had given notice to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they may insert in the Bill provisions for the protection of employed persons (holding or eligible for certificates of exemption) from unfair treatment by employers in connection with disputes as to wages, hours of labour, or other conditions of employment."

I do not think that the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset is necessary, because what he proposes will come within the scope of the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Obligation of Unmarried Men to Serve.)

(1) Every male British subject, who, on the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen,—

( a ) was ordinarily resident in Great Britain; and

( b ) had attained the age of eighteen years and had not attained the age of forty-one years; and

( c ) was unmarried or was a widower without children dependent on him;

shall, unless within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to this Act, be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty's Regular forces for general service with the Colours or in the Reserve for the period of the war, and to have been forthwith transferred to the Reserve.

(2) The Army Act (with the exception of Section ninety-six thereof, which relates to the claim of masters to apprentices) and the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882 to 1907, and any orders and regulations made thereunder, shall apply accordingly to any man who is so deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve; and if any question arises in any legal proceeding under any of those Acts, orders, or regulations whether any man is a man who is under this Section deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve or not, the Court may require the man to give evidence on the question, and if satisfactory evidence is not given to the contrary the man shall be deemed to have been as enlisted and transferred.

(3) Provision shall be made under Section twenty of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, for information being obtained from men who are transferred to the Reserve under this Section as to preference for naval service in case their services are needed for that purpose

I may not perhaps be quite in order, but I want, for the convenience of the House and of the Committee, to say that we do not propose to proceed to-night with the discussion in Committee beyond line 11 of the first Clause which deals with qualifications [ end of paragraph ( c )]. I do this because there has not been adequate time for consultation and discussion with regard to the exceptions. The three paragraphs in the part proposed to be taken to-night include the question of Ireland and that of age, on which Amendments have been put down, and these, I hope, will be discussed. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Bonar Law) has kindly consented to take general charge of the Bill in Committee, as the pressure in regard to other Bills prevents me giving constant attendance. Still, I shall hope to be able to deal with some of the main points as they arise.

I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "British subject" ["Every British subject"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "Persons born or naturalised in Great Britain."

Assuming the good faith of the Government in drafting this Bill to apply only to Great Britain, my Amendment is only a drafting Amendment which would effect the object logically and justly. There are many men in this country technically British subjects and as such comprised in the Bill who it is thought undesirable and impossible should be compelled to fight for this country. The reasons for so treating them vary with the circumstances under which they have become British subjects. Without touching persons of enemy origin, this Bill surely requires modification to meet the case of persons of neutral origin who are now British subjects, without necessarily severing their connection or ties with their native country. There are many things which you might properly require them to do, but it must be obvious you cannot in prudence or justice treat them indiscriminately like born Englishmen in the administration of an Act like this. If they offer armed resistance are you prepared to shoot them and take the consequences? It is most undesirable from every point of view and certain to lead to confusion or worse if attempted—as it will be unless the Bill is amended, and I hope, therefore, there will be no hesitation in accepting my Amendment dealing with these persons.

Coming within the ambit of this Bill as drafted would be men born in any part which is now British territory, whether it was British territory at the time of their birth or not, or born on a British ship at sea. I need not, indeed, occupy the time of the Committee by pointing out the different classes of persons, and how they are affected. It was outside the province of the draftsman to consider the multiplicity of complicated questions certain to arise in attempting to apply Conscription to persons belonging to such varied classes. But has the Cabinet considered these questions? Apparently not. There is no trace of consideration of them in the Bill, and indeed consideration would be endless and would involve a Bill of huge dimensions taking months to discuss, if it were to be undertaken. The simpler and only practical method is to rule them out by excluding all such persons from the scope of the Bill, and my Amendment proposes to do that. Any attempt to conscript these various classes could not but lead to immediate confusion, turmoil and probably bloodshed. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, or South Africans residing in this country may or may not volunteer for the War. But does anyone imagine you can safely attempt to force such men to fight? Surely not. And would you shoot them and take the consequences if they offered armed resistance? I say in all sincerity do not attempt it, but instead amend the Bill as I propose.

Take next the narrower grade—the Irish in Great Britain. My Amendment should in justice comprise all Irishmen, though born here, and should include all whose fathers were born in Ireland, but in order to disarm criticism and to make sure of the more restricted Amendment passing it has been drafted so as to treat Irishmen just like any other persons. As a general rule, Irishmen leave their own country only in obedience to pressure from the evicter, or because of economic causes, both of which are a result of British rule. You remorselessly cleared their parents off the land, and although you have since passed laws making restitution, yet you are now suspending the operation of those laws in order to force those who have left Ireland to fight for you. That they are not skilled mechanics is also due to you, because you deliberately destroyed Irish industries and prevented their revival, making the acquisition of mechanical skill impossible. The fishing industry, which is treated as essential in England, is not deemed essential in Ireland. You disinherited Irishmen in their own country, and having failed to keep your promise to restore them to their heritage, you by the need of work and by skilful contrivance drive them from Ireland to find employment in this country, and then you leave them no alternative but to kill or be killed while defending young Englishmen who are safe at home practising industries which you do not allow them to practice in Ireland. You take advantage of circumstances which are of your own making, and by lack of good faith and honourable conduct you fail to carry out the Prime Minister's pledge that Irish recruits are only desired as the free gift of a free people. Instead you would have the realisation of the triumphant cry once used by the "Times" newspaper: "The Celts were gone with a vengeance," and it would be a continuation of the theory of Anglo-Saxon superiority which prevailed in this country before the War, and which ever since you have been reproaching or accusing the Prussians for entertaining. It would prove to the world that your rule was specially designed to bring your soldiers from Ireland to defend Englishmen engaged in safe industries which you do not allow the Irish to practice. Not only are the young men thus forced out of Ireland as good Irishmen as those who stay, but your unjust treatment, that forces them to leave their country, makes them more intensely Irish. You have no moral right to capture them in this country than you have to follow those of them who go to America and capture them there. Will you try that? You do not even attempt to capture those of them that go to your own Dominions, such as Canada or Australia, because you dare not. You should not attempt in your own country what you would not dare to do anywhere else. I have no desire to develop the argu- ment in this direction. The justice and logic of my Amendment should make doing so unnecessary. I am well aware that justice and logic do not go far in any Legislature; compared with prudence and wirepulling they are nowhere. If any Irishmen in England offer armed resistance, are you prepared to shoot them and take the consequences? I submit it would be far better to adopt my Amendment. I have neither wires to pull nor puppets to work for me. Fortunately, in this case, I count with confidence on the support of an expert wirepuller, who has the additional advantage of having held for some thirty years the confidence of the Irish in Great Britain and of being bound by every obligation that can bind a man to defend them against Conscription. Though I have not spoken to him on the subject, I feel confident that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) will, if only to regain his lost power, support my Amendment.

I hope that the Committee will not insert this Amendment in the Bill. I am bound to say that I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon having succeeded in attaching to a very small Amendment a very considerable speech, which covered practically all that the Bill proposes to do. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should leave out the words "British subject," which are very well understood, and insert the words "person born or naturalised in Great Britain." That would have the extraordinary effect that a British subject born anwyhere out of the United Kingdom, but having resided here for the greater part of his life, which is clearly a case which ought to be covered by the Bill, would escape. I have only to intimate that to show the Committee that it would be destructive of the whole Bill as proposed by the Government to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, and I sincerely hope that in these circumstances he will not think it necessary to press it.

Amendment negatived.

With regard to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey)—[In Sub-section (1), after the word "subject," to insert the words "resident in the United Kingdom at the date of the passing of this Act"]—it does not read as he has put it on the Paper. I am not clear what is his purpose.

May I explain? My Amendment is intended to call attention to the fact, which is brought out by a subsequent Amendment in the name of the President of the Local Government Board, that the Bill makes no provision for British subjects who were resident in Great Britain up to 15th August, and who are now in the Colonies or on the Continent on legitimate business, say, on hospital or Red Cross work, or on grounds of health. Although the Amendment put down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman makes partial provision for these cases, unless the scope of the Bill is limited to people who were resident in Great Britain at the time of the passing of the Bill, there will be very serious injustice. I do not want to press my words, but to get an assurance from the Government that a satisfactory way will be found of dealing with these cases.

Of course, I could not allow an Amendment to be moved which would not read if inserted. Perhaps the hon. Member had better raise his point by proposing to leave out the words "fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and to insert the words "at the passing of this Act." That would enable him to raise his point.

I shall be quite prepared to do that.

May I ask you, Mr. Whitley, if a manuscript Amendment has been handed in, in any name, which I think would cover the same point?

I would venture to suggest that as I have been called upon I might be allowed to raise this point. My Amendment was put down at the very outset—at any rate, the substance of it. The Committee should realise that the Bill as drafted would do a serious injustice to a large number of British subjects. There is no provision that those British subjects who at the present moment are abroad and who would come within the scope of the Bill can bring their cases before a tribunal. A number of them cannot leave the work in which they are engaged without that work being destroyed.

On a point of Order. Is not the Amendment the hon. Member proposes to move very much wider than the one he put down and not merely a substitute for it?

I am glad the hon. Member has drawn attention to that. I think it is so. It is not desirable to raise two questions in one Amendment if we can avoid it. Upon reconsideration, I think the best way would be for the hon. Member to move it as he had it on the Paper, although it might require consequential Amendments if it were adopted.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "subject," to insert the words "resident in the United Kingdom at the date of the passing of this Act."

I have no desire to press the words I have put down. I merely want to raise the question and to get an assurance from the Government that the matter will be dealt with in a satisfactory way. I was explaining to the Committee that there is quite a number of cases with which I am sure the Committee will wish to deal properly, but which cannot be dealt with as the Bill is drafted or even under the words of the Amendment which the President of the Local Government Board has down a little later upon the Paper. He proposes that those who are outside the country now shall be able to come, on their return to the country, within the limit of a month before a tribunal, and that will meet the case of those persons who return. But there is a considerable number of persons who cannot return without their work suffering, especially such workers, for instance, as a certain number now engaged in Albania and other places looking after Serbian refugees. It is not desirable, and I am sure the Committee does not wish that that should be the case, that any stigma should be put on these men, because they are doing valuable work and yet they cannot possibly return within the limits provided, and if they remain to the end of the War doing their work they will be under the stigma of having been called upon to do their duty and not having done it. But it is clear, if their case could be brought before some tribunal, they would receive exemption. There is also the case of men who have gone abroad on grounds of health who would, if they could come before a tribunal, also receive exemption, but there is no opportunity provided—for instance, invalids and people suffering from or threatened with consumption. There are, of course, cases of men who are engaged on legitimate business and even business of national importance whose case is not provided for unless they return to the country. I shall be glad if the Government are able to give an assurance that these cases will be dealt with in a satisfactory way.

I really do not think this Amendment is required. I quite appreciate the case my hon. Friend raises. Possibly there will be cases of people who have left this country upon whom liability rests, but I am advised that the case is covered by the Bill as already drawn. If not, it will be quite easy to provide for it. But this Amendment goes a great deal too far. It will come into conflict with the date which is already taken for the commencement of the Act. But as the hon. Member only argued it on the minor and narrower case I hope he will not press it.

If the case put by my hon. Friend is not provided for in the Bill as it stands, will the right hon. Gentleman make provision for it on the Report stage?

I think the minor point is met.

Take the case of a man who was abroad on legitimate business before 15th August. If he comes back within the time provided for appealing to the tribunal in this Bill he will be subject to certain penalties. He will be in this country and will be technically an offender against this Act. How is the case of that man going to be dealt with? How is this obvious weakness in the Bill going to be met?

I think my hon. Friend is quite right. The case which has occurred to him has occurred to me also. I have read the Bill right through to try and find how men who have left the country since 15th August would fare, and I have come to the conclusion that they would be liable on return home to be treated as deserters and to have committed an offence under the Act, and that there would be no machinery for exempting them from the very severe penalties to which they would be liable. I propose to deal with this in another way. I think the class of man who is in our mind now ought to be put into the list of exemptions, and I have put down an Amendment which I hope the Government will look at. I propose to add to the list in the first Schedule—

"Men who since the 15th day of August, 1915, have lawfully left the United Kingdom and have continued to be absent therefrom."

If the Government would promise to consider that Amendment favourably, or if they cannot accept it on the Schedule to introduce at some other stage provisions in the same direction and with the same object, we should be entirely satisfied.

I do not think there is any real difference of opinion as to what is desired in connection with this Amendment, but I am sure the Government could not accept it. If it means that anyone who is ordinarily resident in this country on 15th August happens to be out of the country I am sure we shall all agree that temporary absence should not free him from liability to serve under the Bill. On the other hand, no one desires that anyone who is away on legitimate business should be liable to penalties when he comes back, or should be fetched back. That is a different thing. There is no intention either to fetch them back in such circumstances or to make them liable to penalties. We shall consider it, and if we find later on that there is any real danger of that happening we shall take steps.

I am very glad of the way the spirit of the Amendment has been met. If it can be made quite clear, if necessary by additional words, that there is no penalty and no disgrace or stigma attaching to a person who is away on war work, relief work, or hospital work, or work of that kind, or to invalids, and if that case is considered and safeguarded I am perfectly satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Does the hon. Member for Gorton wish to leave out "15th day of August"?

In view of the statement that has been made I do not desire to move it.

I beg to move, after the word "in" ["was ordinarily resident in Great Britain"], to insert the words "the United Kingdom of." I am zealously anxious that the stigma which the Bill as at present framed conveys to my countrymen should if possible be removed, because I feel profoundly that in the circumstances in which the Empire is placed at this moment when the call comes to every who who owes allegiance to the flag to treat Ireland in this manner, differently from England, does convey something very close to a reproach and a disgrace which will take a considerable length of time to remove. I do not desire to make the slightest political capital out of the question. I should be grieved above all men in this House if that should be the result of the Amendment which I propose. I share to the very fullest extent the gratification and delight at the great numbers of my fellow countryman who have rallied to the Colours in this crisis of the Empire. I care not if they come from the North of Ireland or from the South of Ireland, from the East, or from the West; that they are Irishmen as a source of pride to me. I care not what their motives may have been, I care not what the regiment is to which they may have attached themselves and in which they have chosen to serve. I am gratified that there are such numbers who have heard and responded to their country's call. Therefore, I shall not in the course of the observations I have to make do anything in the way of praising this district, or blaming that district. It will be time enough for arguments and statements of that kind when the War is over. When we have attained the period for which we so ardently long, namely, honourable peace, it will then be time, if we are so minded, when the occasion arises, to distribute praise and blame; but at the present moment arguments based upon such considerations are not pertinent to the discussion. It is in that spirit, and in that spirit alone, that I approach consideration of this Amendment.

What is the principle which prompts me to move the Amendment? We have been told that men are indispensable for the successful prosecution of this War. We have been told that we cannot win unless the men are forthcoming. Efforts have been made throughout this country and throughout Ireland to induce men to come to the Colours, but all those efforts and all those who have responded have not yet been able to satisfy the demands which the occasion makes. It has consequently become essential, and it has almost become an accomplished fact that other measures are necessary in England, Scotland, and Wales in order to secure that the necessary number of men shall be forthcoming. There are men in Ireland, men of the very finest quality, men who come exactly within the definition of this Bill after all exemptions and exceptions are allowed, and I do say that these men of my country, who can be so described, ought to take their share and part in this great conflict, and that the very circumstances which have rendered necessary such a measure in this country, apply with equal force to my countrymen at home of a like description. I have seen discussions about figures, and I have read the figures that were given to this House by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell). I have seen those figures criticised elsewhere, but I am not going to deal with those figures. I am convinced that they are not exactly accurate—indeed, the Chief Secretary never suggested that they were, and in that he was right. Personally I prefer the evidence of my own senses to all the figures that were ever framed or printed. I live in Ireland. I have come from there. I spend my life in the very centre of that country, and I see, as I walk about the streets, numbers of men who are eligible, suitable, competent and capable, and if the circumstances are such that you are compelled in England, Scotland and Wales to bring in a measure of compulsion, which is really only compulsion in name, then why in the name of reason, when the men are there in Ireland, and when we are told that they are required—why in the name of reason and sense is the measure not applied to Ireland? For my part I can see no reason, and I understand no argument on that point; certainly none that has yet been suggested in this House conveys even a scintilla of reason for the exclusion of my fellow countrymen from this Bill.

What is the attitude of Ireland towards this Bill? We have heard a great deal of discussion about that. I will draw my own conclusion, and ask the Committee to draw their conclusion on the observations that have been made during the course of discussions on the War and kindred subjects in this House. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) declared, and in this he was speaking the true sentiments of Ireland as a whole, and let there be no mistake about it, I believe she is. The hon. and learned Member said, further,

I believe that those are the real sentiments of Ireland towards the War. I believe that the great majority of the people of every class, and of every kind, no matter how they may be divided upon other questions, all that is worth consideration amongst them is really unanimous upon this matter. Under those circumstances I ask this question. Having so expressed the views of my fellow countrymen, I ask, Is compulsion necessary to end the War? Who are to be the judges as to whether it is necessary or not? Surely the answer to that question is the Government, who have all the materials for forming a judgment. Surely they are the people to judge and not an outsider. When men may do exactly as they please, they are very hard to drive. I am sure the great majority of my countrymen will willingly accept the assurances of the Government and of Ministers, and when they tell us that compulsion in this country is necessary, and that men cannot be got without it, I am sure that my Irish fellow countrymen will willingly join and willingly acquiesce. When one comes to consider the qualifications which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford stated as to what he considered necessary, again I ask, Who are to be the judges as to the men who are asked to go and perform some act of sacrifice? Are not the responsible Government of the country responsible for its guidance, and are we not bound to accept their advice and follow their conclusion as to what is or what is not necessary? I believe that if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who represent the larger section of political opinion in Ireland, were really to unite on this question of having Ireland introduced into this Bill—I know that without their consent it will not be done—there would be no resentment in that country, and they would never seek to be told that they were a negligible section and not worthy of consideration. We must expect that there must be murmurings or unwillingness and disagreements in Ireland, just as there will be in England and Scotland, but there will be no more of these manifestations in my country than in yours. If my fellow countrymen will unite with us in asking that the word "Ireland" be introduced into this Bill, they will have done more to end this War than could otherwise be accomplished, and shown such a united front to our Allies and the enemy as to demonstrate that we are unitedly determined to pursue this struggle to the bitter end. That is a result which I most earnestly hope will be the outcome of an Amendment such as I propose. There is another aspect of this question which I should like hon. Members to consider, and it is this: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that Ireland is eager and willing to do her duty. I agree with him. The hon. and learned Member proceeded in very eloquent and magnificent language, with every word of which I perfectly agree, to speak as follows:— and let us insist that we shall bring the whole Irish soul into this controversy, for then, I am convinced, we shall win in a gallop. Let me comment for a moment upon the words of the hon. and learned Member. Surely I am entitled to say that if Irishmen presume to take part in dictating the lines that peace must follow, the least they can do is to use their very utmost efforts to secure the ends that they have in view. Surely it is not fair—it is not sporting—that Ireland should take up such a position as to say, "These are our dreams, there are our visions, these are our desires, as the outcome of this War. Secure them for us, avenge Britain—Scotland, England, and Wales; avenge Belgium," while, as I have endeavoured to show, there are thousands of competent Irishmen standing by and doing nothing. "Avenge Belgium for us, secure freedom for Serbia, we want it, we desire it; secure that Alsace and Lorraine shall have what they regard as freedom, secure all those admirable objects and let us glory in the result while we take no share in the attainment of them." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] There are indicaions of dissent below the Gangway. Do not let that lead to the conclusion that I do not share in the glory or that I do not feel pride in the knowledge that there are large numbers of Irishmen fighting for their country. My point is this, that there are thousands who are not doing so, and I say that if compulsion be necessary for such men in England, it is equally essential for Ireland.

Men in that country are equally endowed with generosity and courage to submit to sacrifices in order to successfully prosecute this War, though there may be a section in Ireland, as I said before, who would be hostile to this measure; I believe, however, that in the conditions which are now prevailing in that country, particularly the conditions existing with reference to this War they will have very little influence. There is an atmosphere created in which men like those to whom I refer cannot live when put to the test; there is an atmosphere of sympathy with regard to this War; there is an atmosphere which I believe would not allow dissension on a scale worth thinking about to raise its head. If this be the reason—I can conceive no other—if it is because they are afraid of discontent and dissension on an alarming scale in Ireland, why not tell us so? Why not say, "That is the reason and the only reason why Ireland has been exempted from this Bill." I for one believe that they are profoundly in error in saying that, or in forming that judgment, having regard to the times and circumstances in which we live. There is one thing to which I should like to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and it is that the times have changed. An hon. Member in this House a few nights ago made a speech which affected me very profoundly. He was recently returned for Merthyr Tydfil. There is a lesson in that election. We all know that in days gone by such a speech from; the representative of Merthyr Tydvil delivered was not within the range of probability; but he, too, discovered that he was a Britisher, and curious as it may seem, and strange as it may seem, I believe that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will find that in Ireland there are more Britishers than they ever reckoned upon. They are growing in number day by day, and the changed conditions are creating them; they are men who have learnt and know that all that is best in their country is bound up with the prosperity and continuance of this Empire, and they will not be content, I say, to stand idly by while it is in peril, but that they will welcome an opportunity of taking their stand side by side with Britishers in this country.

But it may be said, "You cannot apply this measure to Ireland." I have endeavoured to anticipate one or two objections in that direction. They will say, no doubt, that there was no Derby scheme in Ireland. In answer to that I will only say that, although the Derby scheme was not in operation in Ireland, we had a scheme of our own. Let us apply it. Lord Wimborne has been very zealous in Ireland in recruiting. His scheme surely is of the essence of the Derby scheme, and could be made applicable to the purposes of this Bill if a scheme be necessary, which I do not for a moment admit. I have a strong reason for saying that no such scheme is necessary. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said, and said rightly, that in his judgment an inquiry should be made into each individual case on its merits. I agree with him, and if inquiry be made, what need is there for a scheme? There will be the same tribunals appointed, there will be the same opportunities for appeal, the same principles exactly will apply, and I cannot for the life of me see how any objection based upon the absence of the Derby scheme can possibly apply to Ireland.

We have been told that industry and commerce in Ireland require practically all the men that are left. I doubt the accuracy of an allegation of that kind, and, as I have already said, thousands can be spared from industry and from commerce. But how valueless such an argument becomes when in the very Bill itself provision is made for each individual case or group to come before the tribunals especially appointed, and whose main and only purpose will be to inquire whether or not the man who presents himself, or the group of men, can be spared from that industry or that commerce. Surely in the application of a Bill like this to Ireland no just or reasonable argument can be based on the fact that industry and commerce will suffer as a result. But it is said that Ireland is against compulsion. I have dealt with that already. I do not believe it is. I believe that there may be objectors here and there, but they will never be in such strength as to have any real position of influence. Are we not living every day under compulsion in Ireland? From the very day of our birth to the day of our death have we not compulsion of some kind or other? Now it has reached the stage when even if you want to leave Ireland to go to a foreign part you cannot leave it without a passport to enable you to go. No, I do not think any of these observations have weight. I just want to raise one other point, and that is in reference to the state of recruiting as I know it to be in Ireland at the present time, because I believe this Bill will not promote recruiting in my country. I believe it will probably have the opposite effect, though I sincerely hope it will not. What has been the state of affairs there? In the early stages of the War all the men in Ireland who were willing to go, and felt it was their duty to go, went. There was no need then for pressure or putting compulsion upon them. They answered to the call of the country and voluntarily took up arms. Since that time we have been trying all the sorts of inducements and pressure that were possible. We have not known the results of Lord Wimborne's scheme, as they have not been made familiar to us yet, but I hope that when they are they will be of a gratifying nature. At the same time I feel that we have reached the bottom so far as recruiting all the voluntary men we can is concerned. All the men whom pressure could affect have joined the ranks, and there remains only the class of men whom the Government must have had in their minds in this country when they introduced this compulsion Bill. I think it will be a great disappointment to those who are eligible in my country at the present moment, and with whom I have spoken, if this Amendment is not accepted, because I know the state of feeling and the convictions among a great number of the young men of that country. They say, "Thousands have gone, but now it comes to be a question of the remainder going we are perfectly willing to go if the others do. Take all, and we are perfectly willing to serve, but"—says one man—"I refuse to go while my fellow men in exactly the same circumstances socially as I am refuse to go." As they have put it to me, some say, "Yes, do let compulsion come. Do bring it upon us. Do let us be brought, because we shall not even have the obligation to decide for ourselves as to whether we ought or ought not to go, and we shall have an answer to the pressure that is being brought upon us to-day." I say it would be disappointing for hundreds of thousands of young men in Ireland if you failed to pass this Amendment and to make this Bill applicable to Ireland. Those are the observations which I feel it my duty to make in proposing this Amendment. I do so in no spirit of hostility to any section of my countrymen. I believe profoundly that I am voicing their real and true and heartfelt sentiments on this question, and I do believe that if my fellow Irishmen below the Gangway would join in permitting this measure to be passed for my country they would secure lasting gratitude in Ireland, and would have secured what is even a far greater and more lasting thing, the shortening of this War; and they would assure the conviction to those who are looking on as to how we are behaving at home that we are absolutely united from top to bottom as regards this controversy.

In rising to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend I shall adopt the attitude which he has done in addressing my remarks more to the Nationalist party and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) rather than to the Government, because we have already had from the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Balfour) the statement that the Government would welcome it even now if the whole of Ireland would come forward and take her part and share in the burden. It is, therefore, for this House to use every endeavour—both the Government, I hold, as well as private Members—to try to induce the Nationalist party to go one step further than the step they have already taken in helping not only the Bill through the House but in enlarging its scope, in order that we may cover our country as well as the country to which the majority of this House belong. May we say to our fellow countrymen that we know Ireland is not able to contribute to any large extent in wealth towards the assistance for winning our victories. Comparatively speaking, Ireland is a small country and cannot pour out its riches as England, Scotland and Wales are doing at the present time to help to carry on the great War. Secondly, Ireland is unable to help to any material extent in the manufacture of munitions, owing to the small number of factories, and, unfortunately, we have to take a very third-rate place in turning out shells, rifles and ammunition. Then with regard to economy, where this country is economising in all possible directions, in the Government Departments as well, unfortunately in Ireland I do not think that economy could be practised to such an extent that it would make a very material contribution towards the War, although I regret extremely that the Nationalists interfered with the inquiry in that direction which was tinder way a short time ago. Then with regard to what is almost as important as munitions and wealth, the shipbuilding industry. There again, except for the North of Ireland, unfortunately, the country as a whole is unable to give its assistance and help in the great matter of shipbuilding and all the allied trades.

But then we come down to where Ireland could help if she really threw her heart and soul into the matter, and that is with regard to fighting men. We cannot help in the directions I have indicated, but no one who knows Ireland would deny that there are half a million of sturdy men there who, if called upon on an equality with the rest of the United Kingdom, could be got to come forward, and I believe the majority of them would welcome coming forward at this particular time. The Nationalists, I do hope, will reconsider their decision. I do not picture myself anyone of the sporting Irish nature thinking for a moment that while men with families dependent upon them in England and Scotland, men who are unable really to come forward to take part in this great struggle without an immense sacrifice, are enlisting, these Irishmen should look on, and that single men with no attachments, with no real industry which keeps them pinned down to their country, should be remaining in the country. It appears to me that when this War is over, when we have victory within our sight even, Ireland will gravely regret the step which her representatives took in this House this day if they oppose the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend. A great deal of opposition to recruiting does take place at the present moment in Ireland, and I dare say if this Bill was put into force in that country that opposition would continue as it is to-day. But I guarantee to say that if the Nationalist party, together with their colleagues from the North of Ireland, were to go over to their native land and to say they came from the British House of Commons, united on this subject, prepared to stand by England in her hour of trial to this extent, I believe that opposition to recruiting would to a large extent melt away and disappear. Will they do it? I have had now some experience of approaching recruits in Ireland, and where there has been regret in the first instance frequently, and disinclination to take the important step of joining the Colours, there has been nothing but relief, and nothing but pride, in the man afterwards when he has taken the step, and he has told me himself that he was a prouder man to-day than he had ever been before. That is the experience of all those who have come closely into contact with urging men to join the Colours. They are loth to take a step into what they regard as the unknown. They are afraid, even, of the remarks of their neighbours. By this moderate Bill, by this only fair system of recruiting, you can meet, I believe, a great deal of this difficulty, and the dislike of coming forward will disappear in the minds of these people. You place all on an equality. We have one man saying, "I will not come because my neighbour will not go," and you take away the arguments of those who say that to take one and leave another is not fair to the State. I think the House is entitled to get, and probably will get, more explanation of why the Bill should not apply to Ireland, the right explanation, and not the explanation sometimes given in the Irish Nationalist Press. We are anxious to see these historic Irish regiments kept up to their full strength, not by drafts of Englishmen and Scotsmen. We think that these old and famous regiments—I refer to the whole of Ireland—should be kept up, and not only kept up, but that their reserves of 100 per cent. behind in this country should be kept up, by the pure blood of Irishmen, and none other. Think what it would mean if after the next great engagement in which Irish troops are engaged, instead of being able to send from the shores of Ireland man for man for he who has fallen, it becomes necessary to call upon some other part of the country to fill these unfortunate gaps. I do not believe that the pain and grief in Ulster in such an event will be greater than the pain and sorrow in other parts of Ireland. It has been found impossible to fill up these regiments in any other way. Take returns, and juggle them as you "will, any man who knows Ireland knows perfectly well that the regiments are not being kept up to full strength, and are not in such a state that anyone with military knowledge would say that in the event of a great engagement they could fulfil their true function of filling up the depleted ranks at the front. While that state of affairs rules, I do say that the party which represents the largest number of my countrymen should even, as the First Lord of the Admiralty said, at the eleventh hour consider all these things, and come forward boldly, and not allow themselves to be disfranchised from what is one of the most honourable and noble positions that any Irishman or any British subject could be asked to fill.

I would just ask the House to bear in mind two particular points. The first is that dislike to the Bill to a large extent is created by ignorance, the ignorance of the people who have not been trained to bear their fair share in the nation's burdens. The people living at long distances are not so well trained in the obligations of British citizenship as they should be. I cannot help casting a certain amount of blame upon the Government for not making during the War Bills of this nature, which are applicable to this country, applicable to Ireland also. You would have made the people of even the farthest districts in Ireland understand that this War is not only going on, but that it is a War which demands great sacrifice, if you had made the law so far as closing hours exactly the same as in England, and the laws with regard to racing the same as in England, and with regard to economy the same as in England, instead of teaching the Irish people that they could play their games while we are at war. I say that the Government are undoubtedly to blame for allowing the legislature of this country in all these matters to exclude Ireland, and thereby assure the Irish people that they are on a different plane and are not required in this great crisis. There is no more bottom in my remarks than to urge my fellow countrymen at this crisis, and I will go so far as to say I would welcome it, even if they came forward with a scheme which would in any event, in all events, keep their regiments at full strength with Irishmen alone. I would be content even to consider that compromise for this Bill which is before the House to-day, because all we want is that when the Army asks for men we should not have to say, "We cannot give them to you." If this great struggle goes on, surely every man will be required. My last words to my Nationalist fellow countrymen are these: It has always been a pride to a man, no matter what part of the country he came from, to say he was an Irishman. If he was travelling abroad and if he was taxed with the question as to where he came from, he would not hesitate to say in the past that he was an Irishman. But if Ireland, if the Irish Nationalist representatives in this House, refuse to come forward and take their fair share, for it is only a fair share, along with the rest of the Kingdom, then I say for my part if this victory is gained it will be no pleasure to me to call myself an Irishman, and in future it will either have to be a Britisher or an Ulsterman.

It is a great pleasure to me to see my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig) back again and, if possible, in more than his old form. I think I may say that there is hardly anyone in the House who makes less attempt to conceal his views, or whose views are less tinged with compromise, and yet I think there is no Member in the House who is more poplar with all sections of it. I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman and also the Mover of the Amendment on what seemed to me at least the moderation with which they stated their case. I may say for myself that I thoroughly understand, and I think I not only understand but I sympathise with the motives, all the motives, including the recollection of past controversies, which have made my right hon. and hon. Friends make such vigorous protests on the First and Second Reading against the exclusion of Ireland, and which make them now bring forward this Amendment. I said a few words on this subject in speaking on the First Reading of the Bill, but I did not then make any attempt to explain or justify the action of the Government, and, in particular, of the Unionist Members of the Government, in allowing Ireland to be excluded. I referred then to Ireland in an entirely different connection. I was making an appeal to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who had, as I know, very strong convictions against compulsion in any form. I cannot recognise that it is a matter of principle. That is impossible with. anyone who is determined at all costs to win the War. If it is a matter of principle it must mean that we would rather be beaten than sacrifice our principles. I cannot recognise it as a matter of principle, but feeling the strength of their convictions I did appeal to them to sacrifice them and not to thwart the Government in a measure which we considered necessary for the successful prosecution of the War. In making that appeal I justified myself and my Unionist colleagues in the Cabinet on this ground, that we had ourselves made what we regard as a real sacrifice of principle by leaving Ireland out of a scheme, even of a temporary scheme, for the national defence of this country.

I said then that on any question of principle it seemed to me impossible to justify the exclusion of Ireland. I still think so. Ireland, in my opinion at least, has as much to gain by our victory, and would suffer as much by our defeat, as any other part of the United Kingdom. There is no country also in which any system of compulsion has ever been introduced where it did not apply to all sections of that country. That is true, of course, as we know, of our Allies to-day. It is still more true of our enemy, and especially of the Austrian Army, which is filled with men whose sympathies are with the nationalities against which they are fighting, and who would never have joined those forces except under a system of compulsion. It is not only true of Europe, but it was true also of America in the Civil War, where the conditions were much more like those which prevail in this country. Lincoln, as we all know, was driven to impose a form of compulsion as reluctantly as the Prime Minister of this country. He did not suggest that compulsion should not apply to those States, and there were States, where the sympathies were divided between the North and the South. It is also against principle for another reason which will be recognised by everyone in the House. Whatever our views were about Home Rule, everyone was agreed that the question of Imperial defence must be a question for the Imperial Parliament and be treated as a whole. I say therefore at once that if this were a permanent system of national defence it would be utterly impossible to leave out Ireland, and I could not consent to its exclusion. But it is nothing of the kind; it is not a permanent system of national defence; it is a Bill introduced for one purpose only, and the only principle in this Bill, at least the only principle which I recognise in the Bill, is to get the men who, in the opinion of the Government, are absolutely necessary if our Armies are to be kept up to their proper strength, and to get them in the way that will cause the least friction and that will produce the smallest amount of division in the nation as a whole. That is the principle of the Bill.

If you look at it from that point of view, then the question as to whether or not Ireland is to be excluded is, in my judgment, entirely a question of what you would gain or what you would lose by an attempt to enforce this Bill on Ireland. That is the whole question. I said before, and I repeat it now, there is room for difference of opinion on that subject. Both my hon. Friends show that they have a different view. They are entitled to say that if we applied this Bill to Ireland we will get the men, and, what is more, that when they have joined the Colours we will find that, as in the past, so now, they will do their share, as gloriously as any other section which serves in the British Army. I noticed that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment went further and said that in his belief the idea that there will be any serious opposition in Ireland was unfounded. If we, if the Government, shared that view we should not have been justified in excluding Ireland, but I do not share that view. I believe as strongly as I believe anything, that looking at Ireland as it is, and there is no good in any of us hiding our eyes to what we all know, I do not believe that it would be possible to put this Bill into operation in Ireland without the exercise of force and of a considerable amount. Like my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, nothing would give me so much pleasure as if the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and his colleagues were to say to us, "It is possible for us to enforce this Bill in Ireland and we mean to try it." Nothing would give me greater pleasure, but in my opinion forces in Ireland are divided to a certain extent, and it would not be an easy thing to carry this Bill into operation. I am confirmed in this by remarks which were made by my right hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Campbell) on the First Reading. I can assure the House that it is no pleasure to me to emphasise the fact that Ireland is different from England, but it is. My right hon. and learned Friend said:— effects; we all know it, and it is necessity alone which has reconciled them to the position. I believe that if the natural tendency to opposition which does exist on this side of the House had been strengthened by the support which they would have got from the active hostility of the Nationalist party, it would have been impossible for us to have had that measure of consent in the House of Commons, a measure of consent far larger than I have ever seen in this House on any question, but which, large as it is, is not greater, I believe, than the assent which is given to this Bill in the country. For these reasons I sincerely believe, if we look at it with a single-minded desire to do what is best to help us win this War, that it would not have been wise, and if it would not have been wise it would not have been right, to try to enforce this Bill in Ireland.

But there is another point of view about which perhaps it is rather difficult to speak, but I think I can speak about it. I understand enough of the feelings of my Irish Unionist friends—in fact I share them strongly—to realise that at the back of their minds they have this feeling: they know they would like to see the Bill applied to Ireland as a whole, they believe that those whom they represent entertain the same view, and they do not think it right that Unionist Members of the Cabinet should have consented to an arrangement which does not make it plain that the responsiblity for the leaving out of Ireland rests with the Nationalist Members in this House. They would have liked, therefore, that Ireland should have been included in the Bill, and that, if necessary, later on it should have been left out. I have sufficient echo in my mind of the old prejudices to confess that perhaps I would have liked that myself if I did not think it would do harm. But I think it would do harm. Let the House and let my hon. Friends opposite consider what the position would have been in that case. I shall say nothing, or very little, about an initial difficulty. That initial difficulty was the Prime Minister. In view of the deep-rooted feeling against compulsion entertained by his party, to which I have already referred; in view of his own repugnance to it, of which we, his colleagues in the Cabinet, have been well aware, and which was only overcome by the necessity of the situation; in view of the circumstances in which this Bill was introduced in fulfilment of his pledge; and in view of the limited scope of the Bill, I really do not believe, putting myself in his position as well as I can, that it would have been possible to insist that this Bill should apply to Ireland. If that is so, I for one would have been no party to making an attempt to try to get him to do it. But look at it from a narrower point of view. What would have been the position of the Unionist members of the Cabinet if we had adopted that view? The position of the Unionist Members of the Cabinet is perhaps bad enough now, but it would have been much worse then.

Impossible!

How could we possibly have justified allowing Ireland to be put out on an Amendment moved by hon. Members below the Gangway after we had deliberately shown that in our opinion Ireland ought to be included? I do not think we could have done it. At all events, I would have considered that an intolerable position. As I have already said, I do not profess to have forgotten all my party quarrels of old, and I am not sure that I would not have liked to see my Irish Unionist Friends get an advantage if it could have been done. But, after all, there is something higher than any consideration of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), in the most moving speech I have ever heard him deliver—and I have heard many speeches from him—said something like this: "If we win the War, what does it matter? If we lose the War, what does anything matter?" I am quite sure that that was not a burst of rhetoric on the part of my right hon. Friend. I am quite sure that he meant every word of it, and I am perfectly certain that if he believed that the course he was recommending would injure us in the conduct of the War nothing in the world would have made him do it. We all of us have tried to say the same thing in other words, and we have meant it too. I am quite sure of this—and I believe I speak for all my Unionist colleagues in the Cabinet—that we would never, while the circumstances of the country are as they are to-day, do anything which, in our judgment, whether that judgment be right or wrong, that would weaken us in the terrible struggle in which we are engaged.

That, I think, is all I desire to say on this subject. I need not pay any tribute—though I am tempted to do so by the speeches of my hon. Friends—to the courage and patriotism of the men of Ulster and the other Unionists in Ireland. The House knows how warm my feelings are for that section of the population. But there is something which, before I sit down, since I am speaking on this subject, I should like to say, and which it would not be candid of me if I did not say. To anyone who knows the history of Ireland, who knows the history of Ireland in our own lifetime and of the part which has been played by Nationalist Members in this House and Nationalist Members in Ireland, to anyone who recalls the state of this country during the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, when Ireland was a constant source of danger to Great Britain, it is not a small thing, it is a very great thing, that for the first time in our history the official representatives of the Nationalist party are openly and avowedly on the side of Great Britain. It is not a small thing that my right hon. Friend the junior Member for Trinity College (Mr. James Campbell) should have been able to say with sincerity and truth that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) has done everything in his power from the beginning to help us in this War. It is no small thing to those of us who remember this history of Ireland, to put it at its lowest, that the Nationalist party is divided, and that a large secion of it is supporting us in this War.

The overwhelming majority.

I am glad to think so, and that only makes the point stronger. It is a great thing that now in this War so large a number of Nationalist Irishmen—I am certainly not going into the question of figures—far larger than was ever the case before, are sharing the privations and the risks, are facing and suffering death, side by side with our own people; and whatever our controversies may be later, I belive that all that will have a lasting effect and will do more, perhaps, than generations of ordinary lifetime in producing that spirit of wider patriotism of which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary spoke the other night. I am quite sure that neither the hon. and learned Member for Waterford nor any of his colleagues will misunderstand what I have said. It does not mean in the least that I have changed my views on any of our old controversies. They will expect that from me just as little as I expect it from them. In the meantime I really loathe the idea, which has been constantly before my mind as a possibility, of partisan strife-at home even in connection with the conduct of the War. In these Islands we have enough to do—quite enough, perhaps more than enough—in fighting our enemies. There will be time enough later to fight each other. I am not going to make a. direct appeal to my right hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friends opposite, including the English Members, will keep in their minds the considerations that I have tried to put before them, and which I am sure they understood already. But whether or not my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to take a Division on this question—I should be glad if he did not do so—I am sure that every one who supports him is as much in earnest as any man in this House in getting this Bill through and that nothing will be done by them to endanger or delay it.

May I be allowed, in the first place, to join with my right hon. Friend (the Colonial Secretary) in welcoming back my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig), because, perhaps, no one knows better than I do that the ill-health which has kept him away so long, not merely from here but from his division at the front, was entirely brought about by his enthusiastic efforts to raise the Ulster Division in Ulster. I myself warned him many times that spending long hours with his division and going out night after night getting recruits would sooner or later lead to illness such as he has had. I know of no man who has secured more recruits in Ireland than my hon. and gallant Friend. When the Second Reading of this Bill was on I made a rather long statement as regards the exclusion of Ireland. I pointed out that I knew of no reason why Ireland should be excluded if Great Britain was included. I am bound to say that I still see no reason for that exclusion. But it is not necessary to elaborate that, because my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary admits that, so far as the question of principle is concerned, no distinction could be drawn as between England and Ireland. In point of fact, I understand that the defence he makes is really that he felt bound, on a survey of all the conditions and views which existed in the Cabinet, to make what I think he called a sacrifice of that principle, no doubt believing it to be in the best interests of the country. I also pointed out on the Second Reading that I was very much disappointed that a question which was really an Imperial question should be looked upon as a local question. My right hon. Friend has, I think, acceded to that contention also, and he says that he had that matter before his mind at the time the Bill was decided upon in its present form.

5.0 P.M.

I am exactly of the same opinion as I was upon the Second Reading. I think Ireland ought to be included; but it is perfectly plain to me, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we are not going to get the inclusion of Ireland without the assent of hon. Members below the Gangway. I do not want to enter into any protracted debate, or any protracted discussion whatsoever with hon. Members below the Gangway. I have had none since the War commenced. Certainly, if I can avoid it, I am not going to have any until the War finishes. I can only appeal to them, as my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment have done, in the same terms as I did upon the Second Reading. If they do not agree to include Ireland, well, then, for my own part, after what my right hon. Friend has said, I am not prepared, by pressing this Amendment, to delay this Bill by one hour. I think Irishmen, taking them as a whole, will have made a great mistake. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) a moment ago interjected the observation that the overwhelming majority of the Irish people were in favour of this War, and of the prosecution of it to the bitter end. It seems to me that that admission is one which might lead them a little further, to say: "We will in this House do what the overwhelming majority of the Irish people are in favour of, take such action as will enable us, all the sooner, to bring the War to a successful conclusion." My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said that if we persisted in this Amendment we would weaken this country in the struggle. I am sure he would not have made that statement unless he believed it. I am not prepared, however much I am in favour of any Amendment, to divide the House in reference to something which, if carried, might weaken this country in the struggle in which we are engaged. For my own part, I should be very sorry, at this stage, and on a question of this kind, under the circumstances that my right hon. Friend has described, to have any divergence of opinion at all that would seem to lead to the idea that we had any lack of confidence in him, or the other Unionist members of the Cabinet. Therefore, I shall advise my hon. Friends the Irish Unionist Members, under the circumstances, not to press this matter further, not to prolong the Debate, and not to have a Division. If the Irish Members were willing that the concession should be made, I understand that the Government would accept, and, to my mind, that would be the most satisfactory course. Let me only make one other observation. My right hon. Friend has borne testimony to the part played by Irishmen as a whole during this War, and of the Irish troops from all parts of Ireland. I am as proud of that as any man in this House can be, just as proud of the part played by Irishmen in the three southern and western provinces as I am about the men of the North of Ireland. I desire, as I said before, that no controversy should take place. I desire that everything should be done in relation to Ireland that is best for presenting a united front in the face of the enemy. As my right hon. Friend tells me that this is best done by the course the Government has taken, however much I may regret it, I will accede to that view.

I can assure the House that I would have been very glad indeed if I had found it possible to abstain from taking part in this Debate. But I feel that, after the turn the Debate has taken, it would not be respectful to the House if I did not offer a few observations. In what I have to say I will speak with extreme candour. I deplore more than words can say the situation that has arisen. I have for a long time past dreaded the raising of this issue, because I have felt that undoubtedly, if Conscription in any form were passed for Great Britain, and if Ireland were excluded, that Ireland's whole attitude towards this War was likely to suffer cruel and unjust misrepresentation. Hence I deeply deplore the situation in which we find ourselves. But the situation has arisen, and we must face the facts. The simple fact is, as I understand the situation, that Conscription in Ireland would be impracticable, unworkable, and impossible. Conscription, if in force in Ireland to-day, or sought to be enforced, instead of leading to an increase in the number of Irishmen in the Army, would, in my opinion, have the opposite effect. It would most undoubtedly—and I am sure the House will believe that I am speaking of what I know—It would most undoubtedly paralyse the efforts of myself, and others, who have worked unsparingly—and not unsuccessfully—since the commencement of this War, and it would play right into the hands of those who are a contemptible minority amongst the Nationalists of Ireland, and who are trying—unsuccessfully trying—to prevent recruiting, and to undermine the position and power of the Irish party because of the attitude we have taken up. The mere fact that the Coalition Government recognises that, and recognises that under the circumstances it is not in the interests of the prosecution of the War, or of the Empire to extend this Bill to Ireland, ought to be sufficient, I think, to any Irish or Scottish Member of this House.

It is a significant thing that there are in this Coalition Government many men of various parties who have been closely associated in the past with the government of Ireland—men like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, men like the First Lord of the Admiralty, men like the present Chief Secretary, who has occupied his office longer than any of his predecessors since the Union—together with a number of other members of the Government who have been associated with the government of Ireland. They unanimously come to the House of Commons and say that in their judgment it would be inexpedient under the circumstances to apply this Bill to that country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded this Amendment—and if he will allow me to say so I am as delighted as anybody else to see him back in his place—perhaps it was the Mover of the Amendment—or perhaps both together—spoke of the justification for Conscription being a necessity, and alluded to the fact that the Government of the day were the only people who could declare this necessity. He said he was not going to set up his judgment as to what was or was not necessary. He would take the judgment of the Government. The judgment of the Government being that this Bill is necessary for Great Britain, he bows to that. Therefore, when the same Government comes down and says that it is not expedient to apply the provisions of this measure to Ireland, why will not he accept their deliberate judgment in reference to Ireland, as he does in reference to Great Britain? Even this discussion this after- noon, I feel with sorrow, will do injury. Allow me, however, to say very respectfully that I listened with the greatest possible pleasure, and indeed admiration, to the speeches which have been made by the Proposer and Seconder of this Amendment, not that I agree with what they said, but I recognise the spirit in which they spoke, and I recognise how they abstained from anything savouring of party controversy. They did abstain from anything which could be regarded by my hon. Friends and myself as provocative. I think, therefore, the House is to be congratulated on this, at any rate, that this thorny subject is being discussed in a reasonable and moderate spirit. I need not say, so far as I am concerned, that in the few remarks that I have to make that I will endeavour to imitate that spirit. I feel sure that that spirit will be followed by any Member of the Irish party who takes part in this Debate.

Allow me to point out to the Committee, on this question of military service, that Ireland has always stood in a separate and distinct position from this country. I would not go back into the far past, but I would point out that when the Territorial system was established for this country you refused to extend it to Ireland. The old Irish Militia was practically abolished and nothing was put in its place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Yes, I know the Special Reserve continued to exist, but for all practical purposes the Militia disappeared and nothing was put in its place. In my opinion that was a grave blunder on the part of this country. May I remind hon. Members that at the outbreak of the War, instantly, from the first day I urged that advantage should be taken of the existence of large bodies of Volunteers in Ireland to establish a system of enlistment for Home defence on somewhat similar lines to the Territorial system in this country? If that had been done, if, immediately I had made that offer, that system had been established, you would, in the course of a few weeks, have attained tens of thousands of men, and with this consequence, that almost immediately yon would have been able to release men of the Regular Army from defence work. Most undoubtedly you would have had, long before now, 75 per cent. of these men enlisted who would have volunteered for service abroad, just as happened in the case of your Territorials in this country. That was refused. From that day to this I have been unable to carry my view into effect. Let me point out, too, that the Registration Act does not apply to Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was at that time in the Government. He did not think it wise to extend the Registration Act to Ireland. In his speech defending the action of the Government in leaving Ireland out, he, on 8th July, said:— a fortiori he must consider that it would be unwise in a crisis such as this to attempt to force this Bill upon Ireland. The third point is this: The Derby scheme was not extended to Ireland, and, therefore, as the Colonial Secretary has pointed out, the pledge of the Prime Minister, which is the foundation of this Bill, had no reference to Ireland at all. But here I am reminded by a remark made by the Seconder of the Amendment, who said that if we could even now devise some scheme of keeping the reserve regiments up to their proper established strength, he would be prepared to make a compromise on those lines. I beg to remind the Committee that when Lord Derby's scheme was established in this country, another separate and distinct scheme was established in Ireland. It was established as the result of a conference held in the Vice-regal Lodge, presided over by the Lord Lieutenant, where I had the honour of sitting in council with many of the leaders of the Unionist party from the North of Ireland, and where we unanimously founded a scheme we all had which is the same as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At that conference the War Office took us into their confidence, and the general commanding the troops in Ireland, General Friend, on behalf of the War Office, told us in so many words what it was that the War Office asked Ireland to do. He said, first of all, we were not asked to create any new units. He pointed out that we had from Ireland already fifty-three battalions—sixteen battalions of the old regiments and thirty-seven of the three divisions of the New Army that have been raised. He told us that all we were asked to do was to maintain those regiments at their proper strength; that to do so from 1,000 to 1,100 men a week would have to be recruited, and he said that, if that number were obtained, "we shall then have a satisfactory inflow of recruits." That was the demand put before us by the War Office.

In November?

There was nothing said about November. So far as that is concerned, over 10,000 have been recruited. Now we have at the present moment twenty-six reserve battalions, and when we are asked for 1,100 men a week, I say that the scheme which was put on foot has been, and is being, successfully worked. Here is a speech made by the Lord Lieutenant, who is the Director-General of recruiting in Ireland—the same position as Lord Derby occupies here. It was made by him in the House of Lords about three or four days ago:—

"Ireland had received special treatment from the War Office, and had been able to state the exact requirements in regard to recruits. Three new divisions had been raised, giving fifty-two battalions, and the demand from the front for drafts amounted to 100 per cent. per annum. Therefore, if we were to maintain the fifty-two battalions at war strength for a year, 52,000 recruits would be needed annually. To fulfil that primary duty, they had organised a campaign in Ireland to obtain 1,100 recruits a week, as, if they could do that, they would keep up the national character of the Irish regiments and prevent dilution from other sources. In the first six weeks the weekly average had been 1,056, so that, up to the present, he did not despair of their aim being realised. It was not true for anyone to assert that the movement was a failure."

That is the statement of the Director-General of recruiting under the particular Irish scheme, and the fact that recruiting is going on in a fairly satisfactory way in Ireland is proved, I think, by the letter which the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin wrote in refusing to come with me to a recruiting meeting in Newry. That was a meeting organised by both political parties and clergy of all denominations, and was to have been presided over by the Protestant Primate, Dr. Crozier. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me as his reason—the letter was dated 6th December:—

"I have already, from time to time, made known in Ulster my views as to supporting our comrades at the front by keeping up the necessary reserves, and I am glad to know from the most recent reports that such opinions are being very patriotically replied to."

In Ulster.

You did not say in Ulster. Here is the letter. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not think I meant to misquote it.

"I have already made my views known in Ulster."

And the meeting was to be in Ulster.

And the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed had been "patriotically replied to." I am sure he does not want to do now what he did not want to do in his speech, and that is to draw distinctions between one part of the country and the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are doing it!"] I am not doing it. I did not say a word about Ulster. I have endeavoured to get the figures with reference to these reserve battalions, and it is a strange thing in all these matters how difficult it is for us to get from the War Office the correct figures. I have been unable to get the present strength of these reserve battalions at the present moment. I asked for them more than a month ago, and, although I have a list here of some of them, it is not a complete list, and I cannot quote it as an authoritative list; although it comes from a gentleman in high command in Ireland. I find that the 3rd Royal Irish Regiment in Dublin has 2,000 men; the 3rd Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers in Derry, 2,000 men; the 3rd Royal Irish Rifles in Dublin, 2,000 men; the 3rd Royal Irish Fusiliers at Lough Swilley, 1,600; the 3rd Connaught Rangers at Kinsale, about 1,600; the 3rd Royal Dublin Fusiliers in Cork, over 2,000; the Royal Irish Fusiliers in Belfast, 900; the 5th Royal Irish Rifles in Belfast, 870; and the 5th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 1,150. The gentleman who sent me these figures sent them at the commencement of December. Recruiting has gone on ever since, and I take it for granted that those numbers have been increased; but I regret very much we cannot get accurate figures. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Campbell) has just said that he asked for them. I would be very glad if he would join me in pressing for those figures, because we want to know exactly how we stand.

Recruiting in Ireland has really, on the whole, been very satisfactory. In the towns, in my opinion, it has been amazing, and that result—I think no one will contradict me when I say—is not confined to any one particular part. Towns large and small all through the country have recruited in a most satisfactory way. It is true that the agricultural parts of Ireland have not provided as many men as some people, perhaps, expected, and that remark is true of the agricultural parts in the north just as it is true of the agricultural parts in the south, and as it is true of the agricultural parts in England. The truth is, you can never get as large a proportion of men from the agricultural parts as you can from towns. I saw a letter in the paper the other day which said that the proportion of recruits in Ireland to the total population of Ireland was less than the total recruits in England to the total population of England. Of course, the explanation is to be found in the fact that England is a great industrial country, and consists of all those great centres of industry from which the recruits come, but that Ireland is in the main an agricultural country, with very few centres of population, and you know you cannot get the same proportion of population from agricultural districts as you can from the others.

Might I ask the Committee to bear with me for one moment while I endeavour to put this matter on what is, I think, a wider plane of statesmanship and common sense? The view which I heard expressed the other night in a speech full of inspiration—and, it seemed to me, of sound statesmanship, as well as of sympathy and eloquence—made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, is the view which I think men of all parties in this House ought to take. I listened to the concluding words of the Colonial Secretary to-night with the greatest pleasure and sympathy, because those concluding words were spoken in the same key and on the same note as the speech to which I have alluded. Remembering the past—remembering the very recent past—I ask any fair man in this House, Has not Ireland's attitude as a whole been something almost miraculous? I speak not now of the valour of Irish troops in the field. I speak not now of the Irish Guards at Mons, or the Royal Irish Regiment at Ypres, or the Dublins and Munsters at V Beach, where, although their names were never mentioned in the official dispatch, performed an achievement which General Sir Hunter Weston, in a speech made to them the next day, told them was "without parallel in the history of feats of arms." I speak not of the Munsters and Dublins at Suvla. I will not allude at the present moment any further to the experiences at Suvla, or to the Dublins and Inniskillings at Salonika, where, we are told, they saved the British and French Armies. I will not allude to what was done by the Leinsters, the Connaughts, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, or the Royal Irish Rifles—regiments from all parts of Ireland, and I am as proud of the Ulster regiments as I am of the Nationalists regiments. No, Sir, I do not I want to boast of these things. We Irishmen are inclined to take them as a matter of course; they merely keep up the tradition of our race. But I say, apart altogether from the performances of the Irish troops in the field, that Lord Kitchener's words are true that he wrote to the Vice-regal conference in Dublin, a couple of months ago, when he said that, in the matter of recruitings, "Ireland's performance had been magnificent." Let me ask any fair-minded men in the House this question: If five years ago any one had predicted that, in a great war in which the Empire was engaged, 95,000 recruits would have been raised from Ireland, and that there would be, as there are to-day, between recruits for the Army and Navy, Reservists, and the men in the old Army, 151,143 Irishmen with the Colours, would he not have been looked upon as a lunatic? The change in Ireland has been so rapid that men are apt to forget, and I am afraid that many men who are not a bit inclined knowingly to be swayed by partisanship are inclined to forget, the difficulties that my colleagues and I had to face. Last August General Botha sent this cablegram to me:— The result of what has happened in Ireland has been that a wave of enthusiasm has swept the hearts of every man of Irish blood in every one of your Dominions. I was told the other day by a gallant wounded Australian from Anzac that a large proportion—he said 20 per cent., but I do not venture to give the figure—of the Australians were Irishmen, and I know it is true that a large proportion of the Canadians fighting under your banner are men of Irish blood. Only a couple of days ago I received a New Year's card from the commanding officer and the officers of the regiment which has just been raised in Vancouver who called themselves the Vancouver Irish Fusiliers. They were commanded by an Irishman and composed of Irishmen. As the House and those who watch these things closely may remember, it is not so long since in Cape Town green flags were presented by General Botha's wife herself—I might remind the House that she is a member of the historic Emmet family—to an entirely Irish regiment raised there to help the Empire. It is the same in Quebec and everywhere, for a wave of enthusiasm has proceeded all through your Colonies, and by Irish people I mean those of Irish blood. That has been of incalculable value to the Empire, and it is the direct result of the action we were able to take in bringing the sentiment of Ireland into line with the rest of the Empire on this great issue. It has been of incalculable value in America. If anyone is inclined to doubt that let him refer to the Foreign Office on this question.

What I say to the House of Commons, speaking on those broad lines which I believe are the lines of real statesmanship, is, "Rest satisfied; do not seek to drive Ireland." I have, since the War broke out, devoted myself to this work of recruiting, and I have told the Irish people candidly that as a nation we should be disgraced before the world if we were not able to keep up reserves for our Irish regiments at the front. I met those Irish regiments recently in France, and in speaking to them, as I was privileged to do in most cases, I told them that I would promise them as far as I could, and as far as it rested with me, that I would spare no effort to raise the necessary numbers to keep their regiments at the proper strength. When I speak to them again I shall be able to say that the exclusion of Ireland from this Bill is another argument which makes it incumbent upon us to pro- vide those men, but do not make the work of men like myself more difficult in Ireland. Do not let any man in this House or out of it, for the sake of making a petty political point in the future against Ireland, throw away or endanger this great new incalculable strength to the Empire which has been gained by the transformation of Irish public opinion. The other day the Sovereign, in addressing a letter of good-bye and congratulations to the last and third of the Irish new divisions for the front, said he was confident that they would not only maintain but would add to the glorious traditions of the Irish regiments. His confidence was well founded. I say to you, "Let Ireland go her own gait in this matter," and believe us that when we make professions such as we have made that we are honest men who mean what we say. Trust us to know, after all, the best methods of getting recruits for your Army. Do not attempt to drive a people who have already gone far, and who have gone further than yesterday you could have hoped or believed. Do not weaken the hands of men who are straining every nerve to allay suspicion and to arouse enthusiasm in this cause amongst their fellow countrymen. Do not carp at Irish effort, and do not belittle Irish effort. Do not do these things, and if you abstain from doing them, then I believe this country may rely with confidence that until victory has been vindicated in the cause of liberty and justice in this War the Empire may count upon the loyal support and the gallantry of the Irish race.

I share to the full the pride which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has expressed in regard to the attitude of the Irish regiments now at the front, where they have shown, perhaps, even more of the heroism which is a great part of Irish traditions. I also agree with him in his admiration of the two speeches to which he has referred, one delivered from this bench the other night and the other from the opposite bench this afternoon. My right hon. Friend began by telling us that neither on the grounds of principle nor justice was he able to defend the exclusion of Ireland, and I entirely agree with him. That is a point upon which I confess I have never been satisfied until this afternoon, and I was satisfied by the closing part of the speech of my right hon. Friend, for when he began to develop other considerations, and proceeded to carry out his arguments, I frankly own that I came to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right, and had recommended a course which it would be wise for the House of Commons to proceed upon. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend on my left (Sir E. Carson) got up and made the speech that he did; and I venture to say to this House that on the last occasion when my right hon. Friend spoke he gave us one of the most powerful speeches I ever remember in the House of Commons. Nothing could have added to the force of that great speech more than the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford spoke with great admiration of the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment. I share that admiration, and I think it will be shared by those who may have the opportunity of reading it, as well as by hon. Members of this House. The Debate has shown something even more than those speeches, while again to-night the result of this short Debate will be to present to the world at large a spectacle which will show, not for the first time by any means since this War commenced, that in the face of a great crisis like that with which we are confronted, even upon subjects upon which many of us feel most acutely—and I know well how deeply the Ulster Members feel and have felt upon the exclusion of Ireland from this Bill—nevertheless, they have been willing and ready, with their Leader, to show once more to the world that in the presence of a great crisis like this the Parliament of the United Kingdom is always ready and prepared to present a thoroughly united front to the common foe we have all of us to defeat.

Having regard to the statement which has been made by the Secretary for the Colonies, and the appeal which has been made by the senior Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), I respectfully ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

I do not desire to prevent any hon. Member from speaking, but I collected the voices, and clearly it was the wish of the House that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

I wish to make a few remarks before this Amendment is with- drawn on the extremely important Debate we have had with regard to the exclusion of Ireland. It is not suggested that this exclusion is made on any ground of principle. The Colonial Secretary said very frankly that he would have liked to have seen Ireland included in this Bill, and the arguments used by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment were, to my mind, unanswerable for the inclusion of Ireland, if you accept the principle on which this Bill is drawn. If you take the practical grounds, the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment made an almost unanswerable case for the inclusion of Ireland. It is not suggested that there are not young men, thousands of them, in Ireland, who are perfectly capable of being enlisted, who are within the military age, and who would make admirable soldiers. Nor is it suggested that there would be no scheme available; in fact, we were told that although there may not be a Derby scheme in Ireland there is a Wimborne scheme. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the real ground for the Government not asking us to include Ireland? If they say it is desirable to have conscript soldiers in order to win this War, why is it that they do not have Irish conscript soldiers? On what conceivable ground is the distinction made? There is really only one ground on which the Government can exclude Ireland. They do not dare to include Ireland, because, as was suggested on the First and Second Reading, the Irish people would not stand it. The democracy in Ireland has developed in a way in which unfortunately it has not developed here. The Irish people know that Conscription sooner or later will undermine all our liberties. That is the reason why the Government of the day do not dare to include Ireland, and there is no other reason.

I therefore want to take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they will consider the case of all the districts in England to which the same argument which has prevailed with them in regard to Ireland applies and in which this Bill is going to create the most serious discontent and arouse the opposition of workmen who have hitherto been in favour of this War. I am as anxious as any Member in this House to see this War brought to a successful conclusion, but when I believe this Bill to be capricious, unfair; I believe it is put forward by a Government who do not themselves believe in Conscription, and who therefore apply it simply to the people whom they think will stand it. They do not apply it on any principle of justice. They do not apply it to Ireland because they know that Ireland would not stand it. They apply it to England because they believe England will stand it. England may stand it for a time, but I am inclined to ask whether in the long run it will not do more harm than good. I shall support the exclusion of Ireland not because I believe it is consonant with the principles of the Bill, but because in the long run I believe that it will lead to the exclusion of England, Scotland, and Wales as well. Nothing shows more clearly the hollow nature and bad nature of this Bill than the fact that as regards a part of the United Kingdom which produces the finest soldiers and the very best men for our Army the Government do not dare to apply the principles of it. Therefore, I say it is very important that we have had this Debate. It is the best possible comment on the way this Bill has been brought forward and has been pressed on the country.

I beg leave now to withdraw the Amendment.

Once leave to withdraw an Amendment has been refused, the Committee has no alternative but to take a Division or otherwise come to a decision.

I hope that I shall not be misunderstood by hon. Members opposite. When the hon. and learned Member for Waterford announced that the opposition of Members from Ireland would be withdrawn I quite understood his reasons for deserting what he considered to be a sinking ship, but I did resent his saying that this Bill should be hurried through Parliament. An issue has been raised by this Amendment which deserves the attention of the House, and that is the reason given for the exclusion of Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was acknowledged that there was no principle whatever involved in the exclusion of Ireland. You cannot have a geographical exemption, and the only grounds for exemption put forward were those of expediency. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said that it is not possible to put this Bill into operation without force and the exercise of a considerable amount of force. What does that mean? Ireland is to be excluded because Ireland will forcibly resist, and to force this Bill on Ireland we should have to use a considerable amount of force. What is the message to be sent out to the workers of Great Britain? "Resist, show that a great deal of force would have to be used, and you will be exempted." Will you say to the 600,000 miners who, through their delegates, have voted against this Bill, and to the trade unionists who in their millions, through the Trade Union Congress, declared against this Bill, "Resist; show that we should have to send the military into your district, and then you will be excluded"? That is what is involved in the statement of the Colonial Secretary. Resist; show that we have to use force, and you will be excluded. If we are to have Conscription, it should not be introduced in that form. The only advocacy of it which appeals to me is that it will secure equality of sacrifice and that it will bring all in alike. What does this Bill do? It leaves out the strong, those who can resist, and it brings in, and is designed to bring in, only the weak whom you know cannot resist. It is a cowardly Bill for that reason. Ireland says she will resist, and therefore she is excluded. But as regards a few men whose resistance will come from principle and conscience, you say; "We will carry you away one by one; come you under military law, and if you continue to resist we will shoot you." That is the Bill. It is a cowardly Bill, and the exemptions made in it are its chief condemnation. The message has now gone forth that exemption is to be got by successful resistance. I think it is a message which may be taken up in this country in condemnation of the Bill.

The speech which has just been made was not, of course, directed to this Amendment in particular, but was made in opposition to the Bill as a whole. At the same time, I am bound to confess that the action of the Government, whether for good or bad reasons, in leaving Ireland out of the Bill has laid them open to the sort of accusation which has been brought against the Bill by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am very anxious to say nothing to disturb that harmony which has happily been promoted between hon. Members above and below the Gangway upon this Bill. We are all quite conscious of the difficulties of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), which he put before the Committee in his very eloquent speech a few moments ago, but, when the hon. and learned Member speaks of his difficulties with regard to Ireland, and urges the Government and the Committee not to press Ireland too far, he ought to realise and acknowledge that those of us who have a knowledge of Ireland, who have a love for Ireland, and who take a different view of the subject, have also our difficulties to face and are also entitled to express our views. I represent in this House a constituency in the South of England, and since I have represented it I have always endeavoured to impress upon my Constituents that Ireland is a loyal part of this Empire, and that at any time of stress or difficulty or danger Ireland would be found willing to take her part of the burdens which this Empire might have to bear. I cannot help feeling that at the present time, or possibly in the future, my Constituents, looking at the burdens which they have themselves willingly borne in voluntary enlistment and in their willing adoption of this Bill, may be inclined to be sceptical when I tell them again that Ireland is prepared, and always has been prepared, to bear her share of the burdens. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford referred, and very fairly referred, to the very eloquent speech made the other day by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Certainly no one in the House listened with more admiration than I did to that very eloquent speech. Perhaps the most eloquent passage of it was that in which the right hon. Gentleman very vividly gave us one of his brilliant obiter dicta upon the question of patriotism. The right hon. Gentleman said that patriotism began in a small and local circle, and, like a circle in the water, gradually spread and spread until it embraced larger areas and covered an empire as wide as the world. It was a very eloquent and a very true passage. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman said, and I think with full justification, that patriotism in Ireland was much too local, and he went on to say:—

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, and it is just the difficulty in which we are placed with regard to this measure, that in dealing with this subject we are always open to the reproach of getting on to controversial ground if we even hint at the present time of the existence of those two Irelands of which we have so often talked in the past. The right hon. Gentleman knows that although patriotism in Ireland may be much too local, and although we want a larger and a more Imperial patriotism, that larger patriotism does in fact exist in one part of Ireland and among a section of the population. While one acknowledges that patriotism is a delicate plant that might be crushed by untactful management—the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in a similar spirit just now implored the House not to do anything to damage the growth of patriotism in Ireland—the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will acknowledge, if it is unstatesmanlike to crush a delicate plant in its immature growth that it is equally unstatesmanlike to crush, by snubbing and suppressing it, a patriotism which has shown itself to be on a level with patriotism of an Imperial growth. It is just because some of us know that patriotism does exist in Ireland that we differ from our Friends below the Gangway and are in danger of giving the impression of becoming controversial. That is the view which my hon. Friends from Ulster have put before the House and the Committee, and those who agree with them—of whom I am one—are anxious, although this Amendment, after the speech which has been made by the Colonial Secretary, will, I presume, not be pressed to a Division—that view should be realised and appreciated both in this House and in the country. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford very fairly, I think, appealed to us not to indulge in any petty Parliamentary point for the sake of scoring some theoretical political advantage. I think we are all willing to respond to that appeal. But I am sure, at the same, time, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will realise and acknowledge that we are entitled, when we represent a widespread and deeply-felt view, to give expression to it on the floor of this House. The point has been made by other speakers that not only do we want our country to openly assume before the world an equal share of the Imperial burden, but we are anxious that the regiments of which so much has been said by way of praise and pride should, throughout this War, be able to maintain themselves by Irish material. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has endeavoured to give figures to show that there is no danger of Irish regiments being filled up with other than Irish material. But I noticed that a speech was made in Ireland not very long ago by a very distinguished Irish soldier who was recently fêted in this House by hon. Members below the Gangway—I refer to Lieutenant O'Leary, V.C.—in which he said he looked upon it as a shame that in a battalion of the Connaught Rangers there should be no fewer than 900 Englishmen, because Irishmen were unwilling to come forward.

The hon. and learned Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) reproached some hon. Members above the Gangway for appearing to belittle the deeds of their fellow countrymen. Surely Ireland has sufficient military fame and sufficient credit to be able to stand without bolstering herself up with false claims in this respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, in his moving speech the other day, deprecated taking false credit and false praise to ourselves in Ireland, and when I listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford just now, ringing as it did with pride in the Irish regiments, I could not help wondering whether our English and Scottish friends were never inclined to think of us Irishmen as a little given to braggadocio, when we, whether above the Gangway or below it—and I think hon. Members in both quarters are open to the reproach—stand up here and talk in eloquent terms of the glorious deeds of the Dublins, the Munsters and the Inniskillings. I wonder, too, what the Coldstreams, the Gordons, the Lincolns and the Lancashires think when hearing these particular regiments belauded on the floor of the House, while their equally gallant deeds are passed over in comparative silence by hon. Members? I do not want to fall into the same error now. My own belief is there is no great distinction to be drawn in regard to the gallantry of regiments, whether they come from England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and we can very well do without a good deal of this belauding of particular local regiments. But I do think it important, whether regiments come from Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales, that their territorial bases should be as far as possible maintained, and that Scottish regiments which go out to the War manned by Scotsmen, or English regiments which go out composed of Englishmen, or Irish regiments which consist of Irishmen, should come home constituted of the same material. But in the absence of the very mild and proper form of compulsion which this Bill offers I am greatly afraid that, whatever may be the case with British regiments, the Irish regiments will show a very small proportion of men from their own country. I know there are a number of Wiltshire and Hampshire men in the Tenth Division already, and although I am as glad as anybody could be to claim all legitimate credit for Irish soldiers—

How many Irishmen are there in English regiments?

I cannot give the exact figures, but I have been informed that from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the Tenth Division consists of English soldiers, and I know there were a number of Wiltshire men in that division some time ago. If these are the facts, after all they are all our countrymen wherever they come from, whether it be Wiltshire or Connaught, but do let us recognise the fact, and not in respect of a division of which 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. consists of men who are not Irishmen, claim all the credit for its valour for one branch, or one part of the United Kingdom. I am quite certain that, without this Bill, these regiments will not consist solely of Irishmen at the termination of the War, and it is because I am anxious that the praise bestowed upon them should be deserved, and that we should be able, while the War is on, to maintain for the Connaughts, the Munsters and the Dublins full credit for the valour of the deeds done by those regiments, and because I am anxious to preserve their characteristics by filling their ranks with material drawn from the proper quarter, that I express the view I do to-day. But I quite admit that the larger point is the one which weighs with me. Recognising that this is perhaps the greatest crisis in the history of this Empire, I do deplore more than I can say the fact that it should be said that Ireland, at that critical period, whatever the valour of her deeds, and whatever the grandeur of her enlistments on the voluntary principle may be, that when it came to the test of making this particular form of sacrifice, if it is a sacrifice, of submitting to the moderate form of compulsion embodied in this Bill, the majority of the representatives from Ireland shrank from it and refused to allow Parliament to include Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, in his very interesting speech, a speech marked by the candour which always distinguishes him, told us he was afraid that some of us on this side of the House might feel dissatisfied with the Unionist Ministers in the Cabinet because they had not adopted the procedure of putting Ireland into this Bill, and leaving it to hon. Members below the Gangway to move to leave her out. I do not myself feel any sort of dissatisfaction with our Friends on this ground. We have made it perfectly clear, at any rate, we are not in any way directly or indirectly responsible for this omission. In this I speak for the people of Ulster, who, at all events, are all very anxious to share this burden. I do not think, however, any movement of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway could have made it more clear that the particular attitude of Ireland is due to the desire of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. We were told by the Prime Minister the other day that no pressure had been brought by the hon. Member for Waterford to bear on the Cabinet in respect of this Bill. I am sure that is perfectly true. But then the hon. Gentleman had already made the opinion of his followers perfectly clear. They had already passed a Resolution which left no doubt whatever as to their attihad already passed a resolution which justice to them, that they do not attempt in the smallest degree to conceal in any way the fact that that is their unalterable opinion. The House knows, and they know, that they have only to get up in this House and make the request to the Government that Ireland be included and it would be done in five minutes; therefore there is no obscurity in the situation. Still, I very much regret the attitude which the Government have felt it necessary to adopt, although under the circumstances, knowing Ireland as I do, I am not prepared to say that, in view of the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, the Government are not right in the course they have taken. It is a course, however, that I deplore, and one which, I believe, before long the greater number of Irishmen also will deplore.

I think some recognition is due from this side of the House to what the last speaker has said with regard to the valour and heroism of our troops in general. Reference has been made to the manner in which Scottish and English troops have behaved, and with regard to Scotland one of my hon. Friends has dilated upon their achievements. Although I have Scottish blood in my veins, I do not propose to follow his example. I think we may take it as read that it is unquestionable that the heroism shown in this War has not been confined either to Scotland, to Ireland, or to England. The reason why the hon. Member for Waterford made the comments he did was because he thought some complaint was made by earlier speakers because Ireland was left out of the Bill. I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but as my hon. Friends near me have restarted the discussion, and I do not know whether they intend to force a Division—if they do, I shall find myself voting against the Amendment—there are one or two statements which have been made to which I would like to take exception. The Seconder of the Amendment suggested that one of the reasons for inclusion in the Bill was that Ireland produced a comparatively small quantity of munitions, and was not a manufacturing country, and could, therefore, easily spare the men. But it should be remembered that Ireland has a large linen industry and a great shipbuilding industry, and, if she can easily spare men, then surely the rest of the country can equally do so. I oppose this Bill and this Amendment in the first place on the ground of principle. But I will not enlarge upon that point. I do suggest, however, that if I can convince the Mover and Seconder that if the Amendment is carried, and if a greater number of men are forced into the field, that will actually defeat the object, which I hope we all have in mind—the bringing of this War to an honourable conclusion. I suggest that that end would be jeopardised if we depleted the industries and took more men for the purpose of the War.

The Mover has asked to withdraw the Amendment.

I know, but I pointed out a little while ago that I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, and I only did so because my hon. Friends had restarted it, and, as I was not in their councils, I did not know whether they intended to carry their action to a Division. I think it is relevant to this discussion and to the Bill to say that if I could convince the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment that by bringing in Ireland and by bringing in the greater number of men they would be jeopardjsing the bringing of this War to a successful conclusion, those hon. Gentlemen would pause and consider it unwise to press this Amendment upon the Committee. That is a view which was not put forward in previous discussions or in this Debate. It is one of the principal reasons why I should oppose this Amendment. Might I ask those hon. Gentleman whether they are aware of the state of affairs in the country to-day. Do they know that Irishmen enter very largely into the question of dock labour, and that there are goods piled up at the docks because of the lack of men?

This is evidently the speech the hon. Member wished to make the other day when we were voting the number of men. That Vote has already been dealt with, and it cannot be raised again.

Am I not in order in opposing the Amendment because it proposes to take a greater number of men away from industry in this country?

No. This is not a proposal to take a greater number of men at all; the number has already been dealt with in Committee of Supply.

Should I be in order in suggesting that if Ireland is included there must surely be a less number of men forthcoming under the voluntary system than under compulsion?

The House has already voted the number of men.

I bow to your ruling, and, in conclusion, will simply ask the hon. Members to bear what I have said in mind.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph ( a ), to leave out the words "Great Britain," and to insert instead thereof the words "England and Wales."

I do not propose to detain the Committee at great length upon this Amendment, because, as the Committee is aware, I referred to this point at some considerable length on the Second Reading Debate, therefore, I do not think I am entitled to take up so much time to-day, although I do want to put the point again for the consideration of the Committee and, if possible, for their agreement. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), in referring to the Irish troops, made a complaint with which there is general agreement in this Committee, namely, that it was extremely difficult to get any figures with regard to the number of men recruited anywhere. That was cheered by Members representing the different nationalities in this House. Why is it that the War Office—in this case it is really the Government—do not give figures which are obviously available to them and which would enable us to come to certain decisions? The case for Scotland can be put very briefly. A great deal could be made of it from the sentimental side, but that is obviously quite unnecessary. The Scottish troops at all times have been noted for the difficult positions out of which they have got in all the big battles in the history of this Empire. I believe there are many men in uniform here to-day who will agree that in the present contest these men are again playing a conspicuous part. The population of the United Kingdom amounts to a certain known total. That total is roughly 46,500,000—that is the population of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. From Scotland we have already, by direct enlistment, sent, at the very lowest calculation, 400,000 men. I made that statement in the Debate on the Second Reading. I then challenged any Member on the Treasury Bench to deny that that was so, or to say that the figure was less. I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time to give the figure. He did not give the figure, but he did not deny, and I dare say cannot deny, that Scotland has contributed, at least, by direct enlistment those 400,000 men. The population of Scotland is less than 4,750,000 people.

There are one or two other considerations which must be borne in mind in determining the Committee's decision as to whether you can or can not wisely take more men from Scotland. I would remind the Committee, for instance, that the entire fishing fleet of Scotland—the largest fishing unit in the British Isles—has for the moment been entirely destroyed, because the Admiralty have taken both the men and the ships. From our largest dockyards on the east and on the west, our dockers have been taken away to do transport work in France and elsewhere. The Committee already knows, from other discussions, that the basin of the Clyde is the largest area in the United Kingdom for the supply of munitions. The Committee will also remember that in Scotland we have two districts, known as the highlands and islands, part of which is represented by my hon. Friend who sits for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson)—who, I believe, means to take part in this short discussion—where a particular proportion of men are naturally taken for Army and Navy purposes straight away. I do not see any virtue in discussing this question in taking into consideration the number of Scotsmen who are not serving in Scotland—people have said in this Debate that so many Irishmen in one regiment are not Irishmen at all but Englishmen, and so many men in another regiment are Irish and not English—because I believe the balance makes up for any nationality there might be inside what we may call national troops. For these reasons it is extraordinary difficult to take more men from Scotland without some more adequate reason than we have yet got from the Government. I would suggest, very respectfully, that if the rest of the United Kingdom had recruited in the proportion that Scotland has contributed now to the Army, there would have been no need at all for this Bill, and this War would have been concluded under the voluntary system. That is a very strong statement to make.

I do not, of course, intend to push this too hard, but at any rate the Government ought to clearly indicate to those of us who represent Scottish constituencies that this Bill for Conscription is not being passed because it is needed in Scotland. I have a very shrewd idea—I should like to see it put to the test—that if we could get the figures, and if the figures were made available from the various districts in the United Kingdom, it would be found that the districts which have not made the contribution they ought to have made were under the direct influence of certain influences in this country which have been up against the voluntary system since its introduction. I am not concerned for those districts. I am concerned to make the point that in Scotland, if you take everything together, we have contributed at least 400,000 under direct enlistment, including the Derby scheme, and others which bring the total up to quite within 500,000. I want anybody on the Front Bench who can deny that those figures are accurate to stand up and say so in this Debate, and, if they cannot deny that those figures are accurate, to state what is their case for including Scotland in this Bill, which is a Conscript Bill. What is the reason why the Scottish regiments and the Scottish people should have, as I put it in the Second Reading Debate, this bar sinister of Conscription introduced into the crests of their regiments when they have already not only done their duty proportionately, but have contributed a large number of men over and above it? There are other reasons, which I will leave to others. I have put the main points, and I hope they will be met from the Front Bench.

I confess to hearing with very great surprise a Member for a Scottish constituency proposing to leave Scotland out of the operation of this Bill. I suspect the hon. Member must pretty well know—and if he does not well know a very little investigation, would have satisfied him—that nothing more repugnant to the people of Scotland could be imagined. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that Scotland has responded nobly to the call for recruits. We are all proud of what Scotland has done, but if there is one thing on which the minds of Scotsmen are absolutely clear, it is that they value the prospect of having this Bill applied to Scotland, and would not be content to be left out of it.

My right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir R. Finlay) has adequately dealt with this question as far as it has been advanced by the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. My object in rising is to appeal to the Committee not to waste time in the discussion of questions which are clearly either irrelevant or destructive of the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, and those who generally act with him announced their intention of not opposing the Second Reading. I appeal to him and to those who are opponents of the Bill as to whether it is not apparent that, even in those limited districts where the Bill does not find the same strong support as it does over the greater part of the country, there is not a general desire that the Bill should be passed into law with as little delay as possible? That view has been expressed in the House and outside of it by those who are critics of the Bill and by those who desire to see certain Amendments made in it. Therefore I think we may appeal to those who have not resisted the principle of the Bill not to move Amendments of this kind. The whole of the hon. Member's appeal, as I under- stand it, is based upon the undoubted fact that Scotland has made a magnificent contribution, both in quantity and in quality, to the fighting forces of this country, and he says unless the Government can show that his figures, namely, half a million of men, are incorrect, they have no right to include Scotland in the Bill. But this is not the time to make that suggestion. He should have made it when the Prime Minister told the married men of Great Britain that if the numbers were not satisfactory he would introduce a measure of this character. That was the time to say that Scotland should be left out. Does the hon. Member claim to speak here to-day for the married men of Scotland who were enlisted under the pledge of the Prime Minister? I am not a Scotsman or a Scottish Member, but I have seen to-day Scottish Members who have returned from a visit to their Constituents only at the end of last week, and they assure me that at meetings of their constituents they have found the strongest possible support for this Bill—they are not Members who share the political views that I hold—and strong condemnation for those who are opposing it. I think really the general feeling of the country is in favour of the Bill in the form in which the Government have presented it, and I hope we may be allowed to discuss matters which are really relevant and get to business with as little delay as may be consistent with the due presentation of claims for Amendment where they are strong enough to claim the attention of the Committee.

I would not have intervened were it not that I think one Scottish Member, who at least represents a constituency from which a great many men have gone to the Army and the Territorial Force and other branches of His. Majesty's Naval and Military Forces, and who represents a district where the production of munitions is a prominent occupation, should get up and speak. Although I happen to be speaking in uniform, I bear in mind what the Prime Minister said some time ago, that those of us who happen for the time being to be serving in the Army or the Territorial Forces, when we come here, must remember that we are the representatives of our constituencies and not of the Army. In that sense, I wish to say one word on this matter. If this Bill is not necessary for Scotland, there is no reason why Scotland should be left out. If it is necessary for Scotland, it is just as well that Scotland should be in it. I have been all my life a confirmed believer in the voluntary principle, but the course of events and what I have seen has convinced me that the Bill is a necessity at present, and I have supported it. I do not believe that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) represents in this matter the feelings or wishes of Scotland. I have received no objection from the whole of my Constituency, which practically includes the whole of the south of the Clyde, from Glasgow down to Wemyss Bay, and also includes a large section of Glasgow, except from one or two individuals whom I know to be opposed to anything of the sort.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) referred to the fact that some of us withdrew our opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. We did so for the express reason, which was stated, that it was on the understanding that the Government might meet the points that were raised. I have raised what I consider a very useful point, and I do not consider it a sufficient reply to say in regard to that that no one else in the House has said anything at all about it. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig) says that I do not represent Scotland in this respect. I never claimed to in the Debate. I never made any pretension that I was speaking for the whole of Scotland. I put the Amendment down in my own name, as I have a right to do, and I gave reasons for it. If those reasons can be met, and if the Government can say that those figures are not accurate, I will withdraw it at once. What I want to do is to force the Government to give us the figures which the various people have contributed towards the Army. Then we shall know where we are, and we shall know who it is that is forcing Conscription on the country. If I have made it quite plain that it is not Scotland that is forcing Conscription on the country I am satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in paragraph ( b ), after the word "eighteen" ["attained the age of eighteen years"], to insert the words "or subsequently attains."

I beg to call attention to the fact that if the Amendment is moved in this form it will then not be grammatically correct, and will not make sense of the Bill, because it says, "Every male British subject who, on the 15th day of August, had attained the age of eighteen years."

May I point out, what is well understood, that the words "on the 15th day of August, 1915," govern the whole Clause. They govern paragraphs ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ), and, therefore, if you begin to put in other dates you make a hopeless hash of the whole business. I respectfully submit that your ruling ought to be—

I have a somewhat similar Amendment, and I submit that it is quite in order to introduce an Amendment which would ensure that anyone who is eighteen on the 15th day of August is bound to serve. As the Bill stands the result would be that if a boy was eighteen on 15th August he would be compelled to serve, but if he was eighteen on 16th August he would be exempt. That is evidently not what the Government intended, and an Amendment either like my own or like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Du Pre) must be in order.

Taking the right hon. Baronet's point first. It is quite clear that that is a legitimate subject to raise somewhere. The only question is which is the correct place to raise it'?

May I call attention to my Amendment in the same wording, a little further on?

Is it not evident that no Amendment of this kind can possibly find a place in a sentence which contains the words "on the 15th day of August." They are introductory words of the sentence governing the whole of this Subsection, and this Amendment must be put in some other form later in the Clause. It is impossible to put it into a sentence which includes those words.

The exact form in which the Amendment is made does not matter. What I desire is to raise the main point.

I think the point of Order is a sound one. These three paragraphs appeared to be governed, as the Clause is drafted, by the preliminary words "on the 15th day of August, 1915." But that does not mean to say that I should prevent these points being raised, for instance, by a form of proviso—"Provided that during the progress of the War any person who subsequently reaches the age of eighteen shall be treated in the same manner."

I beg to move, to leave out the word "eighteen" ["attained the age of eighteen years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) just now spoke of Amendments which were irrelevant or destructive. My Amendment is not intended to be either the one or the other. I have long foreseen that there might come a time when compulsion in some form might be thought necessary in the interests of the country, and I have no intention whatever of combating that principle, directly or indirectly, in what I am now doing when I suggest that there should be compulsion of men, and not compulsion of boys. That principle is, to a certain extent, already acknowledged by the Government, because in calling up the Derby groups they, at any rate, have not called up the first group, consisting of lads of eighteen. They had the power to do so, but they have not done so. They have contented themselves with beginning at nineteen. I suggest that that is not adequate, and that we ought not really to put compulsion on lads at all. If we are to compel any, let it be men, who have the privileges of men which we acquire when we become twenty-one years of age. We ought not to compel our sons and our younger brothers, and young fellows who are really only children to go out and fight our battles. I say that first as a matter of feeling. To compel these young lads is to me repulsive, and I cannot imagine that it can possibly be right. I am speaking of compulsion. I am not speaking of those who voluntarily came forward to fight in the cause of their country. It is hard enough, to my mind, to have to accept them and to let these children go out to fight for us with their own gallant good will; but to compel lads of this tender age is a thing utterly repulsive to me. It is not only a question of feeling, so far as I am concerned, but a question of right. I cannot conceive that it can be right to compel them to undertake this most serious responsibility of man's estate until they have come to the time when by the ancient practice of this Realm they arrive at the rights attached to man's estate. So much, I will not say for the question of principle—for in these days we are not allowed to have any principles—but so much for the question of broad aspirations and feelings of right. I come now to a second argument: these gallant lads have not the minds of men, and they cannot possibly be expected to have the prudence of men. It is perfectly certain that if we compel them, many of them will do rash things which grown men would not do, and they will lose their lives in consequence.

No, no!

The hon. and gallant Member says "No!" At any rate, I think that lads of eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, whom I know would be extremely likely to do so. If the Government said that we must have these young fellows for training that is a different thing; but what I am speaking about particularly is sending them into the fighting line. There are Home service battalions, and if it is necessary to take them they could be trained there until they reach the age of twenty-one years. In that way they would not be lost to the country. They would be getting ready for the time when their services might be required. Those of them who are now twenty would be ready to take their places in the fighting line within a few months, while those who are younger would be coming on, and would be ready for the service of their country later if this unhappy War continues, as it shows some signs of doing, for a longer period. I think the Committee can grasp my feelings and ideas. The Prime Minister has given a pledge to married men that the single men should come forward and do their duty before the married men are called upon. We have got to carry out that pledge, but that is a pledge given on the condition that single men should come forward, and not that lads should do it, and I do appeal to Ministers and to hon. Members generally to look at the pledge in that light. This, to my mind, is a question of our responsibilities and our duties as grown men and as fathers of families, and it is a question of conscience, and I think it will be utterly wrong to compel them to go into the fighting lines. Many gallant lads have already volunteered, and we are proud of them, and I say nothing now as to allowing them to go when they have volunteered. I am only sorry that my age does not allow me to take my part in the fighting line with them, as I would gladly do. But, surely, we have not got to such a pass that we need to compel the children of this country to go to fight for us!

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one could have any feeling that this Amendment is either irrelevant or obstructive, or unimportant. If it were possible I should say that the views which he has expressed are views that would be entertained by every Member of the House. I can say for myself, and I am sure I am expressing the feelings of everyone, that there is nothing in the whole tragedy of this War which has seemed to us so terrible as the number of young officers about the age of eighteen, or very little more, who have given up their lives in the service of their country. I say at once that it is only the necessity, the need for men, which makes it impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. I would like to point out to my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the matter is not quite so serious as one would judge from the Bill. As a matter of fact the War Office do not call up anyone until he is nineteen. That is intended to apply under the Derby scheme, and it will also apply under this Bill. Therefore we have every reason to hope that, as the training only begins at nineteen, the boys will at all events have got on towards the age of twenty before they are called upon to join the fighting lines. It would, however, be really too serious a diminution of the numbers of the men who are absolutely required for us to agree to any Amendment of this kind. I sympathise with the hon. Member in his views, and I am sure the whole House does. As to the necessity for it, I would point out that our Allies are taking boys. I hope under the circumstances the hon. Member will see that considering the difficulties we have in getting the men necessary to fill our Army it is really impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

I would like to say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, that I think his desire to protect young men in this respect is really unnecessary. I have the honour of serving with a very young battalion, and for fifteen months in the trenches I have practically lived with men whom I have known all my life, men who have lived in the same part of the world that I come from, and who are known to me almost individually. I can only say this, that the most surprising thing of this War has been the way the young men in the ranks have managed to come through it. There is no one who has been soldiering for any length of time who will not bear me out when I say that it is the young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three who really have managed to get through far and away the best in the Army. Men whom one would expect would be able to stand the strain of the campaign much better, namely, men of forty, forty-one, and forty-two, have fallen out long before the young men. I do not think, therefore, that there is any real grounds for carrying this Amendment, although I quite appreciate the spirit which has prompted the hon. Gentleman. In regard to the question of prudence to which he referred, I do not think it is a sound argument. So far as it has been my lot to observe, I believe that young men are more adapted to become good stalkers, and that they keep their heads down better than the older men. That has been my experience, and I think it is one which has been general. I honestly believe that so far as the nerve strain of this War goes, it is the young men who seem to feel it less, and for that reason I believe that these lads, when they are called up at nineteen, and when they go out, after they have gone through their period of training, will stand the strain just as well, and a great deal better than those who are older.

I think the House generally will appreciate the spirit in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has met the Amendment, but with the greatest respect I desire to point out that under the Bill lads of eighteen automatically become soldiers. If the intention of the Government is that they will not be called up until they are nineteen, and probably not called upon to serve until they are twenty, surely the age of eighteen need not be put in the Bill. A further consideration is this, that lads of eighteen may be in training for a profession, or they may be apprenticed to some trade, and you are going to dislocate their whole future life. They may be, and indeed probably are, the very men who at this time are helping to carry on industry, and the very fact of their being under this Bill at eighteen gives the military authorities the opportunity to take them right away. No one would challenge the experience of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Croft), but, with the greatest respect, I would submit that his experience is not the experience of all officers. It would be presumptuous for him to get up and allege that that is the general experience of officers. Many of us have discussed this matter with officers, and very sad and pitiable tales have been told about some boys. It is just as well that we should face these facts. There is an additional reason for consideration. The young lads of this age, who, in a spirit of patriotism which we all appreciate, have volunteered, are the strongest and most physically fit of their class. They are the young lads, probably, who would be most fitted, and who to all intents and purposes are men of twenty-one and twenty-two in spirit and physique. These are not the class of young men you are dealing with under this Bill. You are dealing with those who are left, and who have been left probably for physical reasons. Moreover, this is not a question of military training. I can understand the argument if you are going to deal with young lads for military training only. We are dealing with these young lads in order that they shall go to the War. They are lads of an age when we do not recognise them as having reached their majority under English law. We do not recognise them as being capable of taking part in voting for representation in this House, and certainly I do submit that now that it is realised that they cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman says, be called up for service until they are nearly twenty years of age, it would be much better to alter the wording of the Bill and make the age twenty, and not eighteen.

I wish to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who gave such a sympathetic reply to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I think we ought to consider exactly what we are doing in this matter. I speak as an opponent of the Bill, but that matter was settled on the Second Reading. The question now is whether we are really going to apply compulsion to lads of eighteen, nineteen, and twenty. The hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Croft) has spoken of the young men with whom he has had to deal in the trenches. Does he realise that his experience refers to lads who have volunteered? It does not refer to those who remain behind. The pressure has been very great, and young, strong lads of eighteen to twenty have volunteered and come forward in great numbers, but those who are left behind are in many cases immature, weak lads, and less fit to undergo the hardship of being soldiers. As the Government do not intend to call these boys up before they are nineteen, will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question, and, if he cannot accept the whole of the Amendment, consent to insert "nineteen" in the Bill instead of "eighteen" There is no doubt that those who remain behind are immature and unfit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] I think I can say that there are lads of my acquaintance of those ages who are totally unfit.

In that case they can go to the doctor, and he will not pass them.

7.0 P.M.

I do not feel confident about that. I do not know whether the doctor would feel called upon to say that the lads were generally not strong, and that they should not be called upon to go forward. I would further emphasise the point that lads of this age are not voters. They are in no sense parties to what we are doing, and they have no remedy against us if we do wrong. Therefore we ought to be more careful in dealing with them than if we were dealing with older men. I observe that an hon. Member has put down an Amendment to the Schedule to the effect that all men under the age of nineteen years who are in attendance at school or college for the purpose of education, or are under articles for the purpose of entering a profession, shall not be included. The effect of that Amendment, if the Government accept it, will be to exempt the lads of the upper and well-to-do classes, and not to exempt those of the working classes. I do not know whether the Government intend to accept it or not, but unless they are going to acept this one in some shape or other, I hope they will not acept the other, because nothing could be more unfortunate than to make a distinction on behalf of the sons of well-to-do-and rich people, who have influence, and not to extend the same to the lads of the working classes. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many would be lost if the age were raised from eighteen to nineteen? Can the Government tell us what difference it would make, and how many men would be lost if nineteen were substituted for eighteen; would it be a large number? You would get them later on at nineteen.

Not under this scheme.

Not under this scheme, I admit. Seeing the immaturity of lads at eighteen would it not be better to take them at nineteen, rather than take them away from their ordinary avocations at eighteen? If they are not to be called upon till nineteen, then why put "eighteen" into the Bill? If you are not going to take them to the trenches, what is the object of including lads of eighteen in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman can make certain of getting them when they are nineteen. If, when they are nineteen, the War is still going on, and there is necessity for them, I have not lost faith in the voluntary principle yet, and I believe that young Englishmen would come forward when the necessity was proved. The necessity has to be proved. I do not believe that there is any great number of shirkers. I still believe in the courage and self-sacrifice of my young fellow countrymen, and I have seen no reason to doubt it throughout the War. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept the word "nineteen" in substitution for "eighteen."

The hon. Member for Derby said he had conversed with certain officers as to the enlistment of lads of eighteen, and as to whether they were fit to do the work of the trenches. He disagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Croft), who testified to the value of lads of eighteen in Flanders. I have served for the last few months at the front, and as a simple captain of a company—unlike my hon. and gallant Friend—I walked with my men, and I can tell the hon. Member for Derby that in all our long marches both in this country and in Flanders I never saw any young men in my company fall out, nor have I ever seen any of them helped along, though that has occurred in the case of men of about forty.

Are they eighteen?

Yes, and some one or two in my company were not actually eighteen. I had a letter from the mother of a lad in my company who stated that he was only sixteen years old, that he was too young to serve in the trenches, and that he should be sent home. I sent for the lad, a very well grown young fellow, though he is certainly not nineteen, and I told him, "Your mother says you must go home. Here is your birth certificate showing that you joined under sixteen." The lad said he did not want to go home and that he wanted to serve. He was not put into the trenches, but was told that after a time he would be in a position to serve like everybody else. With that he was perfectly satisfied. In Flanders, of which I have had experience, it is not the young who suffer but the middle-aged, men of thirty-five or forty years, who undoubtedly do get rheumatism in the trenches. Young men, I find, go through their duties splendidly. They have all been inoculated against enteric, and that great danger is gone. To my mind, the class of men you want in Flanders are young felows of eighteen years of age. Of course, if any weaklings present themselves we will not have them, but ordinarily, when lads enlist, they undergo training and marching, and they develop in such a way that their very mothers would not know them. I submit that the age of eighteen should be kept in the Bill. I am only speaking from the point of view of Flanders where the strong young man of eighteen is just the material we want.

I beg to add my appeal to those already made to the Colonial Secretary to at least give us some concession in this matter, which is one of real substance. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not entirely maintain the attitude he has adopted. I recognise the spirit in which he has addressed the Committee with regard to this Amendment and I trust he will meet us in regard to this matter, on which there is very strong feeling in many parts of the House. This is one of those questions which illustrate the advantages of the voluntary system, because under that system a certain choice has been and can be made. Those who are fit have naturally volunteered. The strong and healthy lad of eighteen or nineteen has volunteered without harm to himself. The voluntary system makes roughly for natural selection. But because many of these who volunteer are perfectly healthy and able to stand the strain of military life, it does not follow that the boys who are to be conscripted under this Bill would be equally suitable, for military life. Obviously that must be so if you are going to conscript boys not only immature in mind, but certainly immature in body and unable to stand the strain of military life. The reply of the Secretary to the Colonies earlier in the Debate was really an answer by anticipation to the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who spoke last, and who put in a plea for boys of eighteen to be used in the trenches, whereas the Secretary to the Colonies stated that there is no intention of taking these boys for military service until they are nineteen. That being so, I cannot understand why the word "nineteen" should not be substituted for "eighteen" in the Bill. You would get them later at nineteen, and not a single soldier would be lost. It is said that though the boys are taken at eighteen, they will not be subject to any military duty or training until they have attained the age of nineteen. Why not wait until they are nineteen before bringing them under the provisions of this Bill? It would not make the slightest difference in the number of soldiers taken under the Bill if the age is altered from eighteen to nineteen. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least give us this concession, and will intimate his willingness to substitute the age of nineteen for eighteen.

I want to put a further matter for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration in this connection. Many of these boys of eighteen are schoolboys, and as my hon. Friend pointed out in regard to their rights they have no votes to enable them to support their views. [An HON. MEMBER: "What rights have schoolboys?"] Someone has asked, "What rights have schoolboys?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Do they vote?"] Some hon. Member says, "Do they vote?" They do not; therefore they are to have no rights. I must say that I never heard an interruption which did less credit to any Member in my experience of this House. Though it is not a very long one and not so great as that of many hon. Members, I must say that I never heard an interruption that did less credit either to the heart or the mind of any hon. Member. I leave that where it stands. These boys are schoolboys. There is provision in the Bill that persons affected by its provisions may go before the tribunals and put forward their claims for exemption. Is it seriously alleged that these schoolboys of eighteen are competent, in a great number of cases, to go before these tribunals and give their reasons for desiring exemption, especially when it is remembered that under the Bill as it stands the tribunals sit in secret, and there is no provision in this measure for these schoolboys to be represented by friends or advisers? I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is a matter of great importance and of real substance. I therefore very earnestly ask him to consider whether he will not meet us, in part, by substituting "nineteen" for "eighteen."

I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board, who, I understand, is in charge of the Bill, a question, because the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies is rather puzzling. I understand the proposal of the Government is that although boys are to be enrolled and enlisted at the age of eighteen, they are not to be called up under the provisions of this measure until the age of nineteen. At the present moment the age of enlistment is eighteen, but as a matter of fact they take youths under that age. We had an instance of one being taken at the age of fifteen, and another instance was given this afternoon of one at the age of sixteen. See the difficulty in which the Government are placed in this matter. If you insist on taking a boy at the age of eighteen and keeping him back until the age of nineteen—everybody, remember, will be taken in the United Kingdom—you will practically postpone the age of getting recruits until the age of nineteen years. I would be very glad of an explanation.

They are not to be called out until they are nineteen.

Very well, but you are taking them under the age of eighteen. You have them at sixteen and seventeen.

Not officially; under false statements.

Quite true, under false statements; but in future you cannot get a youth under a false statement, because he will not be liable for enlistment except on production of a birth certificate; and therefore those who go to the Army now between the ages of sixteen and eighteen will be lost to you, because you will not be able to take them until they are eighteen. I have no opposition to the proposal of the Government; on the contrary, I am in favour of it, because I have known so many young men perfectly physically fit to undergo the hardships and dangers of a campaign that I see no objection to the proposition. Napoleon, the greatest leader of men who ever existed, always said it was to his young conscripts that he owed his victories. However that may be, I put before the Government this difficulty which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will explain when he replies.

I only want to put one small point which strikes me in listening to this Debate. It seems to me that the question raised just now on an earlier Amendment is very closely related to this particular question. As the Bill stands, it applies to persons who satisfied certain conditions on the 15th of August last. Of course, if that condition is continued, if it is the intention of the Government to maintain that test and not to make this Bill a kind of sliding operation for the future, that makes a great deal of difference to the present proposal. For my part, if I understood from the Government that they intended to maintain the 15th of August, 1915, in the Bill, and to resist, and ask those who agree with them to resist, any attempt to extend that, I should look on this particular matter in rather a different way, and for this reason. We have been told already, by the Colonial Secretary, in the plainest terms, that there is no intention to call up these people, who in August were eighteen, for a year. I do not imagine that the Government would have any objection to saying so in the Bill. I see, for example, in Clause 3 of the Bill, Sub-section (5), that there is a provision that persons who make application for exemption shall not be called up until their application has been finally disposed of. I cannot see why this, as a matter of drafting, should not be in the Bill, saying that no one shall be called up until they reach the age of nineteen. If these two things: firstly, that there is to be no alteration in this Bill to extend it to future generations, and, secondly, that there is to be a provision put into the Bill to say that the eighteen-year crop is not in fact to be called up until it is nineteen, are put in, then I think it would very greatly modify the position as regards these young men. I am not making these observations for any purpose except for facilitating business so far as I can, and this seems to me a suggestion quite consistent with the declaration of the Colonial Secretary. I say, in conclusion, that although the Government say they cannot give way on this because they want to secure this crop, and though many of us feel very strongly, if they make it quite plain that they are not going to gather the crop until it is nineteen, then I think the strong objection many of us feel to taking people of eighteen would, to a certain extent, be modified.

Perhaps it would be as well if I tried to deal with some of the points that have been raised in this Debate. I am afraid that I cannot, by any possibility, make the concession asked for by my hon. Friend who spoke two or three minutes ago. I will try to make quite plain why we cannot do so. First of all, as regards what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), it is clearly the intention of the Government to adhere to the Bill as introduced in regard to the point which he made. We do not intend to make it progressive. The Bill is introduced for one purpose, to carry out the definite statement given by the Prime Minister, and that alone; and we have no intention of getting into it anybody who is gradually reaching the age of eighteen. So far as that is concerned, that is the Government's intention. Why we cannot give the pledge for which my right hon. Friend behind me asked is that, in the first place, this Bill is intended to put men who enlisted under it in precisely the same position in every respect as men who enlisted under the Derby scheme, and the Government would not feel justified in making a different condition apply to them from the condition that applies to men enlisted under the Derby scheme. Another reason, as was pointed out, is that if we were to adopt the suggestion of putting in "nineteen," we should lose what he called the crop of boys of eighteen, who will become in course of time nineteen, under the operation of this Bill. It will be evident to the Committee that if that course were not adopted and the War went on for a year boys who are eighteen to-day and become nineteen afterwards would not become available unless a new Act were brought in. That is of the utmost importance. It is just what is done under old systems of recruiting in other countries, as well as under the Derby scheme. They are put into groups, and as they reach a certain age they come into a class and are available. One reason why this condition as it stands should remain is that the War Office must know the number of men on whom they can count at a given time. They must make their arrangements in advance, and it is not possible for the Government to give way on this point. I sympathise, however, as I have already said, with the young men who have in many cases given up their lives in this struggle. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we have not put into the Bill that they will not be called up until they are nineteen. I can only say I wish we could. So far, the War Office have stuck to nineteen as the recruiting age. They have stuck to it under the Derby scheme, and we have every intention of sticking to it with regard to men coming in under this Bill; but, after all, does the Committee think that conditions might not arise in which it would become necessary to ask men under nineteen to take their place in the ranks?

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) spoke of some privilege in danger of being given to officers and not to private soldiers. I can assure him there is no danger of that. The Government certainly have no intention of making any distinction of that kind with regard to this Bill, and I would remind him that there are very few Members of this House who have not themselves had near relatives below the age limit of nineteen who have made very gallant officers, and who have given up their lives already in defence of their country. I am sure the War Office do not like sending boys of that age. They tried to make a rule that no one should go until they were nineteen years of age, but they found in some battalions that the numbers of officers were so scarce that they had no choice, and had to send these young men. I believe no such case can arise under this scheme. Indeed, I believe if conditions were as bad as that the whole House of Commons, and not only those opposed to this Bill, would say that we must make some other arrangement. I do not think, however, that the Committee would be wise, or the Government would be justified, in making a hard and fast condition in the Bill that in no circumstances would men be called up at an earlier age than nineteen. I am afraid I have not answered all the arguments that have been put forward in this Debate, but they are all pretty well understood on both sides, and though I do not suggest any undue curtailment, I do hope that hon. Members on all sides, those who are strongly opposed to the measure as well as those who are in favour of it, will realise that now that the House of Commons have expressed their wishes it is our duty to get on with the Bill.

I am anxious to avoid a Division, if possible, on this subject so long as it rests with me, and I should like, therefore, to say that so far as the promise not to call up men until they are nineteen is concerned I should be quite as ready to rely on the promise given across the floor of this House as if it were put in the Bill. If we could get also a promise that these compelled young men—it is not a question of volunteers—would not be sent to the front until they were twenty, so far as I am concerned I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise, I am afraid I cannot do so.

I think the Colonial Secretary must have made it clear to the Committee that having secured the crop at eighteen, that is really the main point he wishes to enforce. I want to try to assist him in his appeal that we should take a Division as soon as we can. I want to say one single word on this point which occurred to me while the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) and the hon Member for Mid-Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse) were speaking. I entirely agree with them in the very admirable feeling they showed on the subject, but it did cross my mind as to whether those Gentlemen had had the same experience of seeing young men do work in the world of sport as I have, and it crossed my mind as to what some of those Highland lads, those gillies with whom I have been shooting and sporting for forty years, would have said and thought it they had heard this Debate, those lads of eighteen who could walk forty miles a day and think nothing of it, day after day. Do not think that all the men of eighteen are as unable to do the work that soldiers do as some hon. Members seem to think is the case. Really it is not so. I have given some instances of men in the Highlands, and farmers all over the country know the same. You can be sure that neither the War Office, Ministers, nor anybody else are wanting in the feelings that have been expressed by hon. Members, and that if it were really dangerous and bad to recruit at this age this would not have been put in the Bill.

While I regret that the Government have not been able to accept this Amendment, I very gratefully welcome the spirit in which the Colonial Secretary has treated it, and his assurance that the Government do not intend to call up this youngest class until they reach the age of nineteen. I should be very grateful if he would also give an assurance to the Committee that these very youngest men—I allude specially to those under twenty—when they come before a tribunal should have an opportunity of being represented by a friend, or legal assistant. It is quite obvious that boys of eighteen and nineteen, apart from a question of who else should be brought in, are not able to put their case always as they would like. Many of them are put in a very difficult position by this Bill, and if they can be represented, at least by a friend, I think the position would be made very much easier indeed.

I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to listen to these suggestions. The idea that young men are not to be called up until they are nineteen or twenty is ridiculous. Those who are not of the age of twenty are not sent to India in peace time, but we are sending them across to France. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman not to wait until young men are nineteen before they are called up for training. Here we are at the present moment absolutely short of men. We know that divisions abroad are absolutely depleted, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) told us the other day that they could not get drafts. Territorial divisions due to go abroad are from 400 to 600 strong when they ought to be 1,000. We want every man who is fit to go abroad and serve His Majesty, and I do ask that every man of eighteen, or at the least eighteen and a half, should be called up for training so as to render him fit to take his place in the fighting line at nineteen. I hope that no promise will be given in response to all the nonsensical remarks we have heard.

I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary to be excessively cautious in the pledges which he gives, for, as we know, a great deal of trouble has already arisen from pledges. I should like to add my tribute to that which has already been given by hon. and gallant Members opposite to the admirable work which has been performed abroad by men very much below the age which this Amendment proposes would be put in the Bill. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) and the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) seemed to find some inconsistency between this tribute to men of eighteen out in France and Flanders and the proposal of the Government not to call them up until they are nineteen. It seems to me, if it is the case, as has been shown again and again, that men of eighteen and under eighteen can do splendid service, that the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman that they shall not be called up as a general rule until they are nineteen seems to square imperfectly with that and a fortiori ought to go far to satisfy those hon. Members who criticise the provisions of the Bill. It seems also to be supposed that everybody who arrives at the age of eighteen, whatever his physical condition, is going to be driven into the Service and ultimately abroad without regard whatever to that physical condition. I can assure hon. Members that the medical examination that those men have to go through is of a most stringent character, and far more so than that as a rule applied to officers. They will find that those weaklings of whom they are speaking will be in no danger whatever of being sent abroad. If we are going to cut out everybody below the age of twenty-one, I wonder how many men who are now abroad and who have had the honour of winning the Victoria Cross would have been cut out. I wonder how many non-commissioned officers, sergeants and corporals, and other men occupying responsible positions would be cut out as being too young to have the honour of bearing arms abroad. I venture to renew my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be excessively careful in giving a sympathetic ear to the requests for pledges.

I would like to add a word as to the way in which everyone has appreciated the extremely sympathetic and considerate tone of the reply of the Colonial Secretary. I can assure the Committee I have no desire to waste time in any way. I have made my protest against this Bill, and I would wish to use the words of the Prime Minister on the Second Reading to assist in making it a workable and acceptable measure. This is a very important Amendment. I can assure the Committee from my own experience that there is nothing which would make the feeling as regards Conscription stronger than that young men of eighteen should be called away from their homes by force.

They are being kept there by force.

We had a very valuable assurance to-day from the right hon. Gentleman who leads this House. He told us that it is not the intention of the Government to call up men until they are nineteen. The only question now is whether it would not be possible to put that assurance into the Bill. As has been pointed out, it is perfectly easy to do so on Clause 3, Sub-section (5). I would ask the Government to consider the point with a view to making this a workable and acceptable measure. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, and no doubt it is quite true, that men of eighteen and nineteen are perfectly fit to serve in the trenches in France, though not perhaps in Mesopotamia. A great many of fine physique are, but there are others who will not volunteer. We are dealing with those who have not volunteered. If these young men are enrolled in this way we do not get the assurance that if they are in regiments they will not be drafted to India or Mesopotamia. Are these young men to be left out in those cases? [An HON. MEMBER: "They always are now!"] As the concession we ask is very small, and the numbers very small, I would suggest that the assurance which has been given should be put into statutory form.

May I ask an answer to the question which I put, because the more I reflect on it the more certain I am that the numbers are going to be affected. You are only going to take men of the admitted age of nineteen. At the present moment you have got a great number of men who are nominally nineteen, but who are really sixteen or seventeen or eighteen. Everybody knows it. [An HON MEMBER: "It is quite true; they are in France now!"] This same problem has presented itself to the German authorities. They have had to send back men because they were anticipating the crop of future years. You are only going to take people who are really nineteen years of age, and you are going to lose all the persons who are nominally nineteen, but are really much younger. I think by the statement you have made you have reduced the potential number of recruits, which is, after all, the reason for the introduction of this Bill, in the immediate future. I should like to be assured on the point.

I shall try to explain as well as I can. I think my right hon. Friend is mistaken. Those, he says, that we take under this age are only got because they make false statements as to their age. There may be a considerable number of boys are are very well grown who do deceive the recruiting officers, who are, perhaps, sometimes willing to be deceived. What my right hon. Friend forgets is that what we are going to do is simply to carry out the existing scheme. It is quite true that under this Bill we cannot get anyone who is not really nineteen, because you cannot compel him except under the birth certificate. But so far as volunteering is concerned there is no check, and therefore I cannot see that there is any loss whatever by the arrangement which I have pointed out.

I appeal for consideration of the case of these young men. During this War I have had statements from officers of a very terrible and pitiful nature, and I think the most horrible part of this matter—

This is really not the occasion to raise this question. The hon. Member must find another opportunity of dealing with it.

The argument was on the question of the enlistment of boys of eighteen, that boys of that age are in the trenches already and that they have not suffered from the strain of the War. I was proceeding to point out that we hear very different stories with regard to those boys in the trenches from what we have heard from hon. Members opposite. It is not a matter of marching or of deer stalking on the Highland hills, but it is a matter of nerve strain under shell fire which is the real point. I have had told to me, and I give this as an illustration, the story of a boy of eighteen who had shown courage at the beginning. He had two brothers killed in the same regiment, and he deserted, his nerves giving way. He was arrested and sentenced to a term of hard labour and was sent back to the trenches. He deserted again and he was shot for desertion. I take another case, that of a young officer who is suffering from nerve prostration. He said that he could get all out of his mind except where they had to charge over ground where wounded lay and hearing young boys wounded crying for their mothers. The statement made by the Colonial Secretary that this happened in all other countries does not hold good here. The injustice of this is that men of superior military age are not to be taken. That to my mind is the point. I believe that Lord Kitchener has stated that twenty-three or twenty-four is the best age for a soldier. The great injustice of this is that you are going to take the boys and leave the men of superior military age simply because they happen to be married. I believe that

out of that will arise the obvious injustice and resentment.

Question put, "That the word 'eighteen' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 255; Noes, 33.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "forty-one," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."

8.0 P.M.

In considering this Amendment I think it is very important that the Committee should have in mind the precise purpose of the Bill. This is not a Bill for the purpose of establishing a general system of compulsory military service applicable to the whole population; it is a Bill for establishing just so much compulsory military service as is necessary to redeem the pledge which the Prime Minister made, and for which he received value by reason of the promise of certain married men to enlist. We are dealing with the redemption of the pledge made to the married men. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider precisely what that pledge was. I take first the statement of the Prime Minister, made on the 2nd November. My right hon. Friend then said:— of military age? That discrimination has been made over and over again by Lord Derby himself in his letter. First of all the simplest way, I think, is to say that the unmarried man is a man below the average age. That is, I think, a very fair thing to say; and that age is about midway between the age of eighteen and forty-one, or twenty-nine and a half or, say, thirty, which perhaps is a very proper figure to choose as being the distinguishing line. I have looked around to see if there is any other test of youth, and I find there is one occupation in which I believe there is a statutory limit of age, and that is the occupation of a bishop. I am told that no person can be a bishop under the age of thirty, and I think everyone will admit that a bishop's occupation is not one for which young men are particularly suitable. We may assume that a person will not be appointed to this distinguished position unless he has passed the age to which I have referred. I want to draw attention to another consideration. It is quite plain that men over thirty years of age are very much more likely to have important commitments and engagements in other branches of life, which makes it undesirable to take them away, or make it particularly unfair to do so. They are very much more likely to be maintaining not only themselves, but perhaps some great industry, or some relatives, by their exertions, and we have only just now from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the distinct opinion that very young men in the trenches are splendid, but that men of forty—and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Enfield said a man down to thirty-five—were nothing like so valuable—that men of more advanced years are not so desirable from the point of view of the Army.

I think it is a great consideration to those who support this measure, based as it is avowedly on the pledge of the Prime Minister, to keep scrupulously good faith with those who oppose that measure in regard to the pledge of the Prime Minister. I should deplore, and I believe everybody would deplore, if there should be any disturbance arising out of the passing of this Bill. Much as we detest the Bill, and much as I detest the Bill, I hope that if it is passed into law that that law will be respected by the whole of the community. I never approved of rebellion, either in Ireland or elsewhere. If that is done, and if when it passes into law it has to meet with the acquiescence and consent of those people who detest it, it will be a most important point, in securing that acquiescence and consent, that everybody should realise that the Bill has not been passed by trickery or chicanery. The Prime Minister having given this pledge, it is vital to the question of what is a negligible number. If a large number of persons are placed in that category, from which the negligible number has to be ascertained, who have no right to be there, and who if the terms of the Prime Minister's pledge, or of the Derby letter, were altogether plainly accepted, would not be there, then those who dislike this measure will be justified in saying that the pledge of the Prime Minister has been used as a blind to further the device of those who desire compulsion for its own sake. You cannot put forward the Prime Minister's pledge as a reason why this Bill should be accepted, and then go beyond the terms of that pedge. If you base yourself on the pledge of the Prime Minister you must not invoke it for more than it said. I submit that it is as plain as plain can be that when the Prime Minister talked of this negligible number left in that he accepted the definition that "if the number should be proved to be, as I hope it will be, really a negligible minority, that there will be no question of legislation," that all the men up to forty-one years of age were not to be included, but only those persons who could properly and fairly be described as young men. Under those circumstances I make a very strong appeal to the Government that they should not ask this House to pass into law anything more than a fair and reasonable fulfilment of the pedge of the Prime Minister.

I very much hope the Government will not accept this Amendment or any other Amendment which will have the effect of whittling down the age. For this reason: you have to take the men from somewhere. If you do not take unmarried men of military age you will have to take married men of military age. The whole cause of this Bill is that we want men. The hon. Member when he introduced this Amendment seemed to lose sight of that fact, and argued as if the real vital consideration which is the cause of this Bill did not really exist. He spent his time in examining the pledge of the Prime Minister with a magnifying glass. I think the Prime Minister's pledge was given in the sense, and must be interpreted in the sense, of ordinary plain English, and the ordinary plain English means any man who is fit for military duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, if you are not taking the men for this, and unless that be the meaning put upon the pledge of the Prime Minister, the pledge becomes meaningless. It was that feeling that inspired the married men at the time of the Derby scheme. They felt that the young men fit for military duty should go first, and it was in order to answer them, and take advantage of their point of view, that the Prime Minister's pledge was given. The question is not whether men of forty-one are fit for military duties or not. Hon Members opposite will probably agree that a man of forty-one is not as fit as a boy of nineteen for service in the field. But there are thousands of men who have been recruited at the present time, and who have been employed on posts which do not require extreme activity. Thousands of men have been guarding the railways, the magazines, and such spots. This is work which could be very well performed by men of forty-one, and any men who are not physically fit for extremely active military service. For that reason I would oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member and all these Amendments. The point is that these men have to be got, and the only question is: Are you going to take married men or unmarried men? I should say that for every practical reason it is infinitely better to take the unmarried men, so long as they are able to perform the work efficiently. That is the sole test. If they are not physically fit they will not be taken; but I object to whittling down the scope of this Bill by one narrowing Amendment after another. This will simply bring us more trouble in the future, for we have to get the men. If you whittle down the scope of this Bill now you will have a thorough-going Conscription Bill three months hence.

Perhaps it is desirable that I should give the view of the Government on this question of age. The hon. Member for Hexham, in moving his Amendment, appealed to the Prime Minister's pledge. It really is not a question of whether a man is fit for military duty or not. The question is much simpler than that. It is whether a man is young up to forty. I do not know what other young men think, but I can safely say for myself that when I was forty—I am sorry to say a long time ago—that if anyone had suggested that I was not fit I should not have confined my denial merely to a casual remark. At the age of forty I should have been very well able to prove my fitness either for the field or anything else. I really submit that it is hardly worth while asking the House to decide whether a man is or is not young at forty. The hon. Member for Hexham said, if we were not going to accept the view of himself and his Friends as to what was a young man, the Prime Minister's pledge would have been used as a blind. By whom? By the Prime Minister?

By the Government; by those who want compulsion for its own sake.

The hon. Member conveniently ignores the fact that the Prime Minister was asked the other day the question, and that he gave his answer across the floor of the House. His answer was:

"It is difficult, if not impossible, to define the precise boundary line at which a man ceases to be young; but for this purpose I should be disposed to regard all men of military age as still young."

What was the question to the Prime Minister?

The very point we are discussing now.

Read it.

The question to the Prime Minister was on the object of this Amendment, whether his own pledge bound him to men up to the age of forty, or whether, as the hon. Member said in his speech, there was a differentiation between unmarried men who are in and unmarried men who are not in. I am not going to dispute the Prime Minister's language. He has given his answer. He has shown what his interpretation of the Act was, and to that interpretation the Government adhere. But I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when the hon. Gentleman asks, with all this solemnity, that the Government should stand by this pledge in the light he interpreted, he is thrown back on the task of defining what is young, and he comes to the age before which, he tells us—I do not know what his authority is—a bishop must not be created. Anyhow, in his previous studies he has discovered that a man cannot be appointed a bishop until after the age of thirty. He did not tell us the particular Church, and did not go fully into the matter. But surely we are not to be told that because this is the age in the Church that is to be taken as being the age for the Army! Is there anybody who doubts that these men between the ages of eighteen and forty-one are young men fit for service, provided they are strong and healthy and well? If they are not strong, healthy, and well, the doctor will say so; but to ask us, upon what I regard as a very extraordinary interpretation of the Prime Minister's language, to fix a term, would mean that this House would be discussing the question for another two or three hours. Apart from the fact that, obviously, it would deprive us of a great many men whose services we ought to have, and apart from the fact that no question of this kind was raised at the time of the pledge, I would ask whether it is desirable that, with all this important business before us, we should spend time in discussing the question whether a man is young or old at forty?

On a point of Order. There are a great number of suggestions following one another with respect to the question of age: will all have to be included in this discussion or will hon. Members be allowed to debate each in its turn?

The question put from the Chair was, "That the word 'forty-one' stand part." If the Committee decide that "forty-one" stand part, it will, of course, stand part. There is no alternative in that; the Committee has fixed it.

Then that would include the Amendment in my name which seeks to raise the age to fifty?

Yes, that would be the decision of the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a reply to my hon. Friend which seems to me to be almost entirely beside the mark. I question very much if he understood my hon. Friend's argument, which might have been my hon. Friend' fault or the right hon. Gentleman's fault. The right hon. Gentleman said the only question was whether a man was young at forty. That was not the question raised by my hon. Friend, nor is it the question raised by the Amendment. We have been told over and over again by the Prime Minister himself that the Bill is brought in to fulfil his pledge. My hon. Friend read out the words of the Prime Minister's pledge. The right hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about the word "young." The word "young" did not appear in the Prime Minister's pledge when originally given. It was "younger and unmarried men," and, seeing that the whole class dealt with was from nineteen to forty, when he talked of "younger and unmarried men," it must have meant younger men within that period; otherwise it had no meaning at all. I will read the pledge of the Prime Minister again. [The hon. Member then read the words in question again.] Is not the plain meaning of that pledge that a young married man of thirty-five shall not be called upon to serve while an unmarried man of thirty-four or thirty-five is holding back? I heard the speech, and I took the pledge at the time to mean that. I would remind hon. Gentlemen who were working the Derby scheme in the country—and I did what I could for the scheme—that we were met by the argument on the part of married men in some cases, "It is not fair that I should come forward while So-and-so, a single man, who is younger than I am, has not been called upon to serve. Why should I, thirty-five and married, be called upon before a young unmarried man of twenty-five?" That was the sort of argument addressed to men recruiting under Lord Derby's scheme.

The Noble Lord opposite said we ought to take the plain interpretation of the Prime Minister's words. I entirely agree with him, and I challenge him or any other hon. Member to read those words to any impartial men who have not heard this discussion. It would be held that the plain, unvarnished meaning is that young married men should not be called up before unmarried men of less or the same age were called up. That was really the meaning of the pledge; otherwise, I think, there would have been a general opposition to the proposal at the time. Marriage is only one of the responsibilities that men take upon themselves in life. I do not deny that it is a very great one, but there are other responsibilities in life, and it does seem to me absurd to say that men of thirty-five or forty who are carrying on businesses, who are bearing all sorts of responsibilities, are, merely because they are unmarried, to be called up for military service before young men of twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-four who have gone out, as so often happens, on Bank Holiday and got married. [An HON. MEMBER: "Engaged!"] Well, got engaged to be married, although even the other is not unusual. But very often the more prudent men do not marry so young, and I think the Prime Minister's pledge in its plain meaning was that the men who were married were not to be called up while younger unmarried men were left alone. I suggest that is the plain meaning of the words, and for my part I support the Amendment, and shall do so in the Lobby if a Division is taken. The age of thirty is, of course, not essential to our argument; but if the Government take thirty-five I do not think they would lose a great many men, because it is only exempting these men from compulsory service. You would abundantly fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge, and you would not be releasing a very large number of men from your Bill, but you would be relieving a number of men who are bearing responsibilities in this country if you release at once married and unmarried men over thirty-five. It would not deal a blow at the structure of your Bill, but would make it a great deal more workable than in its present form.