§ 5.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of Order. Before the Home Secretary moves the Government Amendment which stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, may I ask whether you would consider our discussing at the same time as that Amendment the two Amendments which stand in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends? Our Amendments bear on the same point as the Government Amendment.
§ The Chairman
With regard to the first Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member—in page I, line 9, to leave out, "the United Kingdom," and to insert "Great Britain"—I do not think we could deal with that.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I do not propose to move that Amendment, but the second Amendment—in page I, line 14, leave out "the United Kingdom," and insert "Great Britain."
§ The Chairman
In regard to the second Amendment, it is perfectly true that it deals with a cognate matter, but it is not one which I should have been prepared to allow to be discussed with this Amendment in ordinary circumstances, but as we are working under a Time-table, if it will save time and be a convenience to the Committee, I am prepared to assent to the Amendment being discussed at the same time as the Government Amendment, provided that that course receives the general approval of the Committee in all parts of the House. That will mean that when we come to the hon. Member's Amendment in line 14, it will simply be called and put, if necessary, without any discussion. If that course has the assent of the Committee, we can proceed on those lines.
§ Mr. Maxton
Do I understand that in the first batch of Amendments you are 534 calling only the Government Amendments?
§ Mr. Maxton
In that case you are passing over the first three Amendments in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, all of which contain important points of principle.
§ Mr. Stephen
I do not know whether I ought to raise the point now or afterwards, but there is an Amendment to insert the words "two years after the passing of this Act."
§ Mr. Maxton
May I put this representation to you? I do not challenge the fact that the power is in your hands, but already we have been put under the Guillotine with a substantial loss of our liberty. Do you not think that in those circumstances a little more generosity from the Chair is called upon in the matter of selecting Amendments? It is unfortunate that out of about 20 Amendments the only one that is called is a Government Amendment.
§ The Chairman
Strictly speaking I think the attitude I should adopt is to say that I have power to select Amendments and that my discretion should not be questioned, but I do not want to press that too far. I can tell hon. Members that I have tried my very best in making my selection to do so in such a way that the most important points shall be raised in one or other of the Amendments, and also I have had regard to the interest of different groups and parties concerned. I may say that I have paid special attention to the interests of the hon. Member's group and that I am proposing to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) at the end of line 21 to insert a proviso.
§ 5.34 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from "subject," to "shall," in line 12, and to insert" ordinarily resident in Great Britain."
535 If this Amendment is carried the Clause will read in this way:Subject to the provisions of this Act every male British subject ordinarily resident in Great Britain shall, while he is between the ages of 20 years and 21 years, be registered for military training in the United Kingdom.The Amendment carries out the decision which was announced by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill. In a sentence it excludes Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill, while leaving Northern Ireland as a training ground for the young men who may be called up in England. There are a number of units of the British Army in Northern Ireland, and it is proposed that they should be used for the training of a certain number of young men who may be called up.
I move this Amendment with mixed feelings. During all the years I have been in the House I have been in very close contact with hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, and as Home Secretary I am the Minister responsible, in the main, for their interests in this House. I tell my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland that I have given the most deep and careful consideration to the difficult issues that are raised by this question. On the one hand, there is the fervent desire of the majority in Northern Ireland to be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom, there is a fervent desire to undertake the same responsibilities as are undertaken by any other part of the United Kingdom, and they object most strongly to any differentiation between them and the citizens of Great Britain. On the other hand, there is an exceptionally deep division of opinion, regrettable as it is, which does exist in Northern Ireland on a question of this kind. It is the duty of the Government to weigh up the considerations on both sides and take the decision which they think wisest in the international crisis through which we are passing.
As hon. Members are aware, Lord Craigavon, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, came over last week to discuss this difficult question with members of the Government of the United Kingdom. Lord Craigavon made his own position and the position of his Government perfectly clear. He made it clear that they wished to be included in the 536 Bill just like any other part of the United Kingdom, and that their preference was strongly against any differentiation between them and Scotland and Wales. From the point of view of the United Kingdom, however, he made it clear that as it was a question of defence, it was a United Kingdom responsibility and that the decision must be made by the Government of the United Kingdom; the responsibility was upon our shoulders. He further stated in the Northern Ireland House of Commons thatthe loyalty of Northern Ireland was not conditional in any way, and that the people of Northern Ireland could best contribute in these difficult times to assist the Mother Country by an unquestioning acceptance of whatever decision the Imperial Government might find it necessary to take.I claim that that is the statement of a very wise statesman who has during all these difficult years held his high place of responsibility longer than any other public man in Europe. It is the statement of a man of very wide and balanced judgment, and, speaking for the Government of the United Kingdom, I can say that we were most grateful to Lord Craigavon for his wise and statesmanlike attitude. We felt we were then free to take a decision which was our responsibility, and that weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of any given course of action, we could adopt what we thought was best in the interest of the Empire in these difficult times.
There were three alternatives. The first was to include Northern Ireland in the Bill; the second was to include Northern Ireland in the Bill, with certain compromises as to the manner in which the Bill should be applied in Northern Ireland; and the third alternative was to exclude Northern Ireland altogether. We have taken the view that in the present state of the world, and looking at the exceptional division which divides the population of Northern Ireland on a question of this kind, the wisest course is to exclude Northern Ireland. We came down against compromise for the reason that we thought any compromise would not remove the feeling of grievance on either side, and would, in fact, mean the worst of both worlds. On that account we now propose by the Amendment to exclude Northern Ireland altogether, and we propose later on, in Clause 15, which provides that Orders in Council may be 537 applied to Northern Ireland, to move the deletion of that provision from the Bill.
I know that a decision of this kind will cause great searchings of heart amongst my hon. Friends in Northern Ireland, but I must say that we took the wisest decision we thought possible in the very difficult circumstances with which we were faced, and we took that decision without any reference to so-called ultimatums or threats from any other part of Ireland. We took the decision with no intention of altering the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and we took the decision without wishing it to be thought in any quarter of the Empire that we have changed in the least from the position we have stated over and over again, that Northern Ireland can never be coerced to separate from the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority of its people. I make this last observation lest it should be thought that we have arrived at this decision as a result of any pressure from outside. We considered the question upon its merits, and without any reservations I strongly press this course of action upon the Committee.
§ Mr. Sandys
In order to dissipate all uncertainty about the Government's reason for this attitude will the right hon. Gentleman explain briefly why it is that the Government have changed the terms of the Bill from those which were originally printed and presented to the House?
§ Sir S. Hoare
The Bill was drafted with great speed, it was urgent, and the question was left open under the original draft. Ulster was included under Clause I, but under the provisions of a subsequent Clause there was to be a delay in its application. In the rush of time we had no other course open to us. That was the reason why we changed the terms. The hon. Member will appreciate the wider reasons in the Empire and in the world why we have arrived at this decision.
§ 5.45 P.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has dealt with this dilemma with rare delicacy. He has emphasised the loyalty of Ulster and sought to justify the exclusion of Ulster from the scope of the Bill. It seems to me that he anticipated something in the 538 nature of a revolt from the Ulster Members of the House. If so, he might well have saved his breath to cool his porridge. There will be no revolt. There may be a few indignant utterances, but there will be no more than that. I would say to the Ulster Members that if they are disposed to engage in anything like a revolt, they had better undertake a course of training in the Labour and trade union movement. There is likely to be more of a revolt on the details of the Bill from this side of the Committee than there will be from the other side.
I do not propose to intervene in the dispute between the Home Secretary and the Ulster Members. Nor do I question the loyalty of Ulster. I accept the view that has been expressed by the Prime Minister and by other right hon. Gentlemen opposite that Ulster is prepared to make its contribution to National Defence. But when the right hon. Gentleman seeks to justify the exclusion of Ulster on the ground of there being a deep division of opinion in Ulster on this matter, I venture to remind him that there is also a deep division of opinion in Great Britain. So far, I have not heard from the lips of any right hon. Gentleman opposite any attempt to justify the exclusion of Scotland or Wales or England or Durham or Yorkshire, as the case may be.
Hon. Members on this side are more concerned about vital Amendments that will arise at a later stage, which seek to safeguard the interests of the men and their dependants, and therefore, I do not propose to say anything further on the main issue at this stage; but I think it is proper to say to the Home Secretary that if the Government are disposed to make concessions to Northern Ireland for this, that or the other reason, they ought to be, at a later stage, when the Committee is considering vital Amendments, equally disposed to make concessions to the trade union movement. I hope they will be as liberal and generous in their favours when we come to those Amendments as they are in regard to this matter. Hon. Members on this side are primarily concerned with an Amendment in my name, and the names of my hon. Friends, in page 1, line 14. The Amendment which appears on the Paper in my name to page 1, line 9, will not be moved. The Amendment to page 1, line 14, proposes to leave out the words "the United Kingdom" and to insert "Great Britain," which is 539 precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has moved in another connection.
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said that, although Ulster is to be excluded from the scope of the Bill as regards conscription, Ulster might be an appropriate place to select as a training ground for men who are to be conscripted in Great Britain. That seems to me to be a monstrous proposition. Neither Southern nor Northern Ireland will furnish any conscripts, but conscripts compelled to serve on this side of the Irish Sea may be sent to train with Regular forces in Northern Ireland. Surely, that is a most invidious proposal. If there are to be no conscripts in Ireland, let there be no conscripts there. The Government, in determining their opinion on the Ulster issue, ought also to have decided that no conscripts would be sent to Northern Ireland. At a later stage, I shall formally move the Amendment in my name, but I put that view before the Committee as representing the opinion of hon. Members on this side. If Ulster is to be excluded from the scope of the Bill, equally no conscripts from Great Britain should be sent to Northern Ireland for military training. I do not know what is the Home Secretary's view on this matter, but it appears to me that all the training that might be regarded as essential could be undertaken in Great Britain itself, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment when it is moved.
§ 5.53 p.m.
§ Mr. Stephen
The Home Secretary has given the Committee the views of the Government with regard to the alteration which this Amendment makes in the Bill. I shall be very interested to see how hon. Members representing Northern Ireland act in connection with this Amendment. In the Second Reading Debate, their spokesmen told us that they intended to divide against such a proposal, and I shall be interested to see whether they carry out the promise that was then given. I do not think the Home Secretary's explanation was sufficient. He told us of various considerations that have led the Government to take the decision to exclude Northern Ireland, but what he did not say was whether the Poles have agreed to the decision. As I understand the matter, conscription is being forced upon the people of this country in deference to the 540 views of the Poles. The Poles insisted that the young men of Britain should be conscripted. Have the Poles been consulted as to the exclusion of Northern Ireland? [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it has been made plain that the Poles are responsible for it. They are responsible not only for the breaking of the pledge with regard to conscription, but for our ordinary Parliamentary arrangements, as they have fixed the Guillotine on us because they say there is no need for a full discussion. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether the foreign interests which have been responsible for the breaking of the pledge and the introduction of conscription have been consulted with regard to the exclusion of Northern Ireland.
I want also to say that, so far, I have seen no very desperate fight on the part of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland, who talk so much about loyalty and all the rest of it, to put Northern Ireland under the Bill. I know that two of them made a certain amount of protestation. I would describe it as very mild protestation. I am sure that if they had been anxious that Northern Ireland should come under the Bill, it would have come under the Bill all right. They had only to appeal to the Poles and the French to insist that Northern Ireland should be kept within the scope of the Bill and the Government would have had to give way. But I am confident that, although they make mild protestations, they are really thankful that Mr. de Valera has kept the whole of Ireland outside the scope of the Bill. The exclusion of Northern Ireland in this respect is justified in the sense that it provides another substantial argument for bringing to an end the present partition of Ireland. I hope that, Mr. de Valera having done this great service to Northern Ireland, hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in the House, Lord Craigavon and the rest of them, will now agree to make an end of partition and leave a united Ireland.
§ 5.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Mander
The Home Secretary, in replying at short notice to the question as to why a sudden change had been made, did so with remarkable agility; but let us be frank about the real reasons for this change. We know that certain representations were made, quite properly, by one of the British Dominions—Eire—to the British Government, and that very 541 strong pressure indeed was exercised in order that the Bill should not apply to Ireland. The Government accepted the advice tendered to them, and I think they were quite right to do so. It was the only course open to them if they were to avoid a very great controversy. But when they did that, it seems to me that they knocked the bottom out of the whole Bill, for if it is possible to rely upon the patriotism of Ulster to supply all the men that could be obtained by conscription, it is a very grave reflection indeed on the rest of the United Kingdom. I am absolutely convinced that if the same opportunity were given to the people of this country as it is proposed to give to Ulster under this Clause, the same result, if not greater results, would be obtained. My only regret is not that Ireland is excluded, but that England is not excluded as well. There is no moral or political case left for the Bill after this concession has been made.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Member must not deal with the general principle of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Mander
I think it would be in order for me to refer to the reasons for the exclusion of Ulster. One of the reasons is that representations were made. Whatever one may think about this, one thing stands out clearly: it is that there has been a definite score by Eire in the direction of making a claim for an undivided Ireland.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) who preceded the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in this Debate, made a reference to this matter at the end of his speech. Had he pursued the subject, I should have been compelled to tell him that we could not on this occasion discuss the question of the partition or otherwise of Ireland. That is not part of this Bill and I must ask the hon. Member not to go into questions of that sort, which are not strictly applicable to the particular matter before the Committee.
§ Mr. Mander
I respond at once, Sir Dennis, to your Ruling, and I conclude by saying again that, in the circumstances of the case, the Government I believe are right in taking the action which they have taken and that we support them so far as that action is concerned.
§ 6.2 p.m.
§ Mr. Somerset
I rise to accept the challenge which has been thrown across the Floor of the House as to whether my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland and I are prepared to support in the Division Lobby the declarations which have been made on our behalf in regard to this matter. We shall certainly vote against the proposal to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Measure. That was made plain by the chairman of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) in his speech last week. He protested then, as I protest now, and as we have all protested all along, against the proposal to omit Northern Ireland from the Bill. Long before conscription was talked of in this House of Commons, the representatives of Northern Ireland repeatedly stated that, when the time came, the people of Northern Ireland would be very willing to undertake service in the Army, and other forms of service and to do all they could for the country in any emergency which might arise. I would like to remind the Committee of this fact—that during the last War, under the voluntary system the recruiting in Ireland as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular established a very high record. Under a system of voluntary recruitment we raised some wonderfully good regiments and sent some very fine fighting men into the Services. Men of that kind are still available and willing to serve but what we strongly object to—I think with every justification—is that we should be requested in the present circumstances to go on with the voluntary system to send or young men into the Army and to leave their jobs to be taken by other people who will come into Northern Ireland, as they have come in often and often before, under similar conditions, to take up the work of those who are serving in the Forces.
The circumstances of the exclusion of Ulster from this Measure are such as to make us think that we have been humiliated. I think there can be no question about that fact. It is humiliating that Ulster, one of the most loyal provinces in the Empire and the most loyal part of Ireland, should be told, "No, you cannot come into this," simply because one section and a very small section at that, wants to be excluded. There is no doubt about the fact that the Govern- 543 ment intended that Northern Ireland should be in his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted as much. What we want to know now, is what really happened to cause the Government to change their minds. It is all very well to talk vaguely about certain things that might happen but the Government have not yet stated precisely why they made this change. I spoke in this House last year on the agreement between this country and Eire. It was then said on behalf of the Government that everything was about to be settled between the two countries. Everything—land annuities and all the rest—was to be conceded, in the hope of getting a satisfactory settlement, but before the ink was dry on that agreement Mr. de Valera went back to Dublin and said that all that he wanted now was Ulster. He wants the whole country.
That is the position with which we in Northern Ireland are faced. We are always faced with that position. That is what is hanging over our heads all the time and we are scared stiff lest weakness on the part of the Government in this country should encourage the people in Southern Ireland to think that Northern Ireland is about to be given over to them. The settlement that was made then meant that the Government in Southern Ireland got practically everything else they wanted. It was not a settlement; it was a surrender, and I fear that the leaving out of Northern Ireland from this Measure is a further surrender to certain forces that are at work in Ireland and over here as well. I would remind hon. Members of the fact that, following on that agreement, Mr. Sean T. O'Kelly declared that "John Bull had been whipped again." I, for my part, protest in the strongest manner against Northern Ireland being left out of the Bill and I intend to vote against its exclusion.
§ 6.7 p.m.
§ Mr. Anstruther-Gray
I shall not pursue the Irish question. I rise to ask the Government one question, namely, what is the definition of the words "ordinarily resident." This is a matter which affects many of my constituents. Young men in North Lanark to whom I have spoken have expressed a general willingness to serve, but on one condition, that nobody of the same age as themselves should get 544 away without doing his share. They are insistent that no class should be excepted. They are also anxious that people should not be allowed to come into the country at the age of 20, to take employment and then go away again without having done their service. I wish particularly to inquire about the case of the young man who has lived all his life in Southern Ireland and who, at the age of 20, comes over to Glasgow and proceeds to take employment which may have been vacated by one of these lads who has been called up as a militiaman. It is clear that such a man cannot keep the job for more than six months. It must then be given back to the militiaman, but it seems a pity that an Irishman should be permitted to get such a job even for six months, unless he does his period of military training along with the rest. The question which I put is, at what time will such a man become "ordinarily resident" in this country? I hope the Minister when he replies will give us an assurance—
§ Mr. Buchanan
Why does the hon. Member pick out Glasgow? Why does he not confine himself to his own place?
§ Mr. Anstruther-Gray
Only because I happen to represent about 10,000 Glasgow municipal voters, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows perfectly well. He has done his best to shift me and maybe he will one day, but he has not succeeded yet, and he will allow me therefore to speak for those 10,000 of my constituents, The point which I raise is perfectly simple. Can the Government give us an assurance that these people of the age 20 to 21 will not be allowed to come over here and take employment without doing their period of service. I would ask further whether my right hon. Friend will give his attention to the question of people of that age coming in from any of the Dominions and stepping into jobs here, without have previously done some service, not necessarily here but in their own Dominion.
§ 6.10 p.m.
§ Mr. Logan
I am not anxious to accentuate differences between nationalities in regard to this Measure. I have a full sense of responsibility in addressing a mixed assembly of this kind, having regard to the critical position in which 545 we are at the present time. Therefore, I shall not attempt to define what is meant by ordinary citizenship in this country, on which the previous speaker was anxious to be informed. He spoke of having 10,000 constituents who were Glasgow municipal voters, and I do not require to be reminded that in the division which I represent there are large sections of population whose views I have to consider in this matter. I feel that I am part and parcel of the British Empire, whatever my nationality may be, and I must assume my share of responsibility in regard to the question which is now before the Committee. It is because of that sense of my duty that I feel bound to participate in this discussion. The whole of my life has been taken up with the Irish movement, but I am not going to enter into an Irish discussion in this Committee. A few moments ago an hon. Member from Northern Ireland spoke of accepting a challenge. As a rule that is the way in which every Irishman approaches a subject. He wants to meet you in the most amicable fashion but he throws off his coat first. There was a time when Irishmen met in this House to settle their difficulties, but I do not intend on this occasion to arouse the ire of any hon. Member who comes from Ireland.
The gravity of the situation compels me to acknowledge the reasonableness of the suggestion contained in the Minister's Amendment. I do not think any hon. Member wants to revive old prejudices. This is an occasion which calls for unity among all the peoples concerned, whether we happen to be from Northern Ireland or from Southern Ireland or from any other part of the British Isles. I am convinced that in all lands, what we want to-day is unity, and I am not willing to arouse any animosity in regard to the question of the loyalty that may be found either in the North or in the South of Ireland. There is a history attaching to this question for both parties, but no question of old traditions going back for 700 years can be fought out on this Amendment of the Minister. This Amendment may do something towards mitigating that ferocity which Irishmen, now and again, show. Both sides should realise that on an occasion of this kind there is wisdom in the attitude indicated by the Minister. I am aware as much as 546 anybody of the differences which exist, but Ireland, as far as I am concerned, will be able to work out its own destinies. I feel that if internecine troubles were to be created at the present time and if the proposal which is being made here today, were not accepted, it would seriously add to the difficulties of the situation and I consider that the best line that could have been adopted has been adopted. I think that Irish, Scottish, Welsh, all the peoples in these islands, will be able to recognise their responsibilities without compulsion.
The Irish race has given Britain some of the best of its sons on many occasions in the past and such opportunities can still be offered to the youth of Ireland, but political difficulties have called for this wise step on the part of the Government. I am convinced that the voluntary system is the only system. I am against compulsion. If a man thinks that his land is worth fighting for he should not require compulsion. I am not young enough myself, but if I wanted to fight for any land, I should take my stand for it. I should not want to be compelled to fight for the land in which I lived. I think this Parliament of all Parliaments, united in a British status, ought to recognise that we should be very careful, in the language we use in putting our own point of view, that it does not cause differences of opinion. I therefore agree with the Minister on this occasion that this is a very wise Amendment. It leaves the opportunity to the British people to co-operate and give their assistance if they so desire. As I shall have no chance of speaking to the Amendment in my name, I have ventured to join in this discussion now. I want to say to Northern Ireland that, on another and more fitting occasion, when this matter might have to be debated, I should take my part in regard to the rest of Ireland that has always proclaimed Ireland a nation.
§ Mr. Logan
That is only in passing, Sir Dennis, and in reply to the challenge of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland who said that they must take off their coats on entering into this discussion. It is only a temporary indication that to-night is not the occasion for us to debate the destiny of Ireland. The question is as to the destiny of the British 547 Empire, and I feel that it is necessary at this crisis that the question of Ireland and its difficulties should not be considered on this Amendment, and that we have to agree with the Minister that this is the best possible thing for us on this occasion.
§ 6.18 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen
We all desire the good of Ireland and when my right hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, said he did so with mixed feelings, I did not wonder at it. He has helped us on many different occasions, and we hope we shall have his good will and friendship on still further occasions, but while he spoke with mixed feelings, our feelings on this Amendment are perfectly indescribable. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and his predecessor for what they have done with regard to recruiting in Ireland. We appreciate all the arrangements that they have made, and we are pleased with the opportunities that he has given us for voluntary enlistment. I understand that all the units that he had arranged for in Northern Ireland are practically full, and we are grateful to him for that. But I doubt very much whether this Amendment has his cordial approval.
My right hon. Friend told us something of our Prime Minister and said that he was called over here. He was not called over to be consulted; he was called over by the Government to tell him that the Government had made up their mind. That is what he came over for. His opinion was not asked concerning this Amendment. Originally the Bill undoubtedly included Northern Ireland in its scope. My right hon. Friend said that there was no pressure brought to bear on the Government, but he will find it very difficult to persuade the people of Northern Ireland that that is true. If there was no pressure brought to bear for this change, why was the change made at all? Why did not the Government manfully and pluckily stick to their original intention? The original intention was, as I say, that Ireland should be included, and that is the way in which the Bill was drafted originally. Then pressure was brought to bear. No one will persuade me out of that. Clause 15 was then in the Bill, and the operation with regard to Ireland was that it should 548 be admitted into fellowship with Great Britain at some future date by Order in Council.
Then another change took place, when the Government decided on the final exclusion of Northern Ireland, and our Prime Minister was sent for. They had made up their mind that Ireland was to be excluded. Would it not have been fair to our Prime Minister to have told him the decision at which they had arrived? When our Prime Minister came over and had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister here, the latter did not tell him of the final exclusion of Northern Ireland. Was that fair? Was that an honourable thing to do? What position did our Prime Minister take up? In his magnificent and patriotic stand for the unity of Northern Ireland and this country, he once for all decided that he would leave the matter in the hands of the Government here. I wonder what position he would have taken up had he known that the Government intended to exclude Northern Ireland entirely. Let us remember that our Prime Minister had the first draft of the Bill, in which Ireland was included, and when he came over here he knew it was only a matter of postponement for the inclusion of Northern Ireland, but he never was told that the Government had again changed their mind.
We in Northern Ireland feel very bitterly on this question. The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) told the House the other day that the difficulties in which this country had landed itself were entirely due to its policy. I am afraid that the difficulties in which we find ourselves at this stage in Northern Ireland are largely due to his former leader. I will not go into details of everything that has happened since 1920—that would take too long, and it would not be in order—but I feel that what we call the sickening policy of conciliation in Ireland has brought the Government into their present position. That policy has been followed since 1920, and here in this Amendment we have another example of that sickening policy of appeasement and conciliation. My right hon. Friend said there was no pressure brought to bear. I have been wondering for the last 10 days whether this has been conceded in order to satisfy the cheers of the Irish in New 549 York. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) reminded the House of the position that President Abraham Lincoln took up in 1863.
§ Sir W. Allen
I was not talking about the history of Ireland at all when I referred to Abraham Lincoln. I was referring to the position that he took up with reference to conscription, and that position was that conscription was necessary; and in spite of all importunity he had the "guts" to carry it through, although there was a great riot in New York, in which 5,000 took part. I only wish the Government had made up their mind originally to do a certain thing and to stick to it. It is no pleasure to me or to my friends to be against the Government in this matter—not the slightest. We have had too many examples of their kindness to us in the past, but we feel bitterly disappointed that the Prime Minister of this country has seen fit once again to placate England's enemies at the expense of her friends.
§ The Chairman
Of course, it is not in order to say anything inimical to a friendly Power, but I did not gather that from the hon. and gallant Member.
§ The Chairman
I would ask the hon. Member who first raised the point to assist me by telling me the words that he complains of.
§ The Chairman
Now, I am afraid, the hon. Member is putting a different case altogether. The words he referred to were references to certain individuals, and that is not the same thing as a reference to a friendly Government.
§ Mr. Benjamin Smith
I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that what he said was that the Government, in order to placate their friends, had given way to their enemies.
§ Sir W. Allen
We are constantly in that position. If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) will say what Mr. de Valera has done for Northern Ireland we shall be delighted to listen to him.
§ Sir W. Allen
It is a matter of history and of fact that never at any time did Mr. de Valera show any friendliness to this country or to Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. Buchanan
On a point of Order. Is it in order to refer to the head of a friendly State in the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the head of the Irish Free State?
§ The Chairman
The Parliamentary rule with regard to this is perfectly clear. References to individuals may be in order which would not be so if they referred to a Government.
§ Mr. Buchanan
May I submit that a Ruling was given in the House recently, in regard to the head of the German State, that it was not in order to make certain references to him. Would you not apply the same Ruling here?
§ The Chairman
I do not know the details of that Ruling at the moment, but may I on this occasion appeal to Members on all sides to remember that they are working to a Time-table? I would ask the hon. and gallant Member who is speaking to do his best not to rouse feelings in the Committee.
§ Sir W. Allen
Mr. de Valera was not mentioned by me until it was mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. At any rate, he is not the head of that particular State. The right hon. Gentleman has not convinced the Committee that pressure was not brought to bear on the Government. We know that pressure has been brought to bear in order that the Government should change their minds and in order that Ireland should be excluded. An appeal has been made for measured terms to be used with regard to the future unity of Ireland. That has nothing to do with this question. In our opinion, the breach has been widened between north and south as the result of the pressure that has been put on the British' Government. I heartily disapprove of what has been done. I approve of the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for County Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) in the speech that he made and of the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), and it is fully my intention to vote against the Government on the exclusion of Northern Ireland and on the Government's refusal to allow its people to play their part in the raising of troops, whether voluntarily or by conscription.
§ 6.35 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander Agnew
I do not want to speak of the reasons that have actuated the Government in excluding Northern Ireland from the Bill, but I want to refer to the effect of their decision to alter the material words in the Bill which describe the class of British subjects to whom the Bill applies, that is to say, the class of person who is under an obligation to register. It is clear, as the Bill is printed, that a person whose home is in a British Dominion, such as South Africa or Australia, would not have to register if 552 he was in this country for a short stay, but under the Amendment there will be an onus of proof upon any person who is in this country from a British Dominion to show that he is not ordinarily resident in this country. That has given some apprehension to certain persons who come over from a British Dominion for, say, a professional course of instruction in such a thing as a mining school, and then proceed, when they have obtained their diplomas, to some other country to take up their appointments. Will that class of person who comes over here for a three years' course be obliged to register for military training? In asking the question I want to make it clear that all those people whom I have met do not desire in any way to shirk any of the obligations which rest upon them through being British subjects.
§ 6.37 p.m.
§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
There is also the case of a young Englishman who might be abroad, for instance, in the Argentine, and who under Argentinian law is liable to be called up for service in the army of that country. That person is still an Englishman and he may come over here for educational purposes or to represent an Argentine firm. Would such a person be exempt if he is liable to be called up to serve in the Argentine Army?
§ 6.38 p.m.
§ Mr. McGovern
I am interested in the decision of the Northern Ireland Members to carry their opposition into the Division Lobby. I am glad to see that they will carry their point of view to its logical conclusion. While opposed to them, I will try and aid them by the power of my voice to ensure that they get a Division. While the reasons given by the Home Secretary may satisfy him and Members of the Government, they will not be accepted by the mass of the people as the reasons for the dropping of Northern Ireland. It is seldom that I agree with the hon. Members who come from Northern Ireland, but I agree with them that the voice and the power behind the scenes were the voice and power of Mr. de Valera. I do not invite the hon. Gentleman to repudiate that because, even if he does, I am not prepared to accept it. The fact is that Northern Ireland was included in the Bill and has been dropped out. In view of the fact that the head 553 of the Government of Northern Ireland pressed for its inclusion, the reasons given in the Committee for the dropping of Northern Ireland are not substantial reasons which can be accepted by any intelligent person. It is obvious to me that Mr. de Valera has laid down that not only would there be a revolt of Southern Irishmen, but a revolt of those people in Northern Ireland who owe allegiance more to Southern Ireland than to Northern Ireland.
In view of the fact that the inclusion of Northern Ireland would lead to the alienation of Irish opinion throughout the world, the Government have wisely decided to withdraw Northern Ireland. I welcome that decision because I detest the Bill. Taking out Northern Ireland will weaken the Bill, and in so far as it weakens it and causes dissension and discontent in this country against the Measure, I welcome it and hope that it will be wrecked before it is carried into effect. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) was concerned for Irishmen who come over to Great Britain for employment. These Irishmen, however, do not come here because they are invited by Labour, but because they are cheap labour to the farmers and landlords, of whom the hon. Member is one. While he represents North Lanarkshire in this House and claims to represent 10,000 municipal voters in his area who come from Glasgow, he has substantial land interests in North Lanark and he speaks as a landlord. One can, therefore, understand his desire to get the youth of this country under a Bill to defend his landed interests. If I were fighting him I would fight him as a landlord. He has never been fought properly in his constituency or he would never have been in this House. We had a little song during the War, a verse of which was:Fight for the land sharks, toilers, they own the land.Fight for your kind employer, you are his hand.Slay for your pious landlord till your life is spent.Whilst you raise your deadly rifle he will raise your rent.
§ The Chairman
I think I ought to invite the hon. Member to show what application this has to the subject under discussion. I hope he will bear in mind the Amendment.
§ Mr. McGovern
I was only replying to the hon. Gentleman in a friendly way. It has been said that Northern Ireland should be included in the Bill, and some hot words have been spoken—well, to Irishmen they are not hot words, but very mild, though to others they may appear hot—regarding the ability and loyalty of Northern Irishmen. My father was an Irishman and my mother was a Scotswoman, so I have a foot in both countries, and although it may be claimed that I am an Irishman I do not think a better man ever came to this House—in my opinion, and the only opinion I value in this House is my own—and I resent these suggestions about either the ability or the loyalty or disloyalty of any section. Everybody is loyal according to his own point of view. Some people put loyalty in a different camp from others. I am opposed to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Measure just as I am opposed to the inclusion of Scotland or England or Wales, and if I had the power that some people have in the trade union movement I would smash the Measure to-morrow without a moment's hesitation. In so far as it leaves out Northern Ireland I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman although not agreeing with his excuses for leaving it out. I say in reply to him that in so far as this action will cause discontent in this country and will weaken the Measure and create antagonism I welcome it, in the hope that that discontent can be mobilised ultimately, and that every other part of the country will demand equal treatment with Northern Ireland.
§ 6.48 p.m.
§ Sir R. Ross
I should like, first, to make a mild protest on a question of procedure which affects fairly intimately those whose constituencies are furthest away from this House. To bring on this Amendment to-day when notice of it had been given only after the boats had left for Ireland last night, is a little hard on us, though I am quite sure it was done with no such intention.
§ Sir R. Ross
No, I was not in time for the Time-Table. We had an amusing speech from the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). He has said that we could stop this Amendment from being accepted. We are going to vote 555 against our own party and I do not know what more we could do. He can never vote against his own party, because it could not supply two sets of tellers. An important question with which I hope the Minister will deal is what is to be done to prevent people going to Northern Ireland, if it is exempted, to avoid conscription here. It is a most important point and will have a grave effect upon the question of employment in Northern Ireland.
The principles of democracy are, I trust, not yet dead. Every Member from Ulster who has been returned to this House has been in favour of our bearing the same burdens as everyone else, and if Northern Ireland is excluded I, for one, do not feel that I can properly take part in voting to impose the obligations of this Bill upon the constituents of other people. I cannot go on voting for something which is not to apply to me. Further, as regards democracy, we have had a by election in County Down to return a Member to Westminster. South Down is claimed particularly as being an area which is hostile to our ideas, and yet I see to-day that the candidate standing as a Unionist for County Down was elected unopposed. There was not an anti-conscriptionist with the courage to face him. If any evidence were required as to the feeling in Northern Ireland that election ought to supply it.
§ 6.47 p.m.
§ Mr. Sandys
I think the sentence which this Amendment will change is the most important sentence in the whole of this Bill, because it lays down who are the people to whom the Bill applies, and I would ask my right hon. Friend when he replies to elucidate a little more clearly the Government's intentions. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) pointed out in his speech, this Amendment deals with matters which far transcend the Irish question. The Clause as originally drafted imposed the obligations of military service upon British subjects resident abroad, resident, that is to say, in foreign countries, but not upon British subjects resident in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. It has been pointetd out to me that the Government propose to move at a later stage a new Clause which will give them power to extend the provisions 556 of the Bill to British subjects resident abroad, with certain other classes of British subjects. As the Clause originally stood they were automatically included. If the new Clause is accepted the Government will have power, if they so desire, to include them, and while I am not suggesting that that is an improper way of dealing with the question I feel that we are right in asking the Government to explain the reasons for the change.
The other matter on which I seek elucidation—it has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor)—is exactly how the Government interpret the words "ordinarily resident." It is vital to the application of this Bill, and what creates some uncertainty about it in my mind is that when I come to look at this new Clause which the Government propose to move, the Clause entitledPower to apply Act to British subjects ordinarily resident outside Great BritainI see that the phrase used is,male British subjects who are, while between the ages of twenty years and twenty-one years ordinarily resident outside Great Britain.In Clause 1, as it is now to be amended, the phrase will read,every male subject ordinarily resident in Great Britain.I think it would be well to know at this stage what is the difference between those two definitions, and, in general, what the Government do mean by "ordinarily resident in Great Britain."
§ 6.55 p.m.
§ Sir S. Hoare
Everybody wishes to get on to other Amendments, and therefore I will be as brief as I can in answering the questions which have been put to me. Let me begin with the specific question just asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). The reason for the change is a drafting reason. We feel that it is better to deal with the definition of a person residing in Great Britain under the interpretation Clause—Clause 14—and under the new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I suggest that the proper place to discuss the question is on those Clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) asked what action 557 will be taken against young men who are liable for service here but go to Northern Ireland to escape. I can tell him that there have been official discussions between the representatives of the Departments of Northern Ireland and the Departments in Whitehall, and I am assured that it will be easy to deal with cases of that kind. A warrant would be issued and the young man would be brought back to do his military service, if he were liable.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
Questions of very great importance are involved here. What would be the position of a British subject who went to live in Northern Ireland, and had resided there for say six months, supposing he had left this country at the age of 17 years? Would there be any power or any warrant to bring him back then?
§ Sir S. Hoare
It would be a case for the legal authorities to decide. The case would have to be taken on its merits. That is obviously the answer. After an Act of Parliament is passed it is for the courts to interpret it.
§ Mr. Buchanan
Would what the right hon. Gentleman has just said apply in the case of Southern Ireland?
§ Sir S. Hoare
In that case the position would be different. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and the writ of the United Kingdom would obviously run in any part of the United Kingdom. The most important of the other questions, if I may say so, were raised by my hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland, and there is one misunderstanding that I should like to remove, and to remove as definitely as I can. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) suggested that we had already taken our decision upon this question and that it was unfair to Lord Craigavon to ask him to come over after we had already made up our minds. I can assure the Committee—and I hope they will take my word for it—that that was not the case. We had come to no decision before Lord Craigavon arrived. We were very careful 558 to hear his opinion, and I made his opinion quite clear in the speech with which I introduced this Amendment. He left the decision in our hands, and the decision at which we arrived is the decision in respect of which I am proposing this Amendment. Further, let me say that we took our decision—though the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will not believe me, none the less it is the fact—not as a result of any pressure from anybody but upon the merits of the case. I ask hon. Members on all sides of the Committee to accept that as a fact.
§ Mr. McGovern
I might be prepared to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman on that point if he means when he says they took their decision on the merits of the case that they believed that the inclusion of Northern Ireland would produce civil war in Ireland and so decided not to include it.
§ Sir S. Hoare
I made the position perfectly clear in my opening statement. It is a fact, and well known to every hon. Member, that the inclusion of Ulster would have made a very deep division in a part of the United Kingdom, and that division would have had reactions in other parts of the world. There is the answer to the question in a single sentence.
§ Mr. Stephen
We ought to be told whether the Government are accepting the Amendment to which reference was made by the hon. Member above the Gangway on this side.
§ Sir S. Hoare
I made it clear that it was proposed to use places in Northern Ireland as centres of training.
§ Mr. Shinwell
How is the Government justified in excluding Ulster from the scope of the Bill and yet sending Militiamen from this side to Ulster for training purposes?
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
When a young man is allocated to a unit to be trained he will in the first instance exercise his preference. It is not Northern Ireland that is going to train him, but a unit of the British Army which happens to be stationed in Northern Ireland. Suppose he wishes to join the Welch Regiment and a battalion 559 of the Welch Regiment was stationed in Northern Ireland, it would be very unfair to the man who had been allocated by his own preference to the Welch Regiment if he could not be trained with the regiment of his choice, and, therefore, it is reasonable that he should be trained wherever the battalion may be in the United Kingdom.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 21, Noes 261.561
|Division No. 104.]||AYES.||[7.4 p. m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Moreing, A. C.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Nall, Sir J.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Markham, S. F.||Somerset, T.||Sir Ronald Ross and and Sir J. McConnell.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Higgs, W. F.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Denville, Alfred||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Doland, G. F.||Holmes, J. S.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Donner, P. W.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Horsbrugh Florence|
|Assheton, R.||Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Duncan, J. A. L.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Dunglass, Lord||Hunter, T.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Eastwood, J. F.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Eckersley P. T.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Ede, J. C.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Beaumont Hon R E B (Portsm'h)||Elliot Rt. Hon W. E.||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)|
|Beechman, N. A.||Ellis, Sir G.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)|
|Blair, Sir R.||Emery, J. F.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Broad, F. A.||Fleming, E. L.||Lathan, G.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Foot, D. M.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Leach, W.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Furness, S. N.||Leech, Sir J. W.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Gallacher, W.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.|
|Buchanan, G.||Garro Jones, G. M.||Leonard, W.|
|Bull, B. B.||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Levy, T.|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Lewis, O.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Gledhill, G.||Liddall, W. S.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Gluckstein, L. H.||Lindsay, K. M.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.||Gower, Sir R. V.||Lipson, D. L.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.|
|Cary, R. A.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Lloyd, G. W.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Loftus, P. C.-|
|Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Lunn, W.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Groves, T. E.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Hambro, A. V.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Hannah, I. C.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||McGhee, H. G.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Harbord, A.||McGovern, J.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Harris, Sir P. A.||Magnay, T.|
|Cove, W. G.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Maitland, Sir Adam|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Mander, G. le M.|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Cross, R. H.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Mathers, G.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.||Maxton, J.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)|
|Daggar, G.||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Messer, F.|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Salt, E. W.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Samuel, M. R. A.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Morris-Janet, Sir Henry||Schuster, Sir G. E.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Seely, Sir H. M.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Shakespeare, G. H.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Touche, G. C.|
|Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Silverman, S. S.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Simpson, F. B.||Turton, R. H.|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)||Viant, S. P.|
|Parker, J.||Sloan, A.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Peters, Dr. S. J.||Smith, E. (Stoke)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Smithere, Sir W.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Radford, E. A.||Snadden, W. McN.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Ramsden, Sir E.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)||Spens, W. P.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stephen, C.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)||White, H. Graham|
|Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Stokes, R. R.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Storey, S.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Richards, R. (Wrexham)||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)||Wragg, H.|
|Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Rowlands, G.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith||York, C.|
|Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Tasker, Sir R. I.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Russell, Sir Alexander||Tate, Mavis C.||Mr. Grimston and Major Sir James Edmondson.|
|Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
§ Proposed words there inserted.
§ 7.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page I, line 14, to leave out "the United Kingdom," and to insert "Great Britain."
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 131.565
|Division No. 105.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Gledhill, G.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)||Gluckstein, L. H.|
|Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Gower, Sir R. V.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Cox, H. B. Trevor||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Cranborne, Viscount||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Craven-Ellis, W.||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Guinness, T. L. E. B.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Cross, R. H.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sulton)||Crowder, J. F. E.||Hambro, A. V.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Cruddas, Col. B.||Hannah, I. C.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Culverwell, C. T.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Harris, Sir P. A.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Denville, Alfred||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Doland, G. F.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)|
|Beechman, N. A.||Donner, P. W.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A|
|Bernays, R. H.||Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Duncan, J. A. L.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-|
|Boulton, W. W.||Dunglass, Lord.||Hepworth, J.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Eastwood, J. F.||Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Eckersley, P. T.||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Higgs, W. F.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Ellis, Sir G.||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Holmes, J. S.|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Emery, J. F.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.|
|Bull, B. B.||Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.||Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Hunter, T.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Findlay, Sir E.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.|
|Cary, R. A.||Fleming, E. L.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Foot, D. M.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)|
|Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Jonos, L. (Swansea W.)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Furness, S. N.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Latham, Sir P.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Petherick, M.||Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)|
|Leech, Sir J. W.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Storey, S.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Radford, E. A.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Levy, T.||Ramsden, Sir E.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Lewis, O.||Rankin, Sir R.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Liddall, W. S.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Lipton, D. L.||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Lloyd, G. W.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Loftus, P. C.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|MeCorquodale, M. S.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Rowlands, G.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|McKie, J. H.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Magnay, T.||Russell, Sir Alexander||Touche, G. C.|
|Maitland, Sir Adam||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Mander, G. le M.||Salmon, Sir I.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Salt, E. W.||Turton, R. H.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Samuel, M. R. A.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Markham, S. F.||Sandys, E. D.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Maxwell, Hon. S A.||Schuster, Sir G. E.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Seely, Sir H. M.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Shakespeare, G. H.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Moreing, A. C.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.||White, H. Graham|
|Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Nall, Sir J.||Smithers, Sir VV.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Snadden, W. McN.||Wragg, H.|
|Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Somerset, T.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||York, C.|
|O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Spens, W. P.||Mr. Grimston and Captain Dugdale.|
|Perkins, W. R. D.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Frankel, D.||McGovern, J.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Gallacher, W.||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Gardner, B. W.||Marshall, F.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Garro Jones, G. M.||Maxton, J.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Messer, F.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Milner, Major J.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Montague, F.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Grenfell, D. R.||Morgan, J. (York, W. R., Doncaster)|
|Barr, J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Groves, T. E.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Benson, G.||Hardie, Agnes||Paling, W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Parker, J.|
|Bromfield, W.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pearson, A.|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Peathick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Cape, T.||Hicks, E G.||Poole, C. C.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Chater, D.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Ridley, G.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Riley, B.|
|Collindridge, F.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Ritson, J.|
|Cove, W. G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Kirby, B. V.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Daggar, G.||Kirkwood, D.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Dalton, H.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Shinwell, E.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Lathan, G.||Silkin, L.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Lawson, J. J.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Leach, W.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Day, H.||Leonard, W.||Sloan, A.|
|Dobbie, W.||Leslie, J. R.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Logan, D. G.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Ede, J. C.||Lunn, W.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McEntee, V. La T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||McGhee, H. G.||Stephen, C.|
|Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng)||Walkden, A. G.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)||Walker, J.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Summerskill, Dr. Edith||Watkins, F. C.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Thorne, W.||Watson, W. McL.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Thurtle, E.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Tinker, J. J.||Welsh, J. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Tomlinson, G.||Westwood, J.||Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.|
|Viant, S. P.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
§ 7.25 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
On a point of Order. During the progress of the last Division I sought to raise a point of Order, but you declined to hear me, on the ground presumably that a Division was in progress and that a point of Order could be raised at such a time only if the Member raising it were seated and covered. I wish to point out that I raised that point of Order before you had gathered the Voices.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Member sought to raise his point of Order while I was in course of collecting the Voices. It is generally understood that when the Voices are being collected by the Chair there cannot be an interruption by the raising of a point of Order.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
I submit to you, with great respect, that the only time during which a point of Order may not be raised is after the Chairman has collected both the Ayes and the Noes. You had begun to collect only the Ayes.
§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member is wrong: a point of Order can be raised after the Voices have been collected, but no question of Order can be raised to interrupt the collecting of the Voices by the Chair when it has begun. There is nothing to prevent a Member raising a point of Order after the Division has been called.
§ 7.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Stephen
I beg to move, in page I, line 21, at the end, to insert:Provided that all persons who are unemployed, or have had at any time their allowance reduced or refused owing to the means test, or have been unemployed for a continuous period of one month at least in the preceding three years, or are the sons of men who died or were totally or partially disabled in the last War, shall only be so registered with their own consent given in writing.This Amendment proposes to give to the individuals concerned an option and a choice to become a part of the conscript force. A great deal of discussion has taken place as to the enthusiasm of people 566 in various parts of the country for this conscription scheme. I hope that those who take the view that the young men are so enthusiastic will support me in pressing this Amendment upon the Government. If the public are in such a state of mind there should be no difficulty about it. The class of person concerned should be excluded from the privilege of giving this service to the State. I hope no hon. Member will say that it reflects upon the patriotism or the loyalty of this section of the community or that we are seeking to put these people into a less worthy position than that of other young men in the community. We merely wish to allow them to contract in. Hon. Members on the other side of the House said, when the Trade Union Act was going through this House and the political levy was being discussed, that the proper way for it to be applied was by contracting in. I hope they will show themselves as enthusiastic for contracting in to-day as they were in regard to the political levy. The class to which my Amendment relates comprises a very large proportion of those who come under this part of the Bill. I do not try to belittle the number of people affected by my Amendment. I believe it will be the majority of those who are within the ambit of the Measure, and I make no apology for proposing to give an option to so large a number of people.
The question may be asked: Why give to these people this option? I shall be told that they are citizens, and that they should have the responsibilities and duties of citizens. As I have listened to the proceedings on this Measure hitherto, I have been appalled by the way in which the representatives of wealth and privilege are going to put such people as are included in my Amendment into compulsory service in order to protect them in their privileges and in their wealth. I have heard an hon. Member in this Chamber say that, like everyone else, he is prepared to defend the land in which he lives. All the people included in my Amendment, as well as myself, are prepared to defend the land in which 567 we live; but we are not prepared to defend the landlords of the land in which we live. I want to give to the people included in the Measure who are in this position, which lays them open to exploitation by the landowning and wealth-owning classes in the community, the option to say whether they will undertake this training to be used as cannon fodder in the interests of their exploiters.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the individuals who would come within the scope of my Amendment. There are those who are unemployed and are subject to the means test, and those who have been unemployed for a continuous period of a month in the last three years—those people who have not been able to get employment in this land, in this community, in this nation; those people for whom this nation has had so little respect that it has not been able to provide them with employment. If the nation has subjected them to the cruelty and hardships of the means test, it should not be in a position to say to them: "In spite of the fact that we have treated you in this harsh, cruel way, we are now going to compel you to fight." Then there are the sons of men who died or were totally or partially disabled in the last War. I think it is only right that those whose fathers made such great sacrifices in the last War should now be given the choice whether they themselves are going to be taken off and trained for this new war of the future.
Two reasons weighed with me in drawing attention to this latter class. One was the bad treatment that has been meted out to the men who were disabled or partially disabled in the last War, and to the widows and dependants of those who were killed in the last War. Since I came into the House, my experience of the treatment of these people, as revealed by the appeals that have been made for pensions and have been refused, has convinced me that the country was very ungrateful to these men for the service they gave in the last War, and consequently I think that the sons of these men who have been so badly treated should not now be compelled to give this service unless of their own free choice they decide to come in and take their part. My second reason for including this class was that it seems to me that, since those who were killed or totally or partially 568 disabled in the last War were soldiers who carried their arms to a successful issue and won the War which was to end war, it is shameful now to take for military training the sons of fathers who won the War to end war. The fathers were victorious in the conflict which was waged to end war. They won; they got the victory. Consequently, there can be no more war, since they got the victory in a war that was to end war, and to me it is an absurdity that their sons should be compelled to undergo training, since their fathers, according to hon. Members opposite, died in order to be victorious in the War to end war which was waged from 1914 to 1918.
I think I have made out my case for the exclusion of this section of those whom the Government are intending to conscript. I think that these people, in view of the way in which they have been treated by Governments in the past, have no obligation to give this service, and I want statutory provision made so that, if they do intend to give service, they shall give it of their own free will, that they shall not be compelled to protect the landlords in the land where they themselves are denied employment and where they themselves have never received decent treatment, in spite of the services which were given by their fathers in the last War.
§ 7.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Maxton
In supporting the Amendment, I do not propose, in view of the limitations of time, to add to what my hon. Friend has already said, beyond mentioning one or two points. I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour is in charge at the moment, and I thank you, Sir Dennis, for selecting this particular Amendment. I should have been even more grateful if you had selected a few more of the Amendments that my hon. Friends and I have put down, but, if you had to reduce our quota somewhat, I am glad indeed that you did not cut out this one. Over a fairly extended period in the House, we have year after year made demands of Government after Government for fair treatment for the unemployed. During a period of 17 years—practically the whole interval of time since the last War—Governments have never been able to find niches in the ordinary civil industrial structure for an average of something like 2,000,000 people, a 569 large proportion of them young people. Successive Governments could never fit them in in any way, could never find a public use for them. Successive Ministers of Labour have come to that Box with various devices, trying this and trying that, but always their devices left 2,000,000 men who could not be fitted in; and not only that, but who could never be treated with a decent generosity, could never be provided with weekly allowances that would maintain them in decent physical efficiency, let alone providing for them the pleasures and enjoyments of life, for which the young men particularly have a strong desire, and to which they have a right.
Now, inside a matter of days, because of the exigencies of international affairs, because of the pressure of Governments outside this country, compulsion is to be fitted into the military machine and is to be applied to all those young men between 20 and 21 years of age whom over a period of 17 years successive Governments have been unable to fit into the civil, industrial and economic life of the nation. While I think that compulsory military service on anybody is a terrifying power for any State to take into its hands, while I think it is a terrifying power for any group of men to assume over their fellow-men to say to 200,000 of them: "We are determined that your lives shall be used to these military ends, that an important part of your early manhood shall be devoted to shaping you as human beings into the form and type that is useful to us for war purposes," it is to my mind particularly wrong and cruel—another word that comes to my mind is "caddish," but perhaps that does not fully indicate my feeling of revulsion—it is, I say, particularly wicked to say to those to whom you have never been able to give a decent chance of life and pleasure, "Now that we need you for this purpose, all the difficulties disappear. We are going to take you now and find non-productive employment for you for the next six months. We are going to make you march up and down the barrack yard; we are going to break you into barrack room routine and mould you into the mental and physical form required for the soldier. We have never been able to do anything effective for you that would fit you into the normal peaceful avocations for building up the civilised state."
570 To accept the Amendment is the least the Government can do for these fellows: to say, "We are passing a conscription Act. The young men who have had normal social advantages, who have been decently housed and decently fed and have had decent pleasures we shall take without any qualifications; but for you, the young men who have suffered the most, the young men whose fathers were killed or broken in the last War, we make this difference: that you shall be taken only if you are willing to go." We think the Amendment is reasonable, and we ask the Minister to accept it.
§ 7.47 p.m.
§ Mr. S. O. Davies
I thank my hon. Friends for putting this Amendment on the Paper. It shows how completely devoid of any sense of shame the Government are that they should now be wanting to conscript the bodies and souls of these youngsters who have been so scurvily treated. I am glad the Minister of Labour is here to answer the case for the Amendment. I suppose he will attempt to explain away the justice of the Amendment and the protest that it makes against the way so many of these youngsters have been treated; and that we shall have from him another exhibition of brazen effrontery in trying to explain away the tragedies to which the Amendment refers. If the House had even a sense of proportion, let alone an enlightened sense of justice, it would immediately accept this Amendment. The Amendment refers largely to the young men who have been made victims of that vast and costly instrument which cost this country last year £4,500,000 to keep going.
To say that these young men should be called on to defend the wealth of the propertied classes indicates an absence of the very rudiments of fair play. What have these young men to defend? The highest price that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on 90 per cent. of them is 10s. a week; but this Amendment refers to those who have had less than 10s. a week, and have been abandoned, as far as the Minister is concerned, without a sou to assist them. Thousands of these young men have been hounded from the little homes in which they live, where they thought they had a stake and might have had something to fight for. Now, having ruined these homes, and uprooted these youngsters by tens of thousands, and placed a stigma on them by saying that 571 10s. a week is the highest price at which he values them with brazen effrontery, he calls upon them to defend their country.
We shall be told that many of these young men have volunteered for the armed forces of the country. Yes; and we have said from these benches for some years that the best recruiting sergeant we have in this country has been the poverty wantonly imposed upon these young men: the hounding of them by the means test. I am no pacifist; I am not squeamish when it comes to putting up a fight; but I support the Amendment as a protest against the ill-treatment that these young men have had to undergo, and because it gives us an opportunity of putting the right hon. Gentleman in the dock, and calling upon him to show what justification he has for conscripting into the Army these young men whom he has so cruelly ill-used.
§ 7.54 p.m.
§ Mr. Cove
I would like the Minister to give his reasons for conscripting these young men, particularly those who have been subject to the means test. I understand that the principle of the means test is that the State has divested itself of responsibility for the maintenance of these young men. The State has taken deliberate action, and has erected a large machine which has inquired into the personal circumstances of these young men and their families, in order to throw the burden of their maintenance largely on their families and relatives.
§ Mr. Cove
No. The principle of the means test is that they must be maintained by their families. The State says, "We will not, as a State, take the responsibility of keeping you alive." How can the Government take the responsibility of conscripting men who have been outlawed by the State? What interest have these people in defending the State? What stake have they in this nation? There they are, left to be maintained by others than the State, and the State says, "We will conscript them to maintain the State." Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment, and particularly that part which deals with those who are on the means test.
572 I take it that we would all defend this country because we have an interest in it. It provides us with various means of living: with opportunities of education, cultural development and other amenities; but these men are denied almost all of those services. They are stranded; they are the outcasts of society. The only reason I have heard for including these men—and it is a callous one—is that they will be better fed in the barracks than they are at home. The Minister of Labour has refused to feed these men who are subject to the means test. The means test has been used to drive them out of their homes and to scatter them over the country, without any roots in the nation. These men have every reason for saying, "It is not worth our while serving a nation which has treated us so badly. No nation is worth defending after it has turned us adrift and is indifferent even to our physical needs." Until the Minister has removed the means test he has no justification for calling on these men to render service to the State. Perhaps the Minister would show us why these men should render service to a State which has been so callous towards them.
§ 7.59 p.m.
§ Mr. Denville
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realise what the effect of the Amendment would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) suggested that the Minister of Labour ought to be put in the dock. If the Minister were put in the dock I wonder what the sentence would be on this occasion. If hon. Members would take the trouble to read this Amendment very carefully they would find that it leaves no one to be conscripted. [HON. MEMBERS: "The more the shame!"] You will see, if you examine the Amendment, how many are to be exempted. I mean those who have been unemployed for a continuous period of one month in the last three years. I am one of those fellows, and I know a good many more who have been continuously unemployed for one month during the last three years. I am in favour of the voluntary principle and always have been. I believe that one volunteer is worth a dozen pressed men, and the greatest battles in our history have been marked by the part played by the volunteer. It was so during the late War. But here it is a case of having to swallow our opinions and give up our traditions and those of our fathers and 573 their fathers before them. We have to adopt conscription and we have to make the system as fair as possible. It has been said that under the Trade Union Act we objected to contracting out, but that is no analogy at all. The Trade Union Act did not conscript labour but allowed a man to join a trade union or to stay outside.
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide in his argument and I would ask him to speak strictly to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Denville
You come from a constituency quite close to mine, and I know that you would be down on me before any one else.
May I ask you, Colonel Clifton Brown, whether, while it may be said in a jocular spirit, it is in accordance with the traditions of this House that an hon. Member should suggest that the Chairman of the Committee is "down" on any one?
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am quite certain that the hon. Member did not mean it in any offensive fashion.
§ Mr. Denville
I can assure you, Colonel Clifton Brown, that I should be the last man in the world to be guilty of any rudeness to you, and I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite is suffering from a severe lack of humour. I would like hon. Members on all sides of the Committee to look at this matter of conscription as being something that we have to swallow whether we like it or not. If there is to be conscription, it must be for all. That is how I view it, and that is why I am going to vote against this Amendment.
§ 8.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I would like to say a few words on behalf of the individuals referred to in the last part of the Amendment, and of the evil effects of what we are proposing to do now. The individuals upon whom we are calling at this stage ought to have been sacrificed, if sacrifice was to have been made, last of all. The sons of those men who fought in the late War in order that their sons would never need to fight again, are the individuals who ought, first of all, to be protected against this system which we 574 are introducing. Yet it is upon these men that we rely to obtain the numbers that will make the Act worth while.
The Prime Minister in his statement the other day referred to the increasing number of men due to the bulge in the population relating to the age group to which these men belong. If the voluntary system is to be used at all it should be used with regard to that section of the community. During the 20 years that these young fellows have been growing up it has been considered the duty of the State to do everything possible for them so that they should not suffer in consequence of what their parents had to go through. Education authorities throughout the country considered it their duty to grant extra facilities to ease this bulge in the population and to give this section of the population an adequate share of the good things provided by the educational system. That was one of the main reasons for the reorganisation of our schools and for the increase in the number of scholarships. The sons of men who fought in the late War should not be called upon to suffer in this connection.
We are asking in this Amendment that these men should have the opportunity of saying whether or not they should be called upon for military service. If they are willing, all well and good, but surely they are entitled, in the name of their fathers, who gave their all to the State in some instances, to decide for themselves whether or not they should be conscripted. I am prepared to defend all that has been said about the men who have suffered as a result of the means test and to argue that they ought to be excluded also. Surely these members of the community ought to be protected, and it is for that reason that I support the Amendment.
§ 8.6 p.m.
§ Mr. MacLaren
I consider that the wording of this Amendment goes to the root of the whole problem which is facing the State at this time. Whenever a war breaks out in a State it is always noticeable that those who before were poor, unwanted and unrecognised, suddenly become people with a new status. This is no new thing. It can be recalled today in the words of Gracchus: 575Ye Romans that conquered enemiesWithin and beyond the confines of the Roman Empire,You come back to Rome with your banners emblazonedWith the names of your victories,Only to find that you must live in hovels that the Roman nobility would refuse to keep horses in.It is only when a war breaks out that those people suddenly have a country. I heard the Minister of Labour the other night make a speech, and, both in form and in manner, it portended rather bad signs. I remember reading, "That preaching democracy is the pastime of autocrats." As I listened to him that night I seemed to see in him the foreshadowing of a veritable Hitler. He said at that Box that six months' training in the Army was a good thing for these fellows; he had been in it, and knew what good it did to him. Frankly, I think that the military experience of the right hon. Gentleman has rather given a tinge to his general demeanour which is resented in this House. He has the military tinge. I never listen to him speak but I see the quartermaster-sergeant, and I would advise him to forget the barracks and to remember that he is speaking to his equals in this House. If there is anything which this House resents, it is the army sergeant form of address.
He said that six months in the Army would be a good thing for these fellows. What is the implication behind that remark? It is that there are a lot of young fellows knocking about in this country demoralised, shilly-shallying and becoming the victims of rather immoral practices, and that a good strapping in the Army would set them up. That is what he means, otherwise he would not have made that statement the other night. Who is it that is responsible for the condition of society of that kind? Who is it that creates a society where there is a constant floating population, living under such unmoral and unfair economic conditions as make them the victims of vicious practices? It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman remembered his many liberal speeches which he used to deliver in this House.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I would remind the hon. Member that the speech which was made some time ago by the Minister of Labour is not the question that we are discussing on this Amendment.
§ Mr. MacLaren
I agree, but the Amendment with which we are dealing now is one relating to the substratum of society. The poor, dejected, the unwanted, the persons who inhabit the benches on the Thames Embankment, who are to become conscripts under this Bill. I am only using this argument so as to bring Members opposite back to a realisation of what the Amendment means. The Amendment is calling for some better and more humane treatment of those who have been the victims of the vicious economic system. To me it means more than that. It means the pointing of a moral. These people who have been considered as a sort of embarrassment to the social structure of society suddenly become people who are wanted in time of war. It is their country when a war breaks out, but it is not their country when a war is over. It is still the country of the landowners—I wish sometimes that the landowners could be conscripted and then, if war came, it would not last long. You are calling upon the poorest of the poor under this Bill to stand forthright against all possible dangers of a war to defend, what? The land of Great Britain.
§ The Deputy-Chairman rose—
§ Mr. MacLaren
I am not going to transgress further because I have this advantage over the Chairman, or even Mr. Speaker of this House, that, even if I did not mention it, the House would know what I meant. I am merely pointing the moral. This Amendment will not stand a chance in this Committee, but it is as well that it has been put upon the Paper as a strong indictment of what is going on in this Committee to-night. If we had not landlords on the one hand and people suffering from social degeneracy on the other—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that the hon. Member has gone far enough in that direction. We all know where his politics lead him.
§ Mr. MacLaren
I submit that this is a relevant matter on this Amendment. If the people in this country were not in the position in which they are now, there would be no necessity for this Bill at all. It is the very fact that the people are not the common owners of the heritage of this country that we have to conscript them. That is my point.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment we are now discussing and he should not pursue that subject any more.
§ Mr. MacLaren
This is an Amendment dealing with people who are in a very poor economic state of life in this country, and it is asking that such people as have suffered in this way shall not be subject to the full stringency of conscription under this Bill.
§ The Deputy-Chairman rose—
§ Mr. MacLaren
I am still speaking to the point of Order. I have not finished. Do not be so impetuous. I submit that I am bound to point the moral, that these people are suffering in this way, and also that, if they were not suffering in this way, this conscription would not be necessary.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment. It provides that certain classes, because they are poor, should be exempt, but the hon. Member is going into wider reasons why they should be exempt, far beyond the Amendment that we are discussing.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. T. Smith
I should like the Minister of Labour to give us some information. Can he give us a rough estimate of the number of unemployed men who are likely to be affected, say, in the first batch called up? Secondly, when these young men are unemployed and they are called up for six months military training and on being called up they are on the means test, can he tell us whether, when they have finished their six months' military training and have returned to civilian life, they will be expected to return to the means test basis, or whether, recognising that they have had six months' training, with presumably regular and good meals, he will not expect them to live on the miserable allowance they get now?
I should like the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) and other hon. Members opposite to know, apart from the merits of this Amendment, 578 that in the minds of some of these young, unemployed men, there is a good deal of hostility, not merely towards this conscription Bill, but towards the Government for the way they have been treated. The Minister of Labour said, in reply to a question, that he was not aware that the means test was causing a good deal of hardship in many homes. I know of nothing passed by this House for years that has caused so much hardship and is causing so much hardship as the means test. Many young men when they are working hard in the pit on piece work rates are faced with the fact that the more money they earn the less their father will get if he happens to be unemployed. This affects a good many families. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the unemployed who are likely to be affected, and will he tell us whether these young, unemployed men when they have done their six months' military training are to be expected to return to the means test, if they are still unemployed in civil life?
§ Mr. Denville
Will the hon. Member say how the Government will find means to provide work for these men at end of their training?
§ Mr. Smith
I do not want to get away from the Amendment, but nothing would give me greater pleasure than to deal with the question which the hon. Member has raised. When we come to the Clause which deals with the reinstatement of the men who have been called up, possibly we may be able to discuss that point. Some of us have not forgotten our experience just after the Armistice when many men were demobilised and it was our duty to get them back to work. If I were to discuss that question now I should be ruled out of order. It would be wise on the part of the Minister of Labour if while these men are doing their six months' training he would make efforts to see that instead of coming back to the means test they are fitted somewhere into industry.
§ 8.18 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Davidson
I think every hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency owes a debt to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and his friends for placing this Amendment on the Order Paper. We who know the industrial conditions have had experience of huge numbers of young men who are 579 unemployed through no fault of their own, who are desiring employment and appealing to the Ministry of Labour continually for some assistance, and who are living in continual poverty because of the Ministry's ineffectiveness in obtaining employment for them. We consider that this class ought to receive the consideration which the Amendment asks. I listened to the slogan of the hon. Member for Central Newcastle when he used that very popular cry the Government are using to-day. He said that there must be equal sacrifice and equal service. We hear of the rich boy and the poor boy who will be shoulder to shoulder serving equally in the interests of the nation.
The hon. Member said that there must be equal service and sacrifice, and if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I am accurate. Hon. Members are demanding this sacrifice and service from the unemployed, the means test recipients, the sons of the soldiers who were killed and wounded in the last War, and demanding equal conditions in a conscript army. When the means test was imposed, why did hon. Members opposite not ask for equal conditions then? When the allowances of the ex-service men were reduced why did they not ask for equal sacrifice then? The hon. Member for Central Newcastle voted for reduced allowances and he voted for the means test.
§ Mr. Denville indicated dissent.
The hon. Member and his friends voted in support of the present Government when they imposed conditions affecting detrimentally the class who are covered in this Amendment. It is the duty of any Government which desires the support of the people to give to the people the best possible conditions in accordance with productive power of the country and in accordance with the nation's wellbeing. Is there anyone who will say that the conditions of the unemployed to-day are the best that this country could have given to them during the eight years since this Government have been in Office? Are the allowances the 580 highest that can be afforded. While this House was engaged in reducing the allowances of these young men and the class to which they belong, hon. Members on the other side were voting for the granting of millions of pounds to industries run by people who had sons at Eton, Cambridge and other public schools and universities, living on the best that the nation can give them. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle may laugh—
§ Mr. Denville
I wish the hon. Member would not pick on me. I was smiling at an hon. Member opposite, without any reference whatever to the speech that we are now listening to. The hon. Member said that I voted for the means test. That is a complete error.
The hon. Member has constantly supported the Government in the Division Lobby against every Measure that we have brought forward on behalf of the people referred to in this Amendment. When the hon. Member says that service should be equal we say that it should have been equal many years ago, and that if the Government want these young men to respond to the call for national service they should give these young men the best possible national service they can. I have visited training camps where many young men have gone to be trained. I can take hon. Members to one which has been carefully established 18 miles from the nearest town so that they may be segregated from ordinary life. It was started by the Minister of Labour, who is now asking them to defend their freedom and liberties. They are only allowed one pass-out, and there is only one conveyance to take them to the nearest town, and the blankets are not—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that what takes place in a training camp does not come under this Amendment. It is rather far away from the purpose of the Amendment.
I was only indicating some of the conditions which some of these young men have to endure whom the Minister of Labour is now asking to respond to the call for national service. Apart from these young men who have to live under conditions where the blankets are changed only once in three months, I want to deal with other sections who 581 are affected by the Clause. Take those who are affected by the means test. I have always maintained that it is the right and duty of any young citizen of the country who is receiving good conditions and who has his freedom and liberty, to defend them. I have always maintained that any Government which gives to its people and its country good conditions with freedom and liberty, is a Government worth defending, but the basis of the Amendment is that the Government have failed to give the classes referred to in the Clause a reasonable standard of life, have failed to give them ordinary, decent conditions, have neglected these people, have been callous and created starvation among the parents of these young men. The Minister of Labour knows that in Glasgow there are suffering from malnutrition 8,000 children, the relations of these young men. Many of them are now reaching 19 and 20 and 21 years of age, and one of the difficulties of the Secretary of State for War is the physical defects of young people due to the Government's conduct in regard to the working classes. The Secretary of State for War in his recruiting campaign has had to reject in many areas 50 per cent. of the young men because the Minister of Labour and the Government in their callousness have reduced them to semi-starvation standards.
Look at the promises which were made so glibly to those who returned from the last War, which was a war to end war, to the promises which were so glibly made to those who returned without limbs, to widows whose husbands had died, to mothers whose sons had died in France, to those who are now in Richmond Hospital and in hospitals near to Glasgow, and to the fathers of boys, who are now 20 and 21 years of age, who have never been able to work and whose pensions have been constantly reduced by this Government. Hon. Members on this side and a few hon. Members on the other who have tried to do something for then-constituents know that their time is taken up by pensioners of the last War who want their pensions increased and who also want to be defended against reductions in their pensions by the Government. I can instance many cases of reduction. A man receiving 24s. a week is now receiving 8s. These are the fathers of young men you are now calling 582 up to defend democracy and their freedom.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was speaking he was interrupted by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) who asked, "Is not France free, and France has conscription?" I say that as we have not conscription our freedom is more full. I say that as far as the unemployed in this country are concerned, with their poverty-stricken conditions, their lack of education because of the carelessness of the Government, as far as the widow of a soldier who died during the last War who has now a miserable pittance is concerned, the freedom of these people is much more limited than the freedom of the sons of the wealthy in this country. It is right that those who have had the good things of life from this Government, the sons of shipping firms, the Runciman shipping firm, and those who have re ceived thousands of pounds from the Government—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is now arguing that certain classes should be included. The Amendment deals with the exclusion of certain classes.
I thought it was within Parliamentary tactics to make what must be an obvious and very definite contrast. However, I accept your Ruling, and say that as far as we are concerned we are pleased to have this opportunity of saying to the Government that they have no right to ask people whom they have allowed to live in poverty-stricken conditions, no right to ask young men who are unemployed through no ineptitude of their own to defend these conditions. Employment is a responsibility of the Government. There is no hon. Member who will deny that with their majority, with their economic power, with their power over the employers, the Government could not have materially improved the conditions of the unemployed. They do not desire to do so as long as the nation can jog along and they are undisturbed in their security. Now that they are in danger they are asking these people to come to their assistance. They have no right to force them to do so. If any class of men have the right to decide whether they are entitled now to 583 different conditions from those which they have had for many years, it is the class of unemployed and the poverty-stricken people of the country.
§ 8.34 p.m.
§ Mr. Batey
Any hon. Member who comes from a district where there has been a large amount of unemployment will naturally be interested in the Amendment and wish it success. A colleague of mine asked the Minister whether certain things would be done for the unemployed after their six months' training had expired. I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether the unemployed will have stamps put upon their cards during this period of six months, so that at the end of the six months they will come back not to the means test but to the Unemployment Insurance Fund? I am glad this question has been raised in the Amendment. The unemployed have suffered for long years, and when we are considering giving certain exemptions under the Bill, it is not difficult to make out a case for the unemployed claiming some exemption. One of the strange things in the Bill—and it is a thing which makes it essential that some provision should be inserted in order to protect the unemployed—is that the machinery for bringing the young men into military training is to be the machinery of unemployment insurance. When the Voluntary Register was first set up, I said that its first purpose was to bring the unemployed into the Army. Under this Bill, the whole machinery of unemployment insurance—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I suggest to the hon. Member that the machinery of unemployment insurance properly comes under Clause 12. At this point it is not in order.
§ Mr. Batey
In a moment or two I think you will see what I am driving at, Colonel Clifton Brown. In the past, these young men have had to go to the court of referees when there has been any dispute in connection with their unemployment pay, and in future they are to go to the same court of referees. What I am arguing is that it is necessary to agree to this Amendment in order to provide some protection for these unemployed men in future. As soon as the Bill is passed and the time comes, there will be innumerable applications from different people that their sons should be exempted from 584 military training, and in some cases exemptions will be given; but unless some alteration is made in the Bill, as soon as the hardship committees begin to deal with the cases, they will say that the unemployed men have no claim and that they ought to go into the Army straight away. Before this Bill was introduced, I heard it said that there ought to be conscription in order to force the unemployed who stood at the street corners into the Army. That was in the minds of a large number of people, and in my opinion, unless this Amendment is accepted, the unemployed men between 20 and 21 will be expected to go for their military training straight away, and will be given no consideration.
I think it is a pity that the Ministry of Labour is brought into this matter. The fact that the Ministry of Labour is connected with this Bill will leave a bad impression in the minds of the unemployed. I am sorry that it has been done. One of my hon. Friends spoke about the means test and said that men who have been on the means test ought to be exempted from military service. Those of us who know how some people have suffered under the means test, and know the harshness of it, can wholeheartedly support this Amendment. I believe that not only those who have suffered under the means test, but those who have gone through the terrible experience of being unemployed, need consideration under this Bill just as much as any other people do. I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ 8.41 p.m.
§ Mr. Emmott
I think it might be perhaps a little unfair if the whole burden of offering reasons against this Amendment were to rest upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and therefore, I should like to come to his assistance. I refer first to a remark made by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), whom I regret not to see in his place, although I do not complain of that. He observed incidentally that preaching democracy is the pastime of autocrats. Well, if that be so, there is a remarkable number of autocrats occupying the benches above the Gangway. The hon. Member suggested that this Amendment only calls for more humane treatment of those who are the victims of economic circumstances. He suggested that that was the whole principle of the 585 Amendment. But it is nothing of the sort. The purpose of the Amendment is not to ensure more humane treatment of those who are victims of economic circumstances; its purpose is to enable certain categories of persons, which I agree on the whole are intended to include those who have suffered some economic misfortune, to evade the obligations that rest upon every citizen. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who moved the Amendment, and to whose remarks I listened with great care and interest, warned hon. Members not to argue in relation to this Amendment that it would permit the categories of men who are included in it to exempt themselves from the obligation of military service. He said repeatedly that no hon. Member must say that this Amendment permits the men mentioned in it to be exempted from this obligation, because it merely lays down that they shall be registered only if they give their consent in writing. But that argument is quite fallacious. The Amendment states that these categories of men shall only be registered with their own consent given in writing. But what will happen if they refuse to give their consent in writing? Then they will be exempted. That is the purpose of the Amendment. And no reason need be given for their refusal to undertake the obligation of military service.
Much has been said upon the economic argument in this short Debate, but I must say that I regretted to hear the hon. Member for Camlachie talking about the representatives of wealth and privilege subjecting other men to military service in order to protect their own wealth. I was sorry to hear any hon. Member of this House employing such an argument. Surely he knows that the only thing with which every hon. Member of this House is concerned is the assurance of the safety of the State, and the defence of the Realm. The argument about the protection of the wealth of individuals is irrelevant. Apart from anything else, how much of their wealth are wealthy men in this country to-day permitted to keep? Not so very much. I think the hon. Member does a great injustice to other hon. Members of this House and to those outside this House who may be described as the wealthier members of the community in imputing to them such motives.
586 I have tried to discover what is the principle of this Amendment. I assume that there is one. But I find it impossible to discover underlying it any principle except a thoroughly vicious one.
§ Mr. Silverman
May I put the principle to the hon. Member in this way? If there are in any State individuals for whom the Constitution and the practice of that State have resulted in destitution and misery, there is no right in that State to compel those people without their consent to fight for the continuance of that State. Is not that a principle?
§ Mr. Emmott
Yes, it is a principle, but I do not accept it. I will come immediately to a brief examination of the argument which the hon. Member has just stated to the Committee in such very clear terms. The whole argument upon this Amendment so far has proceeded upon economic grounds. It is argued that where men think they have a grievance against the State they have a right to evade the obligations of the citizen—that where, in fact, men think they have been badly treated they have a right to be exempted from the obligations of the citizen. Surely, that principle is inadmissible. I observe in passing that if the principle that economic hardship and distress, in a particular degree, entitle men to be exempted from the obligation of service is to be accepted, then this Amendment is too narrow, and it ought to be made much wider. There are many other individuals and categories of persons besides those mentioned in the Amendment who might with equal justice consider that they have suffered economic hardship; but the Amendment only mentions those whose allowance has been reduced, and those who are unemployed and those who have been unemployed, even if only for a month. Then it puts in the same category with these, those who are the sons of men who died or were wholly or partially disabled in the last War.
The only ground upon which Parliament can admit the right of exemption from the obligations of the citizen is the ground of true religious conviction. No other principle can be admitted. But another principle is asserted by the Amendment: that is economic misfortune. Nothing could be more vague or more uncertain. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) said the basis of the 587 Amendment was the refusal by the Government to ensure a reasonable standard of living to the unemployed. But that is obviously a matter of opinion. How can such a principle be admitted? Nothing could be more vague or uncertain than the principle upon which the Amendment is founded. It is uncertain and therefore it is impossible; it is not only impossible and impracticable: it is wrong; because, I repeat, no ground for exemption from the obligations of the citizen can be recognised except that of true religious conviction. The ground of economic distress and hardship—if indeed that were a complete description of this highly arbitrary Amendment, and it is not—is inadmissible as a ground for exemption from the obligation of universal military service.
§ 8.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Gallacher
The discussion on this Amendment has shown the evil character of the Guillotine procedure on such an important occasion as this. The hon. Member who has just spoken is t o be congratulated on his intellectual achievement in recognising that this Amendment is intended to exempt certain people from service. That is an achievement which should be recorded for all time. I do not know where he got the spark of genius which illuminated his mind so suddenly, but it came as a revelation to hon. Members on these benches. He said, however, that the mere fact of people not having got fair play, did not entitle them to exemption from the Bill. But the Government have exempted Northern Ireland because the Irish people consider that they have not got fair play. If Northern Ireland is to be exempted because the Irish people believe they have not got fair play, why not exempt the unemployed, those who are on the means test, those who have suffered so much already?
It is not only because they have not got fair play that we make this claim for them. When the Prime Minister introduced the Bill I drew attention to the fact that those who were to be called up were those who had no votes. We have since been told that when they go into the Army, they will get votes, even at 20 years of age. I put this to the Minister of Labour. Is it not the case that the unemployed, once they are off unemployment insurance, have no standing in the 588 State and no statutory right? Has the unemployed man under the Unemployment Assistance Board any statutory right to the benefit which he gets? He has not. The Board has power to hand out to him as much as will keep him, but those who come under the Board, including the men who are to be forced under pains and penalties to give service to the State, have no statutory rights to a living within the State. Is the Minister prepared to say that the unemployed men and women of this country will be given a statutory right to unemployment assistance benefit? If they are not prepared to give them that statutory right, they have no claim whatever upon these men for military service. I fully endorse every argument that has been put up by various Members in favour of this Amendment, and I demand of the Minister that he either support the Amendment or make a statement at that Box that complete and full statutory rights will be given to the unemployed men and women of this country.
§ 8.56 p.m.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)
I can understand the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and his friends taking every Parliamentary opportunity to call attention to the position of unemployment or of the unemployed in this country. I always admire the persistent ingenuity with which they succeed in doing these things when others do not think about them, and I congratulate them on having achieved their object once more. One is never surprised at that; but when I read this Amendment I was very sorry not to see one name attached to it—the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He knows why.
§ Mr. Brown
He knows what I have in mind. I have listened to him on many occasions when he was sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway putting up a very powerful plea for unemployed people, and I know that the last thing that he wants, under any Act, order, regulation, or rule for the unemployed, is to have them segregated from their fellow citizens. He has delivered, as the records of this House will prove, hundreds of speeches, in which he has rarely failed to make that plea, with an eloquence that 589 I can envy, but that I cannot always emulate. His late colleagues have, now that he is no longer in the group, forgotten the true doctrine, they have departed from the orthodox creed, and they have said, "In this particular case, we want the unemployed to be put in a position"—
§ Mr. Brown
I am quite prepared at any time to defend my own record. It is extraordinary that hon. Members opposite, who know that one of the duties of the Minister of Labour is to listen to hard things, not only about the policy of the Government but about himself, and to take it with good temper, know also that the moment he begins to put an argument and it becomes a little uncomfortable, the trail is always said to be obscured. But it cannot be obscured here, because it goes to the root of the Amendment. The real principle underneath the Amendment is not the other issue that that young Parliamentarian, the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) let out when he admitted to the Chair that he was not quite sure as to the Parliamentary tactics of the Amendment. I am not concerned with the Parliamentary tactics, but I am concerned with the principle, and the principle is this, that these men should not be segregated from all other citizens for this particular purpose. I have often thought hon. Members below the Gangway and opposite make one mistake, among others, about the unemployed people of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are omniscient!"] Not at all. If I thought I was, the Members opposite would lose no opportunity of snowing that I was not. In fact, they do not think that, as their faces show at the present time. I have been in charge of the Ministry of Labour now for nearly four years, and I will let my record speak for itself, but even if good temper was not one of the qualities necessary for any Minister of Labour, let me say this, that the Members opposite make one mistake, among others, about the unemployed. The great majority of the unemployed do not share the prejudices or thoughts or ideas expressed on their behalf by hon. Members opposite, and I believe that to be the case in this particular instance.
§ Mr. Brown
No, I cannot. The hon. Member for Camlachie showed complete confidence except in one passage of his speech, and there he was uneasy. I took his words down, and he said that this Amendment was not intended as a reflection upon the patriotism and the loyalty of the classes of citizens included in it. If he had not felt that they might have thought that, he would not have said it. He was uneasy, and he was right to be uneasy, because, as a matter of fact, these men will not want the choice that he wants them to have. They will not want to be segregated from their fellows. They will want to stand with other citizens. I am not going to enter into a great discussion about the old, age-long pre-capitalist strife between wealth and poverty here on this Amendment, except to say—
§ Mr. Brown
What I am saying about the unemployed is, first, that they will not want segregation; secondly, that they are as patriotic as any other section of the community and, therefore, will not desire this Amendment; and, thirdly, that in spite of what hon. Members opposite say about destitution and so on, there is not another country in the world—and they know it—which treats its unemployed citizens better than does this country. I was charged just now with having a brazen effrontery, but it is brazen effrontery on their part to talk about it, for at this very moment it is a fact that in 1938 with 125,000 fewer unemployed on the register than there were when hon. Members opposite were responsible for them, we were paying £9,000,000 more a year than when they were in office. There is a reference in the Amendment to the means test, and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked whether, when these men have done their service, they will come back to the means test. The answer is "No." During the six months they are in training their cards will be stamped and contributions will be paid on their behalf. The result is that they will not come back to the means test but to benefit inside the scheme.
§ 9.6 p.m.
§ Mr. Buchanan
I had no intention of making from my new position my first speech on this subject, but the Minister 591 of Labour devoted his speech to me instead of the Amendment. It is true, as the Minister said, that when a man is serving for the six months his card will be stamped, but the Minister must know that a man must work for further stamps in order to qualify for benefit, because the Act says that it must be 30 stamps in two years, and I have yet to learn that six months in training will accumulate 30 stamps. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman is lecturing us about being accurate, it is well that he above everybody else should state what is accurate, because he receives much more than I do for knowing the law. I hoped that the Minister would say something in the way of making concessions on this Amendment. We are dealing with terribly poor people, many of them in my division living in single-apartment dwellings. It was said of such men by a member of the first Coalition Government, whose name, I think, was Long, that if a man fought in the War and came back to live in those conditions it made his fighting a thing that was of no avail.
We are dealing with men living in poverty and I would have thought that the Minister would say, "I am not accepting the Amendment but I am going some way to modify the conditions that give rise to it." I hoped he would say that the Government would abolish the means test and take away its worse forms. Instead of that he makes some
§ cheap patter about me. All of us have a past, and he himself has a past which, if anybody cared to dissect it, would not always redound to his credit. Whatever past I have had I have not tried to cloak it with religion during the period I have been here. I should have thought that the Minister, instead of making cheap jokes and gibes, would have applied his mind to the Amendment and have announced some concessions like the abolition of the means test, or, if not its abolition, at least a raising of the standard of comfort of the man when he comes out of the Army and of those dependent on him. It is a terrible thing that the moment you get a man into the Army you abolish malnutrition for six months for him. I thought at least the Minister might have announced a policy that would have abolished malnutrition for him after he left the Army and that, while he was in the Army, if he had a wife or a mother or a sister dependent on him, malnutrition would have been abolished for them, too. The Minister has done none of these things, and has not, in fact, applied his mind to the Amendment at all. As a protest against the Minister not in any way meeting the problems which the Amendment raises, I hope the Committee will go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 199.593
|Division No. 106.]||AYES.||[9.13 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Dalton, H.||Hicks, E. G.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Hills, A. (Pontefract)|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton||Hopkin, D.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Day, H.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)|
|Ammon, C. G.||Dobbie, W.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Ede, J. C.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Kirby, B. V.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Frankel, D.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Barr, J.||Gallacher, W.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Batey, J.||Gardner, B. W.||Lathan, G.|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Garro Jones, G. M.||Lawson, J. J.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Leach, W.|
|Benson, G.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Leonard, W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Leslie, J. R.|
|Bromfield, W.||Grenfell, D. R.||Logan, D. G.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Lunn, W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)|
|Cape, T.||Groves, T. E.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Chater, D.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||MacLaren, A.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hardie, Agnes||Marshall, F.|
|Collindridge, F.||Hayday, A.||Mathers, G.|
|Cave, W. G.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Maxton, J.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Milner, Major J.|
|Daggar, G.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Montague, F.|
|Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)||Viant, S. P.|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sexton, T. M.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shinwell, E.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Noel-Baker, P. J.||Silverman, S. S.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Simpson, F. B.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Paling, W.||Sloan, A.||Westwood, J.|
|Parker, J,||Smith, E. (Stoke)||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Parkinson, J. A.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Pearson, A.||Smith, T. (Normanton)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Poole, C. C.||Sorensen, R. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Pritt, D. N.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Richards, R. (Wrexham)||Summerskill, Dr. Edith||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Ridley, G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Riley, B.||Tinker, J. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ritson, J.||Tomlinson, G.||Mr. McGovern and Mr. Stephen.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Hambro, A. V.||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Hannah, I. C.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury),|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Hepworth, J.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Higgs, W. F.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Balniel, Lord||Holmes, J. S.||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Rowlands, G.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hunter, T.||Salt, E. W.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Sandys, E. D.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Kimball, L.||Scott, Lord William|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Selley, H. R.|
|Bull, B. B.||Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Latham, Sir P.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Leech, Sir J. W.||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Cary, R. A.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Levy, T.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Lewis, O.||Somerset, T.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Liddall, W. S.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Lindsay, K. M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Lipson, D. L.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Little, Sir E. Graham-||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Critchley, A.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Loftus, P. C.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Lyons, A. M.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Culverwell, C. T.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Magnay, T.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Denville, Alfred||Maitland, Sir Adam||Tale, Mavis C.|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Doland, G. F.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Donner, P. W.||Markham, S. F.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Touche, G. C.|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Turton, R. H.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Elliston, Capt. G, S.||Moreing, A. C.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Nall, Sir J.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Fleming, E. L.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Furness, S. N.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wragg, H.|
|Gledhill, G.||Owen, Major G.||York, C.|
|Gower, Sir R. V.||Peake, O.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grimston, R. V.||Petherick, M.||Mr. Munro and Major Sir James Edmondson.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Radford, E. A.|
§ 9.21 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "from," and to insert "beginning with."
This is merely a drafting Amendment to specify more exactly the starting point of the period of liability to be called up for military training. It will now include the actual day of registration.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 9.22 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "register," to insert:after he attains the age of eighteen years and.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
As Sub-section (3) stands there is no age limit below which the Minister may not, on good cause, permit registration. That is obviously an illogical position, because even in the case of the Regular Army there is an age limit below which a recruit may not be accepted. That age limit used to be 18 years, but it has recently been reduced to 17½ years, and to 17 years if the recruit is able to show that he has obtained his parents' permission to enlist. Therefore, whether or not the Minister acquiesces in my proposal that the age under the Conscription Bill should be 18, he will, no doubt, find it possible to agree that there should be some limit below which he is not entitled to register a person under this Bill. I submit that the age limit should be not less than 18 years. It is true that under the pressure of obtaining recruits under the voluntary system it has been found necessary to reduce the age limit from 18 to 17½ and 17, but now that the voluntary system has been to a large extent abandoned I cannot feel that there is any necessity for retaining the lower age limits. In all the history of the legislation of conscription in all countries" 18 has almost invariably been the lower age limit below which recruits 596 might not be pressed into the service, and such small research as I have been able to make shows that we have to go back to the reign of Alfred the Great before we can find conscription Bills entitling boys below 18 to be called up, but under the general levy then the age limits were 16 to 60, and that is some indication of the pressure of circumstances which required the age limit to be below 18.
In the history of our own compulsory recruiting, even in the desperate years around 1800, 18 was the lower age limit below which conscription did not apply, and therefore I suggest that there is no valid reason why it should be below 18 now. Even if we take countries where conscription has for hundreds of years been an integral part of the military system, we find that there has been no compulsory recruitment below the age of 18. Even in the case of the famous levée en masse under the French system just before the French Revolution, the age limits were 18 to 45, and a few years later—I think it was the year 1798—when there was introduced the prototype of all modern conscription legislation, the legislation which provided Napoleon with all his armies and enabled him to boast that he could expend 30,000 men a month, the age limits for compulsory service under that measure were 20 to 25. So I suggest that there is no good reason why we should go below that age for compulsory service.
There is indeed in logic a reason at the present moment, and that is that any prospective recruit at the present time could evade all his obligations under this Bill by joining the Regular Army at 17, with his parents' permission, and 17½, without; but, in my submission as we in Committee to-day made it the principle that 18 is an age low enough, then the logical consequence of that would be that the Minister, under what are now I believe his administrative powers, would raise the age of voluntary recruitment to 18. When the age of 18 was fixed, under the stress of tremendous military pressure on this country and on Continental countries, the actual strength in numbers of the Army was an even more important factor than it is to-day. Then the strength of nations was to be measured by the strength of soldiers in the line; to-day the strength of a country is measured, 597 to a certain extent it is true by soldiers in the line, but to a far larger extent by numerous other economic and technical factors, which did not apply in the old days. And yet even in those old days 18 was thought to be right as the lowest age to adopt.
Then there is an argument on which I shall not expatiate at undue length, because I know that the House wants to go on to other Amendments—there is what I call the psychological argument. Although I speak with no professional or medical authority, I am convinced that the best age for a soldier is certainly not the age of 18. But although I have no medical knowledge, I can speak with a considerable amount of practical experience of two or three different arms of the Service, and so far as my experience and recollection and present knowledge go, I would far rather have men over the age of 20 in battle; in fact, a man from the point of view of mental stamina and courage is far better after 20, let alone after 18. Indeed, from that point of view, I think a man progressively strengthens his mental and moral fibre up to the age of 40 and even 50. So from a purely mental point of view, I cannot think that there is any advantage in falling below this very low age of 18.
There are hon. Members in the House who can speak with greater authority than I can on comparative physical strength, but I believe that in physical stamina and in powers of resistance a man after the age of 18 is a far better soldier. If there were any valid reason why we should go below 18, then one might be prepared to reconsider the matter, but I can see no reason—neither a physical reason nor a reason in respect of the numbers required, nor in respect of the shortage of men—why we should go below the age which I propose should be the limit. It is perfectly true that an argument of convenience might be advanced. It might be said that a prospective soldier, as he reaches the age of 17, might like to say, "If I can get done with my compulsory service within the next year it might be very much more convenient for me than if I leave it till I am 18." But that, I submit, is rather a fallacious argument, because if it is to be conclusive it applies equally well to every age at which a prospective soldier would be capable of taking the training.
598 Moreover, I do think we ought to give the prospective recruits this extra year of discretion. A man when he is 15, 16, 17 or even 18 has a much more romantic temperament. That is the age at which they run away to sea, or fall in love, or join the Conservative party. I think it is a very good thing, if we compel these men, to set the age of 18 before the Minister is entitled to register them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, now that he is provided with this mighty instrument for strengthening the numbers in the British Army, feels that he can reduce the age to 18, I believe he will be taking a step that can be recommended on every ground.
§ 9.32 p.m.
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
I have listened with respect and enlightenment to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), illustrated as it was by a wealth of historical and factual analogies. We have now reached the place in this Bill where it has been clearly established that every male British subject ordinarily resident in Great Britain shall, while he is between the ages of 20 and 21 years, be registered for military training in the United Kingdom, and during that period the is liable to be called up. There is, however, a provision that the service may be postponed or ante-dated. Nothing in this Act, however, fixes the age to which his service may be ante-dated. It is to fill that gap, as I understand it, that the hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment and has said that the Minister may ante-date his period of service to 18.
We are not dealing here with any matter of compulsion; we are dealing here with a matter of convenience. This is to meet the situation of a young man who, for reasons concerned with his career, or for other reasons, wishes to do his period of service before he reaches the age of 20. Therefore it merely becomes a question at what age he may do this service in advance of the age of 20. I thought, when the hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment, that his intention was to fix the age at the same age as that which is fixed for the entry of recruits into the Regular Service, naval, military or air. The general age is 17½, and not 18, and therefore the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would have some logical basis if 599 it fixed the age where I have stated it to be in the case of the Regular Services. Accordingly—because the Government wish not to be rigid in this matter but to lay themselves open to persuasion—I would willingly accept such an Amendment on such a logical basis, that the age should be iy£ to suit the convenience of these young men. Therefore if the hon. Gentleman wishes to accept it in that form—
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
I am trying to be conciliatory and to meet the argument that was advanced. I am dealing here with the convenience of the young men concerned. The position is that the same young man entering the Regular Army could enlist there at the age of 17½.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a boy who joined for boy's service in the Regular Army is allowed to commence man's service under present conditions?
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
The age, as the hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware, was reduced to 17½. He would begin man's service at that age. I have reduced it to 17½ from 18 to meet arguments that were put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite relating to certain difficulties in connection with the Army Act. I am willing to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they so desire, by making the age logical throughout, that is to say, the age of 17½. I hope hon. Members will realise that I am meeting in a good spirit what has been proposed. If hon. Gentlemen do not desire that, they need not accept it.
§ Mr. Gallacher
Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Government to give us that extra six months for discussing the Bill?
§ 9.37 p.m.
§ Mr. Alan Herbert
The point raised in the Amendment is referred to in a letter I received last night from the Registrar of Oxford University. This letter makes me think that the Minister might be able to consider the Amendment even more favourably than he has yet done. The Registrar says:As regards the 1,000 boys who come up in 1940 and who will, during their under- 600 graduate course, become liable for military service, 500 will be coming up under the age of 18½.Nowadays they come up to the University at a much younger age than they did in the days of myself and of my right hon. Friend:If these boys are not given the option to postpone, they will have to begin their six months' training under the age of 18. This is regarded, I know, by many headmasters as extremely undesirable on various grounds and is regarded with anxiety by the Universities because of the serious risk that, at that age, a six months' break might be followed by reluctance to resume academic work as well as a serious loss of habits of intellectual application and of knowledge. These objections are slightly diminished as boys grow older and would not apply with equal force to those who would normally be coming up at 19½, though they could still not be disregarded. The numbers of boys coming up as old as 19½ is now quite small.I imagine that this point will be raised again upon the Report stage. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give it consideration in the meantime.
§ 9.39 p.m.
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
If the argument that has been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) is as I apprehend it, the cases he referred to can be completely met under the Bill as it now stands. The Government are perfectly contented with the Bill as it stands. The Minister may, in order to suit the convenience of the applicant, ante-date or post-date the applicant's liability. The hon. Member opposite says: "Let the Minister ante-date his liability," but not to 17½, even though that age would suit the man and his parents better. I am anxious to meet the point of view of hon. Gentlemen but—
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
—if that is not hon. Gentlemen's apprehension of the matter, let us leave it as it is. Let us leave it in the complete discretion of the Minister, who has a full reply to the kind of case brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert). The Minister naturally wishes to make his scheme a success and not to damage in any way the careers of these young men, and he will fix the date, after consultation, according to the best interests of the student. As for my desire to meet the point advanced by the 601 hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), if it does not meet with favour the Bill had better remain as it is.
§ 9.42 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
I am not unappreciative of the conciliatory spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown, but I do not feel able to accept his concession for two reasons. First, I feel that he would be bound to give that concession in any case. Secondly, his logical mind being what it is, if he will take a little
§ longer to consider the argument which I advanced in favour of the age of 18 we may find that by the time the Bill reaches the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the age of 18. I do not regard him as estopped from accepting that age by anything that he has said to-night.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 215.603
|Division No. 107.]||AYES.||[9.43 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Paling, W.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Parker, J.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Groves, T. E.||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Pearson, A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Poole, C. C.|
|Atllee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hardie, Agnes||Price, M. P.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hayday, A.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Ridley, G.|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Riley, B.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hicks, E. G.||Ritson, J.|
|Benson, G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Broad, F. A.||Hollins, A.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Bromfield, W.||Hopkin, D.||Shinwell, E.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Silkin, L.|
|Cape, T.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Chater, D.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Sloan, A.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kirby, B. V.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Collindridge, F.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Lathan, G.||Scrensen, R. W.|
|Daggar, G.||Lawson, J. J.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Dalton, H.||Leach, W.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Leonard, W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leslie, J. R.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Logan, D. G.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Day, H.||Lunn, W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dobbie, W.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||McEntee, V. La T.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Ede, J. C.||McGhee, H. G.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||MacLaren, A.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Westwood, J.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Marshall, F.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Frankel, D.||Milner, Major J.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Gallacher, W.||Montague, F.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Graham, D H. (Hamilton)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Noel-Baker, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Oliver, G. H.||Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mathers.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Beechman, N. A.||Cary, R. A.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Blair, Sir R.||Castlereagh, Viscount|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Bossom, A. C.||Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Boulton, W. W.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Brass, Sir W.||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Colville, Rt. Hon. John|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Critchley, A.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Crossley, A. C.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Bull, B. B.||Crowder, J. F. E.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Cruddas, Col. B.|
|Balniel, Lord||Burton, Col. H. W.||Culverwell, C. T.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Butcher, H. W.||Davies, C. (Montgomery)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Carver, Major W. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Denville, Alfred||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Levy, T.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Doland, G. F.||Lewis, O.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Donner, P. W.||Liddall, W. S.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Lindsay, K. M.||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Lipson, D. L.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Little, Sir E. Graham-||Salt, E. W|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Loftus, P. C.||Scott, Lord William|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Lyons, A. M.||Selley, H. R.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||McKie, J. H.||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Magnay, T.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Maitland, Sir Adam||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Mander, G. le M.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Somerset, T.|
|Firming, E. L.||Markham, S. F.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Foot, D. M.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)|
|Furness, S. N.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Gledhill, G.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Cower, Sir R. V.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Moreing, A. C.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Tasker, Sir R. 1.|
|Gritten, W. G Howard||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Tale, Mavis C.|
|Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Hambro, A. V.||Munro, P.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nall, Sir J.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Nevan-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Touche, G. C.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Turton, R. H.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Hepworth, J.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Higgs, W. F.||Owen, Major G.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Peake, O.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Holmes, J. S.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Petherick, M.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||White, H. Graham|
|Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Radford, E. A.||Whitelay, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Ramsden, Sir E.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Hunter, T.||Rankin, Sir R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Rayner, Major R. H||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Kimball, L.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Wragg, H.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)||York, C.|
|Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Latham, Sir P.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Leech, Sir J. W.||Rothschild, J. A. de||Major Sir James Edmondson and Lieut.-Colone Herbert.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rowlands, G.|
§ 9.50 pm.
§ Mr. Greenwood
I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "years," to the second "the," in line 10, and to insert:(4) The Minister shall permit any person so registered to postpone his liability to be called up for military training if he is satisfied that the person is undergoing a term of apprenticeship or is engaged in full-time education or otherwise studying for a professional examination or university degree.(5) The Minister, if satisfied that there is good cause for so doing, may permit any other person so registered to postpone his liability to be so called up.(6) In any case to which the foregoing sub-section is made applicable.While the Bill as it stands makes provision for the postponement of compulsory 604 service, the matter really lies, under Subsection (3), with the Minister, who may postpone the liability of persons to be registered for compulsory service. My Amendment would leave out the words which make this optional on the part of the Minister, and would insert compulsory words making it obligatory on the Minister, in the case of persons who are undergoing apprenticeship, or are engaged in full-time education, or are studying as external students for university degrees or professional examinations. I put forward this proposal in order to carry out what I said earlier was our intention, namely, to create the minimum of inconvenience in these circumstances.
605 We had hoped that it would have been possible to put the date of compulsory service earlier, at the age of 18, but we wish it to be obligatory on the Minister, where the conditions laid down in the Amendment are fulfilled, to allow persons in this position to postpone their military service. It is clear that, with boys who are apprenticed, it would be advantageous to them, and, indeed, to the nation, that they should, if they so wished, be entitled to postpone their period of military service until they have completed their trade training. That, of course, is especially important now, because, as I have tried to point out to the House and to the Committee on more than one occasion, the problem of production is becoming our really vital problem, and it would be against the national interest if persons apprenticed to skilled occupations could not complete their apprenticeship before they were called upon to fulfil their responsibilities under this Bill. It is possible now under the Bill to postpone the period of compulsory service, and I imagine that that will apply to persons engaged in university life and so on, and we should like a university student who chooses to postpone his period of service until after the end of his university career to be entitled to do so.
I come now to the case of students at universities like London University, where most of the students are people working at other jobs and trying to carry on their studies for their own education or advantage professionally. They also ought to be enabled, by declaration that they are engaged on study of this kind, to postpone their period of training. Then there is the case of those who are not engaged in seeking university degrees, but who are trying while they are engaged in one occupation, to qualify themselves for another. I will mention, as an example, people who are engaged in industry and commerce and are studying to get in some branch of the Civil Service. If they are snatched out now, it may be that they will never get back. That will be a hardship. We believe that those persons, on proof that they are engaged on work which ought to be completed, should be given a specific right under the Bill to postpone—without the Minister saying whether they should or should not—their period of training. I hope the Minister 606 will be prepared to accept what is a reasonable and, in my view, a constructive Amendment.
§ 9.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I am sorry to rise at this early stage in the Debate; but the Debate must end in two minutes time, and it will be in the interests of both sides if I give a brief statement of our intentions in regard to apprentices and university students. I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, because it draws up two or three definite categories whose training must be automatically postponed. We feel that this must be left to the discretion of the Minister and the hardship committees, for reasons which I should be glad to explain at length if there were time. We want this scheme to work with the minimum of hardship. It is our intention to get into touch at an early date with the organisations concerned with regard to apprenticeship, and to seek their advice as to how this scheme should work. We are also in touch with the vice-chancellors of the various universities through the University Grants Committee, and the Members of Parliament for the universities, many of whom are here to-night. We are in consultation with the Board of Education about students at institutions such as training and technical colleges.
With regard to university students whose examinations are due in June of this year, they will be able to go through their examinations without fear of being called up. It will not be possible to call up men for training before the end of June at the earliest. I hope that this will be a reassurance to such people. With regard to apprentices I think it should be pointed out that if their calling up is postponed until their period of apprenticeship is over, they will lose the protection of Clause 6, which is a very valuable protection. I would like to leave the Committee with the reassurance that any comments hon. Members may make to my right hon. Friend or myself, by correspondence or in conversation on a subject very near to their hearts, will be taken into full account by us, and we shall do all that is possible to work this scheme with a minimum of inconvenience to all concerned.
§ It being Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this Day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.608
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left6 out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 151.609
|Division No. 108.]||AYES.||[10.2 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Moreing, A. C.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Findlay, Sir E.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Fleming, E. L.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Munro, P.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Gledhill, G.||Nall, Sir J.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Gluckstein, L. H.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Goldie, N. B.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)|
|Assheton, R.||Gower, Sir R. V.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Balniel, Lord||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Patrick, C. M.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Grimston, R. V.||Peaks, O.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Hambro, A. V.||Petherick, M.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Hammersley, S. S.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hannah, I. C.||Pilkington, R.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton|
|Bracken, B.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Radford, E. A.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Hepworth, J.||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Higgs, W. F.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Bull, B. B.||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Holmes, J. S.||Richards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Burghley, Lord||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Rowlands, G.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Cory, R. A.||Hunter, T.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Salt, E. W|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Kimball, L.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Scott, Lord William|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Latham, Sir P.||Selley, H. R.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)||Leech, Sir J. W.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Critchley, A.||Levy, T.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Lewis, O.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Liddall, W. S.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Lindsay, K. M.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Lipson, D. L.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Loftus, P. C.||Somerset, T.|
|Denville, Alfred||Lyons, A. M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Doland, G. F.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Donner, P. W.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||McKie, J. H.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Magnay, T.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Maitland, Sir Adam||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Markham, S. F.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Touche, G. C.||Wells, Sir Sydney||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)||Wragg, H.|
|Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Williams, C. (Torquay)||York, C.|
|Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Warrender, Sir V.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Waterhouse, Captain C.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Mr. Furness and Major Sir James Edmondson.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Owen, Major G.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Paling, W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Parker, J.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hardie, Agnes||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Pearson, A.|
|Allies, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hayday, A.||Poole, C. C.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Price, M. P.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Bartlett, C. V. 0.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Batey, J.||Hicks, E. G.||Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hollins, A.||Ridley, G.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hopkin, D.||Riley, B.|
|Benson, G.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Ritson, J.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Bromfield, W.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Shinwell, E.|
|Cape, T.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Silkin, L.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirby, B. V.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Chater, D.||Kirkwood, D.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Sloan, A.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Lathan, G.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Collindridge, F.||Lawson, J. J.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cove, W. G.||Leach, W.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Leonard, W.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Daggar, G||Leslie, J. R.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dalton, H.||Little, Sir E. Graham-||Stephen, C.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Logan, D. G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lunn, W.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Day, H.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Thurtle, E.|
|Dobbie, W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||McGhee, H. G.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Ede, J. C.||McGovern, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||MacLaren, A.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Mander, G. le M.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Marshall, F.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Foot, D. M.||Mathers, G.||Westwood, J.|
|Frankel, D.||Maxton, J.||White, H. Graham|
|Gallacher, W.||Milner, Major J.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Montague, F.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morgan, J. (York, W. R., Doncaster)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Nathan, Colonel H. L.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Naylor, T. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Anderson and Mr. Groves.|
§ THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
Amendment made: In page 2, line 8, after "person," insert:
registered in that register, on application made by him within; the prescribed period after being."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
§ Mr. Gallacher
On a point of Order. I would like to know whether in view of the importance of some of these Amendments it would be possible to take some of the time allotted to some of the future Clauses and add it to the discussion of this Clause.
§ The Chairman
Because the hon. Member, like myself, is bound by t he Orders of the House.
611 Further Amendments made:
In page 2, line 18, leave out "whose decision shall be final."
In line 18, at the end, insert:(4) An applicant for such permission as aforesaid who is aggrieved by the determination of a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and the Minister if he considers it necessary may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, whose decision shall be final; and the umpire or any deputy umpire shall, when hearing any such appeal, sit with two assessors appointed by the Minister:Provided that if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee.(5) The Minister or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to be heard on any reference or appeal under this section.In line 34, at the end, insert:Provided that no prosecution in respect of any such failure shall be instituted without the consent of the Minister.In line 38, after "him," insert:and on furnishing the prescribed particulars about himself.In line 43, after "shall," insert:furnish the prescribed particulars about himself and shall."—[Mr. W. S Morrison]
§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of Order. I observe, with great respect, that a considerable amount of time is being taken up by the reading of Government Amendments. On the other hand, we have no explanation from the Government as to the meaning of these Amendments. What is the purpose of your reading them if we are not to be furnished with an explanation?
§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
Is it in order for the Government to draw a Bill so badly that they must put in Amendments which take nearly a quarter of an hour to read?
§ Mr. Shinwell
In view of the statement that you have just made, should I be in order in moving to report Progress?
§ The Chairman
No, I would ask the hon. Member to read the Order under 612 which we are working, under which that cannot be done.
§ Mr. Buchanan
May I ask whether you have not power as Chairman to make representations to the Government to stop this abuse of Parliamentary time?
§ The Chairman
I have no power in that regard. I cannot do anything contrary to the Order of the House.
§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the decision taken by this House, is it in order for me to suggest that we should now finish completely with Clause 1 and get on to Clause 2? The Order of the House lays it down that we are to finish with Clause 1 at 10 o'clock, and I suggest that we carry out the Order of the House.
§ The Chairman
I am bound by the Order of the House, and the hon. Member, who should be able to understand the Order of the House, is interrupting me in the performance of my duty under that Order.
§ Mr. Maxton
Is it not well within your power and your duty to select what Amendments shall be taken and what Amendments shall not be taken? Would it not be desirable that you should cease selecting these Government Amendments, since the time for discussion has expired?
§ The Chairman
I must ask hon. Members to read the Order of the House under which we are working. I have no option but to put the Government Amendments.
Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 5, after "Committees," insert:and to persons appointed to sit as assessors with the umpire or any deputy umpire.In line 6, leave out "he," and insert, "the Minister."
In line 9, after "Committees," insert:or who appeal from the decisions of such Committees and to any witnesses whose attendance is certified by any such Committee or by the umpire or deputy umpire, as the case may be, to have been necessary.In line 10, leave out "he," and insert, "the Minister."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 134.615
|Division No. 109.]||AYES.||[10.21 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Goldie, N. B.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Gower, Sir R. V.||Pilkington, R.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Radford, E. A.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Grimston, R. V.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Assheton, R.||Hambro, A. V.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Astor, Viscountess Plymouth, Sutton)||Hannah, I. C.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Balniel, Lord||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Richards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Beechman, N. A.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Bernays, R. H.||Hepworth, J.||Rowlands, G.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Higgs, W. F.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Boulton, W. W.||Holmes, J. S.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Bracken, B.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Salt, E. W.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Hume, Sir G. H.||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Hunter, T.||Scott, Lord William|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Selley, H. R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Bull, B. B.||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Burghley, Lord||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Kimball, L.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Latham, Sir P.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Cary, R. A.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Leech, Sir J. W.||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Levy, T.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Lewis, O.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E Grinstead)||Liddall, W. S.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lindsay, K. M.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Lipson, D. L.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Little, Sir E. Graham-||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Loftus, P. C.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Lyons, A. M.||Tasker, Sir R. 1.|
|Critchley, A||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||MeCorquodale, M. S.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Crossley, A. C.||McKie, J. H.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Magnay, T.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Maitland, Sir Adam||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Gulverwell, C. T.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M||Touche, G. C.|
|Denville, Alfred||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Turton, R. H.|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Markham, S. F.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Doland, G. F.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Donner, P. W.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Duncan, J. A. F.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Moreing, A. C.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Munro, P.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Nall, Sir J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Wragg, H.|
|Fleming, E. L.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||York, C.|
|Furness, S. N.||Owen, Major G.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Patrick, C. M.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Peake, O.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Captain Dugdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.|
|Gledhill, G.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Petherick, M.|
|Adam, D. (Consett)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Pearson, A.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hardie, Agnes||Poole, C. C.|
|Alexandar, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Price, M. P.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hayday, A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Sanfield, J. W.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Ridley, G.|
|Barr, J.||Hicks, E. G.||Riley, B.|
|Batey, J.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Ritson, J.|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Hollins, A.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benson, G.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Shinwell, E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Silkin, L.|
|Bromfield, W.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirby, B. V.||Sloan, A.|
|Cape, T.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Chater, D.||Lathan, G.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leas- (K'ly)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lawson, J. J.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Leach, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Leonard, W.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leslie, J. R.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Logan, D. G.||Stokes, R. R.|
|Daggar, G.||Lunn, W.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Dalton, H.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Thurtle, E.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||McEntee, V. La T.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||McGhee, H. G.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Day, H.||McGovern, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dobbie, W.||MacLaren, A.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||MacMillan, M. (Western Islet)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Ede, J. C.||Mander, G. le M.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Marshall, F.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Mathers, G.||Westwood, J.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Maxton, J.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Frankel, D.||Milner, Major J.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Gallacher, W.||Montague, F.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Oliver, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Paling, W.||Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Parker, J.|