bill is to be forced through the House at the point of a sword. The Prime Minister has his levies behind him and can enforce his will, but a Bill of this character is a Bill that ought to receive the detailed consideration of the House.

Here is a Bill which was not mentioned in the King's Speech. It is a habit of the Government in these days never to fulfil the obligations in the King's Speech, but as time goes by to introduce Measures that no one ever thought of, but which appear to arise as a matter of urgency. But it is not merely that this Bill was not mentioned in the King's Speech. Since the re-assembly of the House there have been repeated pledges made, reinforcing earlier pledges, that there would be no conscription in this country, at least in time of peace. Those pledges were made not only by the Prime Minister but by the Minister of Labour and the Lord Privy Seal. Prior to this sudden change in policy the Secretary of State for War declared his pride in the voluntary system and his faith in its success.

On 29th March, the Prime Minister made a further pledge to this House, to which he referred when this decision of the Government was first communicated to us nearly a fortnight ago. His excuse, not for asking the House to relieve him of his pledge but for coming to the House and saying, "I have changed my mind," was that there had been a change in the international situation and that new commitments had been entered into. When he made that statement a fortnight ago there had been no fundamental change in the international situation from that which obtained on 29th March. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman had no business to enter into new commitments if he felt at the time that he was not in a position to fulfil them. I do not agree with the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon international affairs, but had he come to this House and said, "I have come to an agreement with Poland but I cannot fulfil it until I have the assistance of boys of 20 years of age," my attitude would have been entirely different. I would gladly make this arrangement with Poland, but no Government should enter into prospective commitments unless they can see their way to fulfil them. At the time, nobody dreamt, not even the Prime Minister, of forcing compulsory military service on the country.

The decision of the Government was a panic decision forced upon them, as the right hon. Gentleman has implied this afternoon, by the clamour of friendly foreign Powers who do not appear to appreciate the contribution which Britain can make in the event of a general war. It does not appear to be appreciated that the Royal Navy is to-day the greatest fighting machine in the world, that our growing Air Force is the largest among the friendly Powers of the world, and that an expeditionary force on some scale not yet disclosed is contemplated. We have our problems of home defence, and we have the problem of production here on a scale htiherto unknown. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to trot out, as he did the other day, the gibe about fighting to the last Frenchman. Among the big States of Europe we are entitled to say where our greatest contribution can be made and how it can be made.

We disagree with the right hon. Gentleman for changing the fundamental basis of our national policy because of arguments which have been put up to him, and which miss the point, regarding the contribution that we can make. I do not want to develop this point, but I must on this occasion just refer to it. We still believe that it is idle to embody more men when our supplies of equipment and reserves are not up to the desired standard. I still assert that our most important contribution is not man-power but material power. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman will impair that position. I go further. This Measure will not yield any substantial addition to our effective fighting Services. It is being forced upon the House of Commons, or at least forced upon this Opposition, as a Measure—

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making a speech against the Bill itself. I do not want to interrupt him, but I must remember that if I allow him to set an example every other Member who takes part in the Debate will consider he is entitled also to make a speech which would be appropriate, not to this Motion, but to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Greenwood

I was trying to show that the Bill is of such a far-reaching character and involves so many changes in the structure of our society, our industrial system and our habits and customs, that the time provided for discussing it is inadequate. The Government have led the country to believe that they must rely upon the spirit of voluntary service. We are now facing an entirely new situation, the circumstances of which will have to be discussed again and again, not only by people in this House but by people outside. It was on the understanding of a continuation of the former policy that the trade union movement undertook responsibility. No one can question its wholehearted co-operation in Voluntary Service and in the production of supply necessary for defence, but the trade union movement finds itself tricked. It has not been consulted. The Bill is to be forced through the House by 18th May. The trade union movement was not informed until the Government's decision had been taken of what the fundamental change in our national policy was to be.

The trade unions are pledged to adequate National Defence and to all the necessary steps to fulfil our international obligations, but they have been put into an impossible position now. That position ought to be cleared before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. They are against dictatorships and all that these imply with regard to liberty, free association and negotiation; now, by the violation of the Government's pledges they are placed in a position in which no responsible organisation ought to be put. They are faced with a conflict of loyalties which ought to be resolved by the Prime Minister and his colleagues before the Bill is on the Statute Book, a conflict between their solemn obligations regarding defence and their permanent responsibilities towards the economic interests of the people for whom they speak. That conflict has not been resolved at the present time, and it would be a crime against the trade union movement if the Government insist upon forcing the Bill on to the Statute Book before they have made peace with agencies upon whose co-operation they must in the last resort depend.

If I speak strongly on this matter I do it in the national interest. No one can deny the important part which the trade union movement plays in our national life, and I have no reason to believe that it will shirk its responsibilities, but I say that in the area which is still left outside the sphere of compulsory service, voluntary service which is unwillingly and reluctantly given because of dissatisfaction is not nearly so productive as is voluntary service given with a full heart.

Sir William Davison

On a point of Order. Is this discussion of the attitude of the trade unions relevant to the Motion before the House?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that more time ought to have been given to the discussion of this matter with the trade unions.

Mr. Greenwood

If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to me he would have understood my argument that there are interests and organisations outside this House whose views ought to be fully considered before irrevocable steps are taken to put upon the Statute Book a Bill which affects not only organised labour but the public interest. I was suggesting to the Prime Minister that if he wants to keep, as indeed he must, the maximum amount of co-operation for production for the Defence Services he will not do it by this method of forcing a Bill through the House of Commons without proper consultation. Unless the right hon. Gentleman takes a little more time in this matter and desists from this feverish activity of his, one result will be to create deeper hostility and resentment and to give rise to disunity in the country. I hope it will not be so, because nobody desires that to happen on this issue. Clear-sighted statesmanship would have avoided this possibility.

A further argument for longer consideration of the Bill is that it brings new complications into an industrial, economic and commercial system which has hitherto been unaccustomed to conscription, and that it will not be easy to readjust that system to conscription. I doubt whether that aspect of the matter has been fully considered with the people who are responsible for the administration of our economic life. The Bill will create innumerable hardships of a hundred different kinds. This problem needs to be carefully probed. Nothing in the Bill indicates that the Government have visualised the varied types of hardship which may occur. Then, of course, there are—and this brings me back to the industrial and trade union movement—grave and difficult problems connected with reinstatement, not only after but before conscription begins.

I wonder how far the Ministry of Labour have considered the cases of boys of 17, 18 and 19, getting older and coming nearer to the conscription age, who fall out of work. What chance have they of getting a job? And if they do not get a job before they are 20, there is no reinstatement when they come back. Has that matter been thought about? Have we considered the possibility of employers—because the Bill does not make any provision for it—dismissing boys who are just about the age of 20 and will have to go up for service, and for whom they would have to take responsibility on their return? These issues affect a very large number of people. We are going to disturb the lives of all these young men of 20 and 21 or thereabouts, and it is tremendously important that adequate consideration should be given to all the circumstances that may arise both before and afterwards. We are to have a little more than half a day in which to raise the whole of that big issue. Again, the Bill raises the issue of conscientious objectors. This is a new problem to-day. It is not a problem—

Sir Irving Albery

On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the speech which is now being made does in fact relate to the Timetable to be set up, and whether you will be good enough to give the House a little more definite guidance as to what is really in order?

Mr. Speaker

The House will realise that it is always difficult, on an occasion of this kind, to give a definite Ruling on what is in order and what is not in order; but it is quite clear that a speech made entirely against the Bill, and in no way dealing with the Motion for a Time-table, cannot really be in order. It would be in order to object, with regard to various details of the Bill, that insufficient time is being allowed for their discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman must confine himself to that, and not deal with the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Greenwood

I would not transgress your Ruling, but, with all respect, I think I have spent the greater part of my time in trying, not to deal with the merits of the Bill, but to show that issues are being raised for which adequate time is not being provided. That, really, is the whole of my case. It is my case with regard to conscientious objectors. Only half a day is to be allowed for the discussion of that question. I am not myself a conscientious objector, but that does not mean that it is not an issue of some importance, and I doubt very much whether the questions which are bound to arise in the new situation can be adequately dealt with in the space of half a day. This problem, in our view on this side of the House, has a greater importance than it had in the days of the last Great War. We feel it to be our duty to defend the privileges, and, indeed, the rights, of conscientious objectors, as part of our defence of freedom against dictatorship and the treatment of minorities in the totalitarian States. Do the Government know what work of national importance means? It is not in the Bill. I could discuss that one issue alone for half a day. The Government have not thought it out, and we shall have to help them think it out; and yet we are expected to deal with Clause 3 in the short space of half a day. That Clause is most sketchy, leaving out of account all the very difficult issues which are either slurred over or ignored.

It is clear that this Bill is one of a very far-reaching character, and it is equally clear to me that not only is it ill conceived but ill thought-out. A great many practical issues have been ignored. We have put down a large number of Amendments, not one of them frivolous, but every one of them directed to a constructive point, and I say that the time that is being allotted is completely inadequate for the consideration of a Bill of this kind. It will need all the thought of this House, in all quarters, to make the Bill, much as I dislike it, a workable Measure, and I do not believe it can be done in the time at our disposal. It is our duty as an Opposition, while not abating our opposition to the principle of the Bill, to bend our minds to minimising its inconveniences, avoiding injustices, and so on, by amendment in Committee, and, therefore, we feel that, without impeding such military value as the Bill may have when it gets on to the Statute Book, the House will be well advised to give it a little fuller consideration here before it goes to another place, rather than to attempt by the use of force to put it on the Statute Book at the earliest possible date. I have made my protest on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, and, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we shall be only too glad to join issue with the Government at the earliest opportunity on the substance of the Bill.

4.37 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair

The few remarks which I shall offer to the House will be made under a sense of the urgency of the situation with which we are confronted, and of the need, which I have frequently preached, for tremendous exertions if we are to stop the march of aggression abroad and defend the interests of the country. I believe that this House will support, and that the country will applaud, all necessary vigour and speed of action on the part of the Government at the present time. At the same time I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I think Members in all parts of the House must have agreed with him, that this matter does touch the lives and interests of everybody in the country, and touches them in a peculiarly intimate way. We are most of us, I suppose, the recipients of large numbers of letters when the Finance Bill comes before Parliament, or when large Measures of social reform are under discussion; but never have I received so many representations—representations on practical points—as I have received since this Bill was introduced. Therefore, I feel sure that the Government and their supporters will agree with us that we ought to have adequate time for the discussion of the Measure.

In saying that, I want to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I certainly do not wish to adopt an attitude of obstruction. We have certain Amendments down, and we want to have the opportunity of discussing them. They all touch questions of vital interest to the people, and it would I think be a great disservice to this House and to our Parliamentary institutions if adequate time for the discussion of these Amendments were not given. I do not believe that there is any wish in any part of the House to obstruct the Bill. One of the most striking things that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said was that nobody desires disunity on this particular question; and, that being the opinion officially expressed by hon. Members above the Gangway—an opinion with which my hon. Friends and I desire to associate ourselves—I cannot believe that there is the necessity for clamping this rigid machinery upon the discussion of the Bill. Take, for example, the business on Monday, when from half-past seven in the evening until 12 we shall be discussing all the Clauses from Clause 7 to Clause 17, including one to which my hon. Friends and I attach particular importance, namely, the Clause which limits the duration of the Bill. That seems to be a glaring illustration of the inadequacy of the discussion which we may have on important points of the Bill.

I remember that the last occasion on which a Motion of this kind was introduced was in relation to the Unemployment Bill of 1934, and on that occasion it was necessary to recommit the Bill because it had been found impossible to give adequate discussion to certain Clauses. I wish that at any rate the alternative of a Kangaroo Closure had been considered. The House will remember that our Committee on Procedure recommended that the Kangaroo was preferable to the Guillotine, and they also suggested that, in cases where a Guillotine was set up, there should be a Committee of the House to allocate the time. I cannot help wishing that that procedure had been followed in his case, if, indeed, a Guillotine was to be set up. The worst of the Guillotine method is that too often the time is spent on the Amendment which happens to be first called, and which may raise an issue of comparatively minor importance, and that then there is no time left for the discussion of some much more important Amendment, which may not receive any discussion at all. It seems to me that we are running a very serious risk of that happening on this occasion.

The Prime Minister has rightly said, and I agree with him, that we must move swiftly in the discussion of this Measure, on account of the seriousness of the emergency with which the country is faced. But Mr. Asquith, when he was Leader of the House and introduced a Measure of conscription during the War, while the War was actually going on, did not think it necessary to impose a Guillotine for the discussion of that Measure in the Committee stage. If it was not necessary to do that when a war was actually raging, surely the case for a Guillotine now can hardly be held to be proved. I could have hoped that the Government would at any rate have started the discussion without the Guillotine. We might have tried it; we might have seen if in fact there was any effort at obstruction, and if we could not get through with a sufficient measure of speed. I should have thought that, having regard to the seriousness of the discussions we shall have to have, and the urgency of getting the Bill through, we might have sat on Saturday, and that we might if necessary have had some late sittings; but I cannot believe it is necessary so rigidly to confine the discussion of the Measure as will be the case if this Guillotine Motion is passed, and, therefore, I shall feel bound to vote against it.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Maxton

I feel bound to express my opposition to this Time-table method of proceeding with a Measure of this importance. The whole procedure, from the first announcement of conscription, seems to me to have been almost hysterical. From the time when we were being told that no measure of compulsory service was in contemplation, there seemed only a moment or two until we were told that a Measure of military compulsion was going to be introduced. Then we had the Resolution before the House a couple of days later, and the Government got a very strong mandate, admittedly, from this House—something like two to one. If the importance of this thing lay in impressing people in other lands, friend and foe, the carrying of the Resolution by the House achieved that object. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out, any military value that is expected to accrue from this lies a long distance ahead—at least, it is not a matter of days and hours. Then we had scarcely passed the Resolution before we had tumbled into the Second Reading; and again, the Government got a very great mandate from the House for the Second Reading—which, mark you, could quite easily have commanded more than the two days allotted to it here. Even in the closing stages of the Debate, Mr. Speaker was having to choose between about 20 Members who presented themselves. Here, again, we are rushing through Committee on a Time-table.

As the right hon. Member for Wakefield said, if this had been a Measure affecting in some little pettifogging way the business interests of the country, the Government would have said, "We must leave time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage for the diverse interests concerned to see how they will be affected." Does this leave time for the interests affected even to make up their minds about it? The Cotton industry Bill or any of the agricultural Measures do not affect more than 200,000 human beings, and these 200,000 fellows who are affected by this Bill, although, they are young men, are just as important as any cotton manufacturer or farmer. These fellows are having, perhaps, their whole lives denned by this Measure. Apart from war at all, this will make a difference in such a man's whole outlook of life. His attitude to his fellows, his relations with his home, and his possible profession are all going to be affected by this Measure, which will impose on him six months' military training, taking him away from the environment in which he has been brought up, taking him away from his workmates, taking him away from his early political associations, from trade union influences, from social influences, and jamming him into a military environment under the old sergeant-majors and drill sergeants, who have been dragged out from all sorts of places. We have no real say as to whether these fellows are competent, not merely to look after the forming fours and shouldering arms, but to look after the general intellectual and moral welfare of the young men they are controlling and training. When I was in the teaching profession I did a lot of educational work among young fellows of 18 to 21, and I do not believe that there is in the whole range of educational work more important and difficult work than that of building the development of men's minds at the stage when they are becoming men and are conscious that they are men. We are handing these 200,000 fellows over to men who, without being unkind, are not educationists.

Mr. Speaker

I must remind the hon. Member of the Ruling I gave to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I allowed him far too much scope in discussing the merits of the Bill. Since then I have refreshed my memory, and I find that it is explicitly laid down that on a Motion prescribing procedure for concluding the consideration of stages of a Bill, the Bill itself cannot be discussed. I want to make it very clear that hon. Members ought to confine themselves to the Timetable, and not discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton

I was trying to deal with the attitude of the Government on the matter of time. I came to the point that, normally, his House gives time for the interests concerned to adjust themselves to the question; and I was pointing out that the interests here, 200,000 young fellows, want more time, in my view, to weigh this thing up than sophisticated old cotton operatives in Lancashire. The Cotton Industry Bill comes to my mind because, if I am not wrong, the President of the Board of Trade allowed 12 months to pass between the announcement of his Measure and the actual introduction, as the interests involved were so important and it was considered proper that all the conflicting interests should be conciliated. In this case, 200,000 men: important men in our national life, important men for the future, are not to be consulted at all. These 200,000 fellows whose destinies we are going to decide are much more important for the future of this country and of civilisation than we are, because we made the mess—or, at least, we are responsible for the mess—and these are the fellows who will have to clean it up. It is very important that they should have more training in the handling of affairs than we have had.

This imposition of a Time-table on us is, in essence, the same spirit of conscripting the House of Commons; the same attitude; the same sort of thing that comes to the Reichstag. This liberty is taken away, then the next liberty is taken away, and soon there is so little liberty left that it is said, "What is the use of this institution at all? It has no powers." They will just call the Members here on the Prime Minister's summons. Then we shall hold up our hands and say, "Hail, Chamberlain!" and draw our salaries and go away until the next summons. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) points out that the power behind the throne is more important than the throne itself. He points out that the shout should be "Hail, Margesson!" and not "Hail, Chamberlain!" The Government are taking away from us the right of examining this Measure in detail and of, without going to the length of obstruction, taking all the time that is necessary for the minute and meticulous examination which has always been one of the great powers of the House.

The delaying power is a power which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, since they have been the official Opposition, have never used in any vexatious way. It used to be the regular method of right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on the Government Front Bench, in the days of Conservative and Liberal Oppositions, to indulge in obstruction—and silly obstruction. In some of the Debates when Conservative Oppositions were fighting Liberal Governments, the way in which those Oppositions wasted time called for—I was going to say admiration; for amazement and wonder that grown up men could waste so much time about trivial points, and frequently about no point at all. But there was a sound principle. The methods by which they wasted the time may have been trivial, but, in view of the fact that they were preventing a Government from doing something which was profoundly objectionable to them, it was good Parliamentary fighting. Now, when democratic government is somewhat démodé—is that the term?—not gone, but just a little old-fashioned we say, "No, there is something in this dictatorship method. We are not going to have all this talking, but the hard, firm hand." This is one of the ways in which we are put under discipline. I have raised my protest in the strongest possible fashion. I would have the profoundest objection to having my life put under a sergeant-major, as these fellows are, and I am not going to have my life as a Member of Parliament put on the sergeant-major basis by either the Patronage Secretary or the Minister for War.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot

May I raise a point of Order arising out of the entry on page 2510 of the Order Paper? I think it is germane to the Motion. The first Order appears in these words: Military Training Bill [1st Allotted Day]… In my submission, this is not a 1st Allotted Day. It cannot be an allotted day, unless and until this Time-table Motion is passed. Is it in order, or, at any rate, in keeping with the traditions of this House that the Government should anticipate what the decision of the House may be on the Time-table Motion by placing these words on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker

In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) on the point he has raised, the words proposed were put down contingent on the passing of this Motion. He will see, if he looks at the Motion, that the first Order of the Day is contingent on this Motion being accepted by the House. He will also see that the "1st Allotted Day" is in italics, and, obviously, if this Motion is accepted by the House, this will be the first allotted day, and if it is not accepted it will not be the allotted day.

Mr. Foot

I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but is it not the fact that, in putting a matter on the Order Paper, the Government have no greater rights than private Members, and is it in order for private Members to put a matter on the Order Paper in italics?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot give a general ruling on that. It would depend on the particular question brought before me at the time, and in this particular case it is in order.

Mr. Mander

With regard to the words being in italics, may I draw attention to the fact that there are a number of other words lower down on the Paper, such as "(in the Standing Committee)," in italics which do not refer to anything at all hypothetical or contingent. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, putting the 1st allotted day in italics really does not meet the point.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will see that other words are put in italics in the Orders of the Day. In regard to the "Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Bill—Second Reading," the words "to be reported on by the Select Committee on Standing Orders "are in italics, and the matter is contingent on the Second Reading, and in this case the matter is made contingent.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

As one who would like the opportunity of obstructing the passage of this Bill, I want to make a few remarks about the Time-table which has been presented. I consider that the Bill has been introduced and the Time-table presented before us as a consequence of a series of swindles on the part of the Prime Minister, and the first swindle—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is accusing the Prime Minister of a series of swindles, and he must withdraw that statement at once.

Mr. Gallacher

I will withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker, and will deal with the actual facts. The Prime Minister came before this House and informed us that he was going to introduce legislation dealing with compulsory military service. He had to introduce it in a hurry because Herr Hitler was going to make a speech on the following Friday. That was the only reason for the hurrying forward with this legislation, and he told us that if they did not hurry it forward and present it before Herr Hitler spoke, then, if it were brought in after Herr Hitler had spoken, there would be all sorts of suggestions that it was an action arising out of something or other that Herr Hitler had said. Therefore, the Prime Minister persuaded this House that the only reason for rushing this legislation was the date of Herr Hitler's speech.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must abide by the last Ruling which I gave. He cannot discuss on a Motion dealing with a Time-table the merits or demerits of the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher

There is now no reason whatever for rushing this Bill, if we are to take the statement which the Prime Minister then made as being the genuine reason for presenting the Bill. There is no reason for any hurry, and if there is no reason for any hurry why have the guillotine? I need not attempt to go into the arguments which have already been presented about the impossibility of discussing the serious questions which confront the young men, and their mothers and fathers in this country, owing to the short time that is being given to this matter. This is not simply a question of young men being affected. There is scarcely a family in the country which will not be affected, and we have a situation in which we shall not be allowed time to discuss the question. The young men who are affected have not the vote, and the representatives of those who have the vote are put in a position where they will not be allowed to discuss the character of the Bill or in any way try to amend the Bill, or prevent it passing into law.

This is simply applying the guillotine by bringing the Government majority to bear upon the question. The vital question, according to the Prime Minister, was to get the principle established before Herr Hitler made his speech, and then to decide upon the character of the Bill to be introduced. I am of opinion that there was something that was not genuine about that reason. The fact that there was something that was not genuine is seen by the character of this Time-table. I oppose the Time-table because I am concerned about the effect of the Bill on the mass of the people of the country and about the necessity of having the fullest possible opportunity of discussing it. No Clause in the Bill can be adequately discussed on the basis of this Time-table. The story that was told us as the reason for the introduction of the Bill, and the fact that this Time-table has been introduced should arouse in this country the resistance which was aroused in Ireland in such a way that not only the Time-table, but the Bill will have to be withdrawn from this House of Commons.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I want to make one small point arising out of the question which I addressed to the Prime Minister at the close of Questions yesterday. The Time-table apparently still leaves no opportunity to the House to discuss the questions of pay and of allowances before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I want, before we vote upon this Motion, to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement with regard to the matter, and whether he has found any method whereby we may consider those questions before instead of after the Bill passes, if it ever passes the House of Commons.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Foot

There are two points I want to put to whatever Minister may be going to reply. We are taking a Time-table Motion, and as soon as that Motion is passed we are to go on to the first allotted day under the Motion. Am I right in thinking that there is no precedent for the procedure of taking the first allotted day under a Time-table Motion on the same day as the Motion itself? We appreciate that these are very abnormal circumstances and that the Government may have to do things they would not do at other times owing to the pressure of events. If there is no precedent, is this to be taken as a precedent? It obviously puts the House in a real difficulty. If we discuss the Time-table Motion at great length, and hon. Members want to express themselves fully upon it, they will be cutting into the amount of time available for discussing the Bill. Is there any precedent, and if not will the Government undertake not to regard this as a precedent in more normal circumstances?

The second point that I make—and I make it on behalf of my hon. Friends as well as myself—is that the particular objection that we have to this Time-table is that Clauses 7 to 17, the last ten Clauses of the Bill, have all to be taken in the last half-day of the Committee stage. My hon. Friends and I attach particular importance to Clause 16, which contains a provision that the Act shall continue for three years, and there is provision for procedure to continue it by means of an Order in Council. If this Measure is to be accepted we are very anxious that it should be accepted as a temporary Measure, and we attach the greatest importance to the Amendment which we have placed on the Order Paper cutting out the machinery for extension by Order in Council, so that, if the Government of the day three years hence wish to extend the Measure they will have to offer fresh legislation, and the whole matter can then be further considered by Parliament. It may be that under the Time-table Clause 16 will not be discussed at all. That is almost inevitable if there are many Amendments on the three or four Clauses that come before it.

On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I make the request to the Patronage Secretary that if at the end of the last day on the Committee stage it has not been possible to deal with Clause 16, and with the points that we are very anxious to raise on that Clause, he will consider the advisability of putting down a Motion to recommit that Clause, after midnight, if necessary, on the last night, so that the Committee may have an opportunity of discussing the duration of the Bill. I think that there are Members in other parts of the House who would like to discuss the matter as well, and it would

go some way towards meeting Members of the Opposition if the Government could see their way to adopt that particular course.

5.14 p.m.

The Prime Minister

With the leave of the House I would like to reply to the questions addressed to me by the right hon. Member. I would inform him that there is a precedent for the procedure which is being adopted, to-day under which the first allotted day begins immediately after the passing of the Motion. If he would like the reference, it is the Military Service Bill of 1918. After the Motion setting up the Time-table was passed the House proceeded at once to consider the Committee stage of the Bill on the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn

That was during the War.

The Prime Minister

I was asked whether there is a precedent. With regard to the second point, I understand that various hon. Members in the House may think that they are not getting enough time to discuss Amendments in which they are most interested, but if you have a Time-table you have to do the best you can with the time at disposal. The point which the right hon. Member made about the particular clause in question—Clause 16—is one to which the Government will give attention. I cannot commit myself to any definite promise, but if the Clause has not received sufficient attention, I shall be prepared to consider what can be done.

Mr. Silverman

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything in regard to the question that I raised?

The Prime Minister

We will consider it.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 283, Noes, 133.

Division No. 103.] AYES. [5.16 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Balniel, Lord Brass, Sir W.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Barrie, Sir C. C. Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Albery, Sir Irving Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Beechman, N. A. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Allen, U.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Bennett, Sir E. N. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Bernays, R. H. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Apsley, Lord Bird, Sir R. B. Bull, B. B.
Aske, Sir R. W. Blair, Sir R. Bullock, Capt. M.
Assheton, R. Boothby, R. J. G. Burton, Col. H. W.
Astor, Viscountees (Plymouth, Sutton) Boulton, W. W. Butcher, H. W.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose) Cartland, J. R. H.
Carver, Major W. H. Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Cary, R. A. Holmes, J. S. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Horsbrugh, Florence Ropner, Colonel L.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Howitt, Dr. A. B. Rosbotham, Sir T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hume, Sir G. H. Rowlands, G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hunter, T. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hutchinson, G. C. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Russell, Sir Alexander
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Jarvis, Sir J. J. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Jonas, L. (Swansea W.) Salmon, Sir I.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Keeling, E. H. Salt, E. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Kerr, Colonel G. I. (Montrose Samuel, M. R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S) Kerr, H. W (Oldham) Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Kimball, L. Sanders, W. S.
Cox, H. B. Trevor Lamb, Sir J. Q. Schuster, Sir G. E.
Cranborne, Viscount Lancaster, Captain C. G. Scott, Lord William
Craven-Ellis, W. Latham, Sir P. Shakespeare, G. H.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Leech, Sir J. W. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Crossley, A. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Crowder, J. F. E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Cruddas, Col. B. Levy, T. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Culverwell, C. T. Lewis, O. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Davison, Sir W. H. Liddall, W. S. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lindsay, K. M. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Denville, Alfred Lipson, D. L. Smithers, Sir W
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Lloyd, G. W. Snadden, W. McN.
Doland, G. F. Loftus, P. C. Somerset, T.
Donner, P. W. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) M'Connell, Sir J. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Duncan, J. A. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Spens, W. P.
Dunglass, Lord McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Eastwood, J. F. McKie, J. H. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Eckersley, P. T. Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J. Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Macquisten, F. A. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Magnay, T. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Maitland, Sir Adam Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ellis, Sir G. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Emery, J. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sutcliffe, H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Markham, S. F. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Marsden, Commander A. Tale, Mavis C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Findlay, Sir E. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Fleming, E. L. Medlicott, F. Thomas, J. P. L.
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Furness, S. N. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Fyfe, D. P. M. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Titchfield, Marquess of
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Touche, G. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Gledhill, G. Moreing, A. C. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Gluckstein, L. H. Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.
Goldie, N. B. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Turton, R. H.
Gower, Sir R. V. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. Nall, Sir J. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Warrender, Sir V.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Wells, Sir Sydney
Grimston, R. V. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard Orr-Ewing, I. L. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Palmer, G. E. H. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Patrick, C. M. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Guinness, T. L. E. B. Peake, O. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Perkins, W. R. D. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hambro, A. V. Petherick, M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hannah, I. C. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Wise, A. R.
Harmon, Sir P. J. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Harbord, A. Porritt, R. W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Wragg, H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Raikes, H. V. A. M. Wright, Wing-Commander a. A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. York, C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rayner, Major R. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hepworth, J. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Captain Dugdale and Lieut.-Colonel Herbert.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Higgs, W. F. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Groves, T. E. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adams, D. (Consett) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Poole, C. C.
Adams, O. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pritt, D. N.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Quibell, D. J. K.
Adamson, W. M. Hardie, Agnes Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Harris, Sir P. A. Ridley, G.
Ammon, C. G. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Riley, B.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ritson, J,
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Barr, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Rothschild, J. A. de
Bartlett, C. V. 0. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Batey, J. Hollins, A. Sanders, W. S.
Bellenger, F. J. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Seely, Sir H. M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sexton, T. M.
Benson, G. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Shinwell, E.
Bromfield, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Silverman, S. S.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Simpson, F. B.
Buchanan, G. Kirby, B. V. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Cape, T. Kirkwood, D. Sloan, A.
Chater, D. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S. Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Collindridge, F. Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cove, W. G. Logan, D. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lunn, W. Stephen, C.
Daggar, G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Dalton, H. McEntee, V. La. T. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) McGhee, H. G. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGovern, J. Thorne, W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Thurtle, E.
Dobbie, W. Mander, G. le M. Tinker, J. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. Tomlinson, G.
Ede, J. C. Mathers, G. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Maxton, J. Walker, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. Watkins, F. C.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Milner, Major J. Watson, W. Met.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Montague, F. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Foot, D. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Welsh, J. C.
Gallacher, W. Naylor, T. E. Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W. Noel-Baker, P. J. White, H. Graham
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Owen, Major G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Parker, J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Parkinson, J. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Ordered, That the proceedings on the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading of the Military Training Bill and Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill and the Report stage of the Financial Resolution relating to the last mentioned Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:—