asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs has addressed a note to the Diplomatic Corps at Pekin notifying them of the recent outbreak of rebels in Shanghai, requesting them to co-operate with the Chinese Government to prevent future occurrences of this nature, and desiring the Legations to instruct their Consuls in the Foreign settlements to take measures to suppress rebel activities in places under their jurisdiction.

I have not heard of any such note.

asked whether the British Government has requested the Japanese Government to prohibit the export of beans and bean oil from Dalny, Manchuria, to neutral countries, and, in that case, what reply has been received?

The matter has been discussed, but it was not found practicable to prohibit all export to neutral countries, and other methods of preventing these goods from reaching the enemy were preferred.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience which is arising in Scotland, where money due under insurance policies on the lives, of officers missing and presumably dead cannot be paid to their executors; and whether the Government intends to introduce legislation which will extend to executors in Scotland the facilities which exist in England for obtaining from a Court of law an order affording relief in such circumstances?

My attention has not previously been called to the matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As at present advised, I do not think that legislation such as is suggested in the second part of the question is necessary. There is nothing, so far as I know, to prevent the representatives of an assured person from obtaining at any time, by action at law or arbitration, as the case may be, a determination of the question whether the proof of death available is or is not sufficient. The terms of the policy itself may asist in the determination of that question. I am not aware that the law of England confers any higher rights on insured persons in this connection than the law of Scotland does.

asked whether men of military age who have been invalided out of the Service through wounds received in action have to wear the same armlet as the Derby recruits who are just coming forward; and whether, in that case, he will arrange for the addition to the armlet of some distinguishing mark to show the part the former have already taken in the War?

The question of furnishing a distinguishing mark to be placed on the armlet of men invalided through wounds received in action has been considered, but there has been no demand for it. So far as my information goes, at present there is no likelihood of discharged soldiers objecting to wearing the same armlet as those who have offered themselves for active service.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to specify the alleged offence for which two students were recently expelled from the College of Wireless Telegraphy at Cahirciveen; what evidence exists of their alleged offences; if he has consulted, with reference to the character of the boys and of their parents, independent persons well acquainted with them, and with what result; and whether it is the practice of the Post Office to spoil the career of young men on the unsupported reports of spies?

Careful inquiry was made by the Irish Government before the proprietor of the Wireless Telegraph School at Cahirciveen was asked to discontinue instruction in wireless telegraphy to the students in question, and further inquiry which has since been made has confirmed the expediency of the course taken. It would not be desirable in the public interest to specify the reasons which led to the adoption of that course.

Do the Departments concerned consult the local clergy or the local magistracy as to the character of these boys?

I cannot say anything more than I have said in regard to this matter. The Post Office are responsible for the action to be taken, but we have to rely to a great extent upon the advice given us by the Irish Office.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, seeing that the retrenchment scheme of the Under-Secretary is being acted upon, to some extent at least, if he will say to what extent it is to be acted upon; whether all the institutions affected have been consulted; what Irish approval, if any, there is for the scheme; and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the evidence proposed to be given by Sir Matthew Nathan before the Retrenchment Committee?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity of assuring him that the Under-Secretary has not, and never had in his mind any such scheme as is indicated in the question, and consequently he has not acted upon any. None of the institutions affected by the withholding of Grants are within the province of the Under-Secretary, nor was he consulted about any of them any more than he was about the setting up of the Retrenchment Committee for Ireland, of which he knew nothing until he was asked to appear before it, which he did. If it is thought worth while to lay a copy of the figures then produced by the Under-Secretary, I shall be very glad to do so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is or is not the case that the retrenchment now being carried out in Irish Departments is being done on the suggestion of two English officials?

I am asked to say "Yes" or "No," and I say "No."

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Corporal John Braham, No. 11,343, 1st King's Liverpool Regiment, is now in the annexe to the Wandsworth Lunatic Asylum taken over by the War Office; if not, in what hospital or asylum is he; what is he suffering from; and why his relatives have not been informed of his address?

So far as I am aware this soldier has never been in any lunatic asylum. He was originally reported as wounded on the 10th March, and subsequently as killed in action on that date. A further inquiry elicited the reply that the original report was incorrect and confirmed the later report as to his death in action. The report of death was communicated to the relatives in the usual way, and I am afraid that further inquiry into the case could elicit nothing.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether George Day, No. 16,168, 1st Battalion Royal Fusiliers, Hounslow Barracks, joined the Army in August of 1914; was sent to France in three months; was wounded in April and back in the trenches in June; was forty-eight hours buried as the result of shell explosion; was in hospital at Etaples on 1st July with epileptic fits; was sent to Epsom War Hospital on 13th July; to Napsbury (formerly an asylum, now called Napsbury War Hospital) on 5th November; and to Hanwell Lunatic Asylum as a pauper patient on 9th November, no notice (of his transfer to Napsbury and to Hanwell) being given to his parents; whether his discharge from the Army is dated 28th December, 1915; if so, will he explain the treatment this young man has received; and will he now comply with the constant requests made to him to prevent injured heroes such as this from becoming lunatics and being buried in pauper graves?

I am calling for a report on this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Income Tax is deducted on funds invested for the benefit of infants and that the Board of Inland Revenue refuses to repay the tax in all cases whether or not the income of the infant is below £120; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I am advised that the title to relief would depend on the circumstances of the particular case. If it could be shown that the minor had a vested interest in the income from the funds referred to, and that his total income was below the limit of liability, repayment would be made of tax deducted at the source.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether civilians who are at present interned in Germany and whose total income comes within the limit for exemption or abatement will be held to be debarred from relief from Income Tax on the ground that they are not resident in the United Kingdom?

A person who before the War was resident in Germany, and was on that account debarred from claiming any relief depending on total income from all sources, is not entitled to claim, such relief because he is interned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often the Committee for the Regulation of Capital Issues meets and how long it sits; what steps it takes to examine the applications for leave to issue; whether he will furnish a Return of the applications refused and granted by the Committee; and whether, in view of the policy of commercial development announced by the President of the Board of Trade, he will take steps so that applications for leave to make issues are dealt with with greater promptitude?

I am informed as follows:—The Committee meets at least once each week, and the length of each sitting depends on the time required to dispose satisfactorily of the applications on which it has to adjudicate. The Secretary sets before the Committee full particulars of each application, obtaining additional information from the applicant where necessary by correspondence or interview and reports from the appropriate Government Department wherever possible. The Committee examines, before each meeting, a written précis of each case, and considers each case at its meetings on the basis of this précis together with the original papers relating to the case and such further information as may be available, either deciding on the application or calling for further particulars. In regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green on the 13th January. Every effort is made to deal promptly with applications, and unless special inquiries are necessary applications are usually disposed of within a week.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of this Committee usually attend?

No, but I will be glad to inquire if my hon. Friend wishes.

asked the Prime Minister whether the offices of Postmaster-General and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, until recently united in the person of one Minister, are now held by two Members of this House; and, if so, whether this change entails an increased charge on public funds?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, the King having approved the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Rotherham Division (Mr. J. A. Pease) to be Postmaster-General. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

May I ask whether the appointment of the new Postmaster-General involves the relinquishment of the political pension which he enjoys, and will the Government take this opportunity of effecting a public economy?

My right hon. Friend has already relinquished it.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Appropriation Account showing the Grants of Parliament for Navy services for the year ended 31st March, 1915, and the sums which actually came in course of payment in that year, will be presented to Parliament in the usual form, giving information in detail under the various services for which provision was made?

The question raised has received careful consideration, and we have consulted the Treasury in the matter. It is considered that in the national interest the Navy Appropriation Account for the financial year referred to should be confined to the abstract statement of expenditure under Votes (those numbered 8 to 11 inclusive being merged in one total), with particulars of balances irrecoverable and correspondence, matters of a confidential character being omitted. There will, of course, be no curtailment of the usual facilities afforded to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of access to all papers and documents relating to the account as a whole, and, in addition, an account containing more detailed information will be prepared and can be issued if so ordered as soon as the public interest permits.

May we take it that accounts are being kept, so that hereafter, when the War is over, we shall receive as full information as in an ordinary year?

The Estimates themselves have been published, and the Appropriation Account is being prepared by us largely on the lines of the Estimates as published, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not pin me down to every particular detail. As I have said, "an account containing more detailed information will be prepared and can be issued if so ordered."

( by Private Notice ) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate to the House copies of the papers taken by the British authorities from Captain von Papen?

A White Paper containing a selection from the papers referred to will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible.

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether any and, if so, what opinions have been expressed by either or both of the Joint Commissioners and/or the Scottish Commissioners upon the allegations published by the town council of Edinburgh regarding the waste of £19,000 a year in Edinburgh; whether such opinions were verbal or in writing; and whether they are considered suitable for publication?

I understand that the Report in question has not yet been dealt with by the Edinburgh Town Council. It has not, meanwhile, been considered by my Department, and the last two parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

asked the President of the Local Government Board what steps he is taking to deal with the state of things in connection with the insanitary and dilapidated condition of the Brady Street area, Bethnal Green; and whether, in view of the abnormally high death-rate in this area, the immediate carrying out of the scheme already approved will be undertaken?

No scheme for the improvement of this area has been submitted to me for approval. The Treasury have informed the London County Council that no loan for the purpose of such a scheme can be allowed during the War. I am not aware, however, of any reason why the Council should not proceed with the preparation of a scheme, and have written to them for information as to the steps which they are taking to that end.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into this matter, because it is clear from the answer he has given that he is not fully aware of the circumstances?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the total area of land now held by the Estates Commissioners and Congested Districts Board, respectively; the steps those bodies are taking for the distribution of the land in the interest of increased tillage; and the area they expect to make available for that purpose before the end of March next?

I am informed that the Estates Commissioners have some 4,400 acres of untenanted land exclusive of mountain and turbary not yet allotted, and pending completion of arrangements for distribution they have been temporarily let, the greater part thereof to committees of the tenants. The Commissioners have already allotted over 300,000 acres, and have placed the allottees in occupation. It is estimated by the Commissioners that arrangements will be completed for the allotment of close on 1,000 acres by the date mentioned in the concluding portion of the question. The Congested Districts Board are unable to state the area of land held by them on this date, and consider that the labour which would be involved for their diminished staff in the preparation of a return would not be justified at the present time. As stated on page 9 of their twenty-third Report, the Board had vested in them on the 31st March, 1915, about 116,000 acres of untenanted land, and had agreed to purchase about 181,000 acres which had not been vested in them on that date and were not therefore disposable. They are taking steps for the distribution of the untenanted lands on their estates as rapidly as is possible with their present staff and with the funds available for necessary expenditure in buildings and for fencing. A return of untenanted lands in the Board's hands on the 31st March, 1915, will appear in the next annual report.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the total area of land in the Land Judge's Court for sale at the end of July, 1914, and now, respectively; whether most of that land has been in that Court for sale for thirty or forty years; what special steps have been taken since the outbreak of War to have it sold and distributed for increased tillage; what is the obstacle to this being done; and whether any action will be taken?

I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that, for the reasons which I stated in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 29th January, 1913, it is not practicable to supply the information asked for in the first part of the question. The reply to the second part is in the negative. As regards the remainder of the question, no special steps have been taken since the outbreak of War to expedite the sale of the land referred to, if for no other reason, because the stock in which the advances are made cannot be realised for the redemption of superior interests or payment of incumbrances.

It is somewhat fortunate for me that eleven o'clock intervened last night, as it prevented me from saying some things I had it in my mind to say. It has given me an opportunity of very carefully considering the position with regard to this Amendment, upon which I propose to make a few remarks, and I do so with a deep sense of responsibility. I am one of those Members who during the last eighteen months have not said a single word against either the Liberal Government or the Coalition Government on the conduct of the War, and I have not put a single question across the floor of the House upon the subject, and therefore I do think, as my case is representative of that of a considerable number of hon. Friends who have evidenced the same very loyal desire, I am entitled on this occasion to make a few remarks. It was stated in the Debate last night that it would clearly conduce to military efficiency if this Amendment were adopted. Under the Bill as it stands the Army is to get added to its numbers all the unmarried men who have no legitimate excuse, and who had attained the age of eighteen on the 15th August of last year. The Bill in any case does not touch a man who has a legitimate and reasonable excuse. We are not dealing on this Amendment with the nature or validity of the various excuses. They are dealt with in other parts of the Bill and in other Amendments. Our attention, therefore, is directed at the moment simply to those unmarried men who have no legitimate excuse. The date in the Bill relates to a period five months ago—the 15th August—and the Committee yesterday definitely accepted that date.

The Amendment must also be considered in the light of an important announcement made by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that, as a matter of fact, the War Office do not call up anyone until he is nineteen. This is intended to apply under the Derby scheme and it will also apply under this Bill, and therefore we have every reason to hope that as the training only begins at nineteen boys will at all events get on towards the age of twenty before being called upon to join the fighting line. That, at any rate, was the effect of the Colonial Secretary's statement, and, of course, we accept it as defining the method in which this Bill and the proceedings under it are to be carried out in the future, although we know it has not been acted upon in the past. What is the position? The young man who has no legitimate excuse and who attained the age of eighteen on the 14th August last year will under this Bill become automatically enlisted, but will not be called up for training before the 14th August the year when he is nineteen. He will have six months' training, and, therefore, accepting the Colonial Secretary's statement, he will not find himself in the fighting line until about nineteen and a half years old. This Amendment proposes, with all these safeguards, there should be an additional effort to obtain military efficiency. That is the effect of the Amendment, and it was admitted on behalf of the Government last night that the effect would be to obtain additional military efficiency.

The difficulty which called forth the Derby scheme and the Prime Minister's pledge, and which has now called forth this Bill, is the difficulty of maintaining drafts at a satisfactory figure in order to keep our battalions at their proper strength. If our drafts are not maintained we may see our battalions fade away from 1,000 strong to much lower numbers. This is the very difficulty which, according to the various experts who write on the War—among them Mr. Hilaire Belloc—our enemies are encountering at this particular moment, and it is the increase of this difficulty on the part of the enemy which those experts point out is going to win this War for us. If the enemy's battalions get reduced to 750 and then to 500, we are told, it means our winning the War, but it is perfectly obvious that if our own battalions are at the same time reduced to 750 and then to 500, this contingency will not help us. The one thing, therefore, that we have to do to win this War is to take such steps, when we have the opportunity, as will ensure that our drafts are in future adequately maintained. Every day since 15th August last some hundreds of eligible young men, without legitimate excuse, have attained eighteen. [Laughter.] I see the joke, and probably, if I were not in such deadly earnest with regard to this matter, I should not have perpetrated it.

The question arises, as a matter of common fairness, why should not these young men be treated in their turn at the same age in exactly the same manner as the body of young men, also without legitimate excuse, who attained the age of eighteen a few days before the 15th August last? In common fairness I ask the question, Why not? Why should one young man be made a conscript at the age of eighteen and a half and other young men who attained that age not be made conscripts? In common fairness there is no answer to that question. Again, in this Debate reference has been made to "gathering a crop." Under this Bill as it stands we are attempting to gather the one crop which ripened prior to 15th August last. Further crops are coming along all the time. They will, as this War goes on, be urgently wanted a little later in order to maintain our drafts. If I understand the Government correctly, they say, "We are only dealing with this one crop. We are not now providing in advance for the future crops." That is the attitude of the Government. This does not strike me as being the way to win the War. As the Colonial Secretary remarked yesterday, if we do not win the War, what does anything matter? I agree. In that case, if we do not win the War, what would it matter whether the Prime Minister continues in that office? What would it matter whether the Colonial Secretary and his Friends remain in the Government? What would it matter whether any of us remain Members of this House or whether this House itself continues to exist?

Last night, when I rose upon this Amendment, I was tempted to regard this Amendment as a test. I was tempted to resign my seat in this House, which I have held for the last fourteen years, if this Amendment were not accepted. Ever since the 4th August last many of the Members of this House, including myself, have loyally abstained from criticising the conduct of the War, but our patience is becoming rapidly exhausted. We desire to concentrate upon one object and one object only—that is, to win the War. We think to-day that this Amendment would help. Why is it resisted? The Colonial Secretary has already spoken upon it. He has made a most important admission. He said last night: the Government Front Bench notice to quit and replace them with a Government solely selected with regard to and solely devoted to efficiency in this War? I doubt it. I doubt whether we should secure the desired result. Entertaining any such doubt, I have no alternative but, as a matter of duty, to resume my seat and the silence of the last eighteen months, but I am profoundly dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government in almost every Department.

I desire to say a word or two more in explanation of the action of the Government, and also to ask, on behalf of the Government, whether the time has not nearly come when we might be allowed to decide this particular question. We are extremely anxious, and I think the Committee as a whole feels that it is vitally necessary, that this Bill should be passed into law with as little delay as possible. I know that there are many Members in the Committee, not confined to one quarter of it, who feel very strongly upon this question. I do not conceal from the Committee—it would be dishonest to do so—indeed, most of them know the views I have held on this War. I hold them as strongly as ever. I should have felt the force of the speeches delivered last night in this Debate much more if the Bill we are discussing had been a Bill for the introduction of general compulsory service into this country. But it is nothing of the kind. I venture to repeat again, in answer to the speech just made by my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) that this is a Bill different even from what he appeared to consider it to be, and even more limited. It is a Bill to give effect to a definite promise made in this House after certain steps had been taken by the Government. I dwell upon that, because in that is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend, to which he said there was no reply. He said, "It is admitted that if this Amendment is accepted a large number of young men of the age described in the Bill as the military age would be added to our numbers. Why do you not take them? What is the difference between them?" He went on to say there is no answer to the question. I join issue with my hon. Friend at once. There is not only an answer, but a complete answer, and it would be very unfair of this House to take action such as is recommended to them in face of this reply. What is it? When it was found some two or three months ago that the number of men coming to the Colours was not sufficient to enable the Government, and the Secretary of State for War as the member of the Government responsible for the Army, to provide the troops required, the Government had to decide what course they would take, and they deliberately adopted a course which was approved by this House. They instituted a special campaign, and arranged a special appeal, as far as was possible individually, to all the men of military age to be found in the country; and it was only when the Bill had failed, in the opinion of the Government, to give them the men necessary that they followed it up by applying compulsion to the men to whom the appeal had individually been made. That is the answer to my hon. Friend. He asks us, and the Amendment asks us, using a simple phrase, to "conscript" those who were outside the operations of Lord Derby's scheme. All that we propose to do is to apply this special measure to those men who had their opportunity brought to their very doors by Lord Derby's scheme, and declined to avail themselves of it. Consequently, in accordance with the Prime Minister's speech, this Bill is brought in to keep faith with the married men. But I recognise—it would be idle to deny—that the Debate of last night, and the speech my hon. Friend has just made, contain a clear indictment against the Government, that in this particular Bill and at this moment they are not doing their duty. Who is to be the adviser of the Government upon their duty in regard to the number of troops they are to provide for the War? I ask that question, and I ask my hon. Friends in all earnestness to ask it themselves. Is it to be the result of a Debate and Division in this House, or is it to be the Secretary of the State, who has done yeoman work already in connection with the conduct of this War?

When this Bill was in its early stages the Prime Minister did me the honour to ask me to superintend its preparation, and I had a very long discussion with Lord Kitchener as to this Bill and to his view of it. I quoted him in my remarks on the Second Reading. I quoted a statement he made with all the authority of Secretary of State in another place. I am authorised again to quote what he stated to me then and what he has repeated to me to-day. He authorises me to say, on behalf of the Government, that he does not desire this Amendment to be carried. He has gone into the whole question, I need hardly say, with the utmost care and the utmost industry, because, whatever may be the responsibility of the Government or the responsibility of this House, I am sure no one will deny that the burden of responsibility rests more heavily upon his shoulders than upon those of anyone else. Does anyone believe that the Secretary of State for War, when he was considering this Bill in its early stages, shirked his duties or responsibilities? Does anyone believe that he took a less serious view of our prospects or of our needs? He authorises me to say he hopes this Bill will pass practically as the Government have introduced it. He authorises me to say this Bill will give him, by bringing in the unmarried men, all the men that he requires. It will enable him to provide the troops that the nation requires. It will enable him to do all that he can and all that is necessary to be done, to use his own words, to secure victory. I do not think the most ardent supporter of compulsory service, in whatever quarter of the House he may sit, will blame the Government if they frankly state what is the view of the Government and of the head of the Department specially concerned. I ask whether we may not, then, be allowed to take this limited measure as it stands, and not risk—it is a great risk—losing a Bill the Secretary of State so earnestly asks for, and which he believes is sufficient for all his purposes? It is not the moment now to defend the Government against the general charge which has been brought by my hon. Friend. I may say quite honestly to the House that the statement he made is really not correct. He told us that the cause of this Bill being in what he would call a truncated form is differences in the Cabinet and the necessity of satisfying those who held different views from those held by many of us. I can assure him that that statement is not correct. I can assure him that there has been no difference of opinion of that kind at all. The Bill was prepared to meet a particular difficulty and to carry out a particular pledge. It was considered by the Secretary of State and the War Office, and it is only introduced by the Government when they were satisfied that it met the pledge and satisfied the Secretary of State. I do not think the charge of shirking lies against the Government. I earnestly hope we may be allowed without very much longer delay to dispose of this Amendment and discuss the other details of the Bill, fully of course—they are important—but not at undue length, because I urge upon the House the great importance of passing this Bill as rapidly as possible in order that as soon as possible it may come into effect. It is for this reason that I have intruded upon the House at the request of my right hon. Friend at this stage. I can assure those who hold strong views that it is not because we underrate the value of their opinion or the importance of their views that we feel ourselves bound to say no to the Amendment.

I am sure the Committee is anxious to come to a decision, and I will not therefore trouble it with a speech, but will content myself with expressing the hope that it will support the Government.

I think I am entitled to point out that the very powerful and certainly very effective appeal of my right hon. Friend, which must weigh with the House of Commons, is one which differs so widely from the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies yesterday that it is worth while just to draw attention to the difference. Yesterday we put the case that this Amendment fell within the pledge given by the Prime Minister. Just as a man reaching the age of forty-one passes out of the conditions so it is only logical that a man who reaches the age of eighteen should come within them. May I also remind the Committee that the pledge of the Prime Minister was to married men that, if the unmarried men did not come forward, other measures would be taken. It was not a restricted pledge to be confined to the very minimum of unmarried men we would take. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) just now used an argument which is destructive of the Bill itself. He said:—

"The only men who are going to be taken are men to whom the appeal has actually been made, and to whose door it has come."

We all know that there are tens of thousands who were never canvassed, and who were never reached. The real argument for the Bill is that Lord Derby's scheme showed that, in spite of the splendid patriotism of the nation, you could not, even by voluntary methods as effective as those adopted by Lord Derby, get the men you wanted. Therefore you had to have recourse to other methods, in the first place in regard to unmarried men, and, if the needs of the country demand it later, married men also. What was the statement of the Colonial Secretary yesterday? It was that the men would be wanted. He said that if the War lasted any length of time the men would be wanted later. He said we were not dealing with the needs of the country, but with the Prime Minister's pledge, and he made a statement that I think is well worth remembering. He said:—

"We are not now carrying through a Bill, or pretending that we are, which deals in the most effective way possible with the military situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January. 1916, col. 144.]

In heaven's name what is the Government pretending to do, and how does that statement fit in with the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has just made, or with the card which he has put on the table, namely, Lord Kitchener's statement that he does not want the men? There can be no doubt that the men will be wanted. If they are not wanted to-day they will be wanted very soon. Then why should hon. Members have to traverse the whole ground over again, and why should we have the same controversy over again, and the same irritating and exasperating delays? I put it from the point of view of the Service Members, who come over here at great inconvenience to themselves and at some risk. I know that a great many of them feel it very trying that they should be separated from their units at this time. Are they to be dragged over again in two or three months to discuss another Bill? All that this Amendment provides is that automatically, within the ambit of the Prime Minister's pledge, these men should be available to be called for when required. They are not enlisted. They become reservists automatically, and when they are fit and Lord Kitchener wants them he can call for them. It may be quite possible that he does not want them at this moment, but why should not the House of Commons put him in the position of having them ready whenever he wants them? It seems to me that on a question of this sort, which is not dealing with immediate strategical or military needs, but with the broad view of supplying the Government with the men whom it may require, it is not fair to us when the Government finds there is some difficulty, and when the demand for this Amendment is really strong, to go and get a declaration from Lord Kitchener that he does not want the Amendment and does not want the men. It is a test case, and I hope hon. Members will agree with me and will not be deterred by the appeal which has just been made, but will persist in the Amendment, which undoubtedly will strengthen the hands of the Government in the prosecution of the War, and that is the only thing that matters.

I had a similar Amendment, and I am entitled to say one or two words, especially as I shall accede to the appeal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long), and, so far as I am concerned, shall not divide upon this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward a new argument which was not brought forward last night, and that is that Lord Kitchener is against the Amendment. Of course, that is a weighty argument, and one which will tell with me, and I believe it will tell with every hon. Member. I am rather surprised that it was not brought forward last night, in which event the Debate might have been shortened considerably. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward was that this Amendment was outside the Derby scheme. I would point out that he accepted yesterday an Amendment which was clearly outside the Derby scheme—a limiting Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones), which extended the limit for married men from 15th August to 2nd November. That provided that a man who under the Derby scheme got married in a hurry to avoid coming under the scheme as an unmarried man should be classed as a married man if he was married on the 2nd November. If it is allowable to alter the Derby scheme in one way it is allowable to alter it in another. I would here call attention to the words used by the Colonial Secretary yesterday, when speaking in reference to an Amendment to alter the age to nineteen. He said:—

"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,—"

These are the words I want to draw attention to—

"as well as under the Derby scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1916, col. 96.]

Therefore, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, this very thing that we want to do in his Amendment is done already under the Derby scheme.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. May I ask him a question? When the Derby scheme was extended from 30th November until 11th December, does he suggest for a moment that when a young man came to offer to join under the Derby scheme in those days, and he said he was eighteen, that the official would say, "Were you eighteen on the 15th August or eighteen on the 16th August?" and that if the young man said he was eighteen on the 16th August he rejected him? It is evident that he did nothing of the sort.

They accept them to-day.

We are told by the Colonial Secretary that if the War goes on that these boys will be wanted. It is the same story over again. Instead of taking precautions, and instead of taking steps, we wait until the thing is urgently necessary, and then the whole thing is too late. That is the thing that has pursued us from the beginning of the War. Is it less important to win the War or to preserve in its integrity the Derby scheme? Never mind if it does go a little beyond the Derby scheme. However, if Lord Kitchener says that he does not want these men—I think he is taking a great responsibility upon himself—so far as I am concerned I have nothing more to say.

I have listened with great interest to what has been said just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and I gathered from that that there must be a considerable body of opinion among those with whom he is chiefly associated who do not wish to divide the House on this subject. Personally I have no wish to divide against the Government, if the general sense of the House is that this Amendment of mine is one which does not properly come within the scope of the Bill. That was the main gist of the argument of my right hon. Friend just now. If he had confined himself to that argument, I think I may say that to my mind that would have been almost conclusive, but unfortunately he reinforced it, or attempted to reinforce it, by advancing an opinion of the Secretary of State for War which had little effect so far as I am concerned, because I must confess that one of the most remarkable things in the whole of this War is the total eclipse of the office of the Secretary of State for War behind the shadow of a figurehead. When an argument is put forward it should be supported by some facts which would give strength and force to the argument. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us that Lord Kitchener had ever been right once before in this War it might have had some weight, but in the matter of recruiting I say emphatically that he has been wrong from first to last, and that he has left the country at this moment in a position precisely the same as that in which it was left in reference to the question of munitions, and that now at this time of crisis in the War we are left without the necessary drafts to make up our men in the field. I have nothing more to say. I am perfectly willing to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, but I wish to make it clear that I do so in response to the argument that the Amendment does not properly come within the scope of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

The Question is, "That leave be given to withdraw the Amendment." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Amendment negatived.

The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire (Mr. George Lambert) is out of place. The following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir Walter Essex) is also out of place; it can be raised on Clause 2. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Treveylan) appears to me to anticipate the Amendment which is next but one on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir John Simon), which will enable wider and more important questions to be raised.

I do not want to argue the point of Order; I can raise it later on the Bill.

I beg to propose, after the word "Act," to insert the words "and unless he has attained the age of forty-one years before the appointed date."

The object of this Amendment is not to cut down, but is to conform to what is practically the Derby scheme.

May I point out that this is another interference with the Derby scheme? Under the Derby scheme a man who has not attained the age of forty-one on the 15th August is bound to come in.

No. In working the Derby scheme, as a matter of practice, it is practically impossible to apply it to persons who become forty-one within a short time of the scheme being put into force, and consequently the Derby scheme cannot apply to men to whom we suggest that this Bill should not apply.

May I refer to the words of a by-law printed in an official document issued by Lord Derby and the War Office, which says that a man's age is reckoned from the present and not from the past, and that if a man was forty-one yesterday he is not liable to be called up to-day? I would ask my right hon. Friend to give some assurance that men who attain the age of forty-one after the appointed day, before being called up, shall be excluded from liability to serve.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to propose, after the word "Act," to insert the words

"apply within fourteen days after the passing of the Act to the Military Service Tribunal, established under this Act in order that it may be determined whether he is entitled to a certificate of exemption, and if it is determined that he is not so entitled he shall be forthwith registered by the said tribunal as a person available for military service. His Majesty may, by Order in Council, declare that the total number of persons so registered is substantial, and thereupon those persons shall as from the date named in such Order."

The Amendment which I wish to move does not interfere with the general purpose of the Bill, but it raises a question of machinery which is somewhat important. I would like to state the effect of the Amendment very briefly, if the Committee will allow me to do so. They will then be in a position to judge whether the change which I propose should be made. In order to appreciate the Amendment it is necessary to see what the Bill as it stands at present will do. The Bill will at a certain date, within five weeks from its passage, operate to cause a number of men to be deemed to be enlisted, and it does not appear to me that as the Bill stands when the time comes there will be any means of knowing who those men are, or where they are, or how many there are. Obviously it is a practical proposition if it can be arranged without any unfair loss of time (because, of course, if this Amendment were to involve substantial delay that would be a good practical argument against it, which I would recognise), but if it can be arranged without serious loss of time that you should have a change in the machinery by which you would know who the men are, where they are, and how many there are, everybody will agree that that would not be inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. May I point out that the idea of legislating that a number of people are at a given moment to be deemed to be soldiers is in itself a very strange idea, and certainly one for which I can find no parallel in our legislation, and which is contrary to the methods adopted in times past, for instance, in connection with the Militia ballots. I am not an authority on the system in other countries, but I do not believe that there is any system under which it happens at present that people are legislated into the position of soldiers without there being any method by which you identify who they are before they are put into that position. The scheme of the Bill is that those who feel disposed to do so have to come forward and apply for exemption, and that the exemption shall be considered and dealt with.

4.0 P.M.

Let me point out to the Committee that by the provisions in the Bill anybody who comes forward and asks for exemption, whether his claim is good or bad, cannot be called up for service until that application has been finally disposed of. I do not think it is a very unreasonable thing to suppose that of those who are left, or who may be touched by this Bill, a very large number will apply for exemption. I hope I will carry the Committee with me, every member of the Committee, when I say we all of us hope that at least the number of people who are called slackers to the extent of avoiding the operation of this Bill will be very limited. Surely, it would be a most unfortunate result, that you should be left in a state of doubt as to how many people there are available for the purpose of being called up, who they are, where they are to be found, and what their circumstances are. I accept quite loyally the principle of the Bill; and, as I have said before, if my proposal was a proposal which involved serious and substantial delay or great complication of machinery, that would be a good reason why it should not be adopted. But I do not think it is so. I see the Prime Minister is here, and may I respectfully point out that I have modified the form of the proposal in this way. I had originally put it down as though the person covered by the Clause were to apply before the appointed day to the tribunal; but I see there is force in the criticism that it would give unreasonable and unnecessary opportunity for delay. It appears to me that that is a perfectly fair criticism to make, and I have endeavoured to meet it by providing that it shall apply, after the Bill passes, within fourteen days.

If there is an obligation on all these people to apply, then all those who have got applications to make for exemption will have to make them, and make them more promptly than the Bill as it stands provides, and that is all in the interests of expedition. Apart from those whose applications will succeed, undoubtedly a number will not succeed in their applications and will be disappointed. All those cannot be called up until their applications have been finally disposed of. What I ask the Committee to consider is whether it would not improve the machinery of the Bill if it were provided that within the next fortnight everyone who is within the scope of this Bill shall go before those tribunals, which can be constituted immediately. If a man does not want to make an application he could then be by the tribunal registered as a person available for military service forthwith, and thereby the military authorities will get to know how many people there are on whom they can Count in the event of calling up a given class. What is to be said against that proposal? No doubt it may be said that it introduces a civil tribunal. Of course their obligation to apply would be an obligation which they must observe, and they would be punished if they did not observe it. It may be said that it involves the use of a civil tribunal and introduces a civil tribunal into this Bill. Really, is the Committee going to say that this is a bad thing? Surely, if you are going to turn civilians into soldiers, it is far better to do it by a process which will identify the man and leave his position unquestioned, rather than that you should do it in a way in which I believe it has never yet been done in any country or in any circumstances, by legislating vaguely that persons unidentified are deemed to be soldiers.

May I point out this: The question as to what the civil tribunal should do when a man comes forward is a subject of importance, but is essentially a subsequent question. I quite agree that it would be proper that those who do not obey the law and do not apply promptly should, amongst other things, expose themselves to a civil penalty. That is entirely in accordance with the Militia Ballot Act and might be a proper thing to do. When you want to get people for the Army you do not want to go about filling your prisons with people, and if there be any who fail to come forward it would be proper for the Committee to consider whether the tribunal should not have power, then and there, to add them as persons who are available for military service. I have endeavoured in a short space to point out what the object of this Amendment is. Judging by the light of the criticism I have seen of it, I really do not think it involves substantial delay. It has this great advantage, which I think everybody will recognise, that no man could stand forward, if this Amendment were adopted, and say that the Prime Minister's pledge had not been with particularity and care fulfilled. The proposal I now make is one which in the past has been found to be good practice. The Section in the Militia Ballot Act, which was the operative Section for a corresponding purpose, is this: The Committee knows what the plan was. You had a list of persons on whom the ballot might fall. The ballot fell from time to time on a certain number, and those persons were then under the obligation to answer to the call. However, the Militia Act did not provide that those persons should be deemed to be soldiers and be transferred to the Reserve. Nothing of the kind. What it provided was this, if the House will permit me to read the Section:—

"And be it further enacted that if any person chosen by Ballot according to the directions of this Act, to serve in the Militia (not being one of the people called Quakers), shall refuse or neglect to appear and take the said oath, and serve in the Militia, or to provide a substitute, to be examined and approved as hereinafter mentioned, who shall take the said oath, and sign his consent to serve as a subsitute, every such person so refusing or neglecting shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds, and at the expiration of five years be again liable to serve or provide a substitute; and in default of payment of such penalty, or for want of sufficient effects whereon to levy the same, the name of such person shall be entered on the roll, and such person shall be delivered over to some proper officer of the regiment, battalion, or corps, for which he was balloted, and shall be compelled to serve."

That was the system which obtained in the days of the Militia ballot. What I am proposing is entirely consistent with that. As I pointed out, it will identify the persons who are liable, it will make a register or list of them, and surely that is a practical advantage from the military point of view. In the second place, it would compel people to make application for exemption even more promptly than the Bill provides. In the third place, beyond all question, it will satisfy the Prime Minister's pledge in the Fullest sense of the term. And lastly, and largely because of those circumstances, it is undoubtedly a contribution towards that general assent that everybody, whatever his views may be on this Bill, earnestly desires in time of war to be secured. I have added to this a provision that as soon as it appears that the number of persons so available for military service is substantial, an Order in Council may at once be made which could apply the compulsory provisions of the Bill. I know there is some difference amongst some of us as to whether the number may be substantial or not, but I do not ask you to wait until you have completed the sifting process to obtain a list of soldiers before you make the Order in Council. I think that as soon as the number is ascertained to be what is termed substantial—and there is no opinion which could be more readily accepted than that of the Government with the Prime Minister at its head—it seems to me entirely right, consistently with the principle of this measure, that the Government by Order in Council should apply the provisions of the Bill. That is the outline of the Amendment which I wish to move, and I would point out to the House that this is not being proposed because it drives a coach and four through an Act of Parliament: it is proposed that because many of us, however wrongly, are sincerely concerned to do what we can to contribute towards the general assent. This beyond all question will so contribute, and unless there is very strong practical reason against the proposal, I very much hope that the Prime Minister will see his way to accept it.

I need not say of my right hon. Friend that I gladly recognise, and recognise, of course, without any surprise, that in this Amendment he is not proposing, nor purports to propose, and I think does not intend to propose, anything fatal to the governing purpose and intentions of the Bill. He says, and I am sure with sincerity, that what he desires is to provide machinery for carrying out the purpose of the Bill, which is to secure, in time of extreme necessity, for the military service of the State, men who in the opinion of all our military advisers we cannot do without, and he suggests that the machinery which he has provided in this Amendment is more effective for the purpose, more in accordance with the promises which have been given, and more conducive to the general assent which all believe to be desirable, than the plan proposed by the Bill. I have examined the matter, I hope with quite an impartial mind, and I have come to the conclusion that the scheme proposed by the Bill is in all substantial respects preferable to the alternative suggested by the Amendment. My right hon. Friend says, with truth, that this Amendment is not aimed at the principle of the Bill. There is one very important respect in which the Amendment, if it were carried, one very obvious respect, that it would strike at the foundation and ground on which we propose the Bill, and submit it to the House. What was that ground? I had given a pledge that in a certain contingency—that is if the unmarried men who had not voluntarily come forward were found to be a substantial number, or, in Lord Derby's words, not a negligible quantity—that before the married men were called upon to serve some form of compulsion would be applied to the unmarried men. We discussed on the First and Second Reading of the Bill whether or not the contingency, which I contemplated, and which I hoped would not have happened, had in fact occurred. I was satisfied, the Government were satisfied, and the vast majority of the House was satisfied, that that contingency had occurred. Why? Because after a canvass conducted practically in all the constituencies of Great Britain under the auspices of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, representing all parties in the State, with the willing and able co-operation of the Joint Labour Committee, when the whole of that machinery, the most complete and most searching that we could produce, had been applied, and every effort had been made to ascertain that the men who were capable of serving should be invited to serve, the result unquestionably was in our opinion to show that there was a very large and very substantial and far from negligible quantity of the unmarried men who did not come forward. Whatever abatement you make from the gross total, I repeat after fuller consideration what I said before on the introduction of this Bill, that it was proved to our satisfaction that there was what could not be called a negligible quantity who had not voluntarily come forward.

Under those conditions I conceived, and my colleagues conceived, that we should not be keeping faith with the married men, or to put it in a different way and translate it into the concrete effects of the return, those married men, some 400,000 in number, whose enlistment and joining the Colours was in the opinion of all our military authorities absolutely essential for the immediate interests of the War, would be absolved from their duty, or their conditional obligation to come forward, and it was under those conditions we proposed this Bill. What is the effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendment? I am not now speaking for the moment of the machinery, but only of what is its substance and effect. My right hon. Friend asks Parliament to affirm that the assumption upon which this Bill was introduced was, if not unfounded, at least altogether unproved, because the whole object of the Amendment is to go through this process of sifting by the tribunals in order that you may inquire and ascertain whether there is or is not a negligible quantity. Certainly all those who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill voted for it in the belief and on the assumption that the case was proved. As well as that, it would be a dilatory proceeding to set up a tribunal now in order to ascertain whether or not the quantity was negligible or otherwise.

Now let me come to the practical points raised by my right hon. Friend. I do not labour the question of delay, which is not an unimportant matter, but let us contrast the two procedures—that contained in the scheme proposed by the Bill and that in the Amendment. Under the scheme proposed by the Bill, unless a man comes forward and claims exemption he is automatically subject to the military obligation to join the Colours. Anybody who has any ground for exemption is, therefore, under the strongest possible motive to put it forward and to submit it, with all available evidence, to an impartial and, I hope, well-constituted tribunal. We will subsequently discuss the nature of the tribunal, but let us assume that it is impartial and competent. The man is entitled to put his case forward before that tribunal, and, if he cares to appeal, to an appellate tribunal, and, if the appellate tribunal gives permission, to a second Court of Appeal, and until his case is disposed of in that way when he goes before the tribunal he cannot be forced to join the Colours or be called upon for any form of military service. It seems to me to be the happiest possible way of providing an opportunity of excluding every man who has any reasonable ground or justification or excuse, if an unmarried man of military age, for abstaining from joining the Colours. It secures that and gives him every chance of putting his case forward free from any possibility of hardship, injustice, or wrong. What is my right hon. Friend's counter suggestion? It is that a legal obligation, which goes much further than the proposal of the Bill, enforceable by fine or imprisonment, and if needs be by hard labour, shall be cast upon all those men to go before the tribunal and claim exemption.

Not to claim exemption unless they wish to do so, but to go before the tribunal to be registered unless they are entitled to exemption.

Let me read the words of the Amendment, the Clause beginning with "shall," fails to make application to the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, so that every one of these men, if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill, would be under legal obligation enforceable by imprisonment to go before the tribunal. That is a much more arbitrary proceeding, and it is carrying compulsion much further than I propose to go. Surely, the plan proposed by the Bill is more mild and more considerate, and more effective. What the Bill says is that if you choose you can go before a tribunal and claim exemption. If you do, and everybody will who has any reasonable ground of exemption, then your case would be considered, and until it is fully considered you will not be called upon to serve. If you do not choose to go before the tribunal you will not be subject to imprisonment, but you will be enlisted as a soldier and liable for service. I am not a strong advocate of compulsion, as the House of Commons knows. I regard compulsion with repugnance, only to be resorted to as a last necessity, but I really think in this matter my right hon. Friend is going a great deal further than some of us would do in the way of enforcing by legal penalties an obligation which, as I think, can be much better and more practically imposed by the scheme under the Bill, and the automatic enlistment of the unmarried for military service without the necessity of haling a man before a criminal tribunal and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

I want to deal with this matter without anything in the nature of heat, and really to discuss what is practical and expedient. This is really a choice between reaching the end by a direct or by a devious route. Under the Bill only the cases of men who apply for exemption need be considered by the tribunal. That will probably severely tax their powers, but still it is a burden they will have to discharge. Under my right hon. Friend's Amendment every man's case has got to be considered, and if a person does not appear before the tribunal, he is liable to be imprisoned. Under the proposal of the Bill those who do not obtain exemption before the appointed day are from that day deemed to be enlisted. Under the Amendment of my right hon. Friend no one will be deemed to be enlisted until all the cases have been inquired into and the total of non-exemp- tions is found to be substantial. Surely as between those two courses every argument is in favour of the course provided by the Bill. I think that the House and Committee, after consideration, will come to the conclusion that the course proposed by the Government is shorter, more direct, and certainly not more productive of possible hardship or injustice, and if, as I and my colleagues claim, the question whether there is or is not a negligible minority is a question which has already been decided, then the provisions suggested by my right hon. Friend of an Order-in-Council, and declarations as to numbers are entirely superfluous and unnecessary. I venture, therefore, to submit to the Committee that, on the balance of argument, from the point of view of justice, convenience, practical expediency, and, above all, the rapid attainment of the great purpose we have in view, which is to secure an adequate and constant supply of our necessary military resources, it is much better to adhere to the proposal contained in the Bill and to reject the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.

May I ask, on a point of Order, whether, in the event of this Amendment being negatived, it will still be open to me to move my Amendment providing that notice should be given to all the men who are supposed to come within the scope of this Bill?

I think not in the form in which the hon. Member has it on the Paper. There are other Amendments with regard to notice which I think are admissible. The point can be raised, and I might be able to suggest to the hon. Member a better form than the one he has put down if he wishes to raise the limited point which does not necessarily arise at present.

Perhaps I may be allowed to raise the point when the Amendment is called. At present I understand my Amendment is not ruled out of order. I may then advance my argument on the point of Order.

If the hon. Member wishes to raise simply the limited point that notice should be given to everyone of his liability under the Act, I will find some way of raising it, apart from the Amendment now under consideration, if that will meet his point.

I was very much disappointed at the way in which the Prime Minister received my right hon. Friend's proposal. I think the real point of difference between those who support my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister is this. The Prime Minister has laid it down as axiomatic that the number of persons who have not joined is not negligible. Some of us believe that he is wrong, that the number is, in fact, negligible, and that the Prime Minister ought, in fairness to those who detest the compulsory system and who are as strong voluntaryists as he proclaims himself to be, to adhere to that part of his pledge which promised that there should be complete investigation of these claims before any measure of compulsion was introduced. Let me refer again to Lord Derby's letter:—

"If, after all these claims have been investigated, and all the exemptions made mentioned above, there remain a considerable number of young men not engaged in these pursuits, who could perfectly well be spared for military service, they should be compelled to serve. On the other hand, if the number should prove to be, as I hope it will, a really negligible minority, there will he no question of legislation."

Let me put it to the Prime Minister, without offence if I can, that if he should be wrong in his opinion that the number is not negligible—and I think he will admit that it is really a matter of opinion and that no actual proof has so far been adduced on one side or the other—then under the procedure adopted by the Bill, faith will not have been kept with the voluntaryists who were promised that this measure of compulsion should not be introduced until it was proved—not thought or opined—that the number of persons who had failed to enlist was not negligible. The proposal of my right hon. Friend does secure for us that we shall have proof that the number is not negligible before any measure of compulsion in regard to any of these unmarried men is adopted. The whole Committee must realise what a great difference it makes to those who oppose compulsion if they feel at the bottom of their hearts that compulsion has been forced upon the country by persons who believe in it for its own sake, by refusing to take certain steps which the Prime Minister promised should be taken before compulsion was put into force. It must be plain to everybody that the feeling in the country will be that the voluntaryists have not been fairly treated, and that a measure which is offensive and distasteful to them has been passed through this House without those precautionary steps having been taken which voluntaryists were solemnly promised should be taken before a measure of compulsion was passed into law. On that ground I most respectfully ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the attitude he has taken up. I think he must see that until actual proof is given of the non-negligibility of the number of persons who have failed to attest, there will be a much smaller measure of consent to the application of this measure than there otherwise would be. The Prime Minister said that under my right hon. Friend's proposal every case would have to be investigated. I do not think that that was quite a fair description of the proposal. Those persons who have not any serious application to make to the Court would not have their case investigated at all. They would be merely registered and that would take no time whatever. As far as I can judge, the actual number of cases for investigation under my right hon. Friend's proposal would not be one more than under the proposal of the Bill. I respectfully submit that the Amendment ought to be adopted, and that if it is not adopted there will be a material worsening of the feeling of the country on the subject of the introduction of compulsion.

The hon. Member opposite complains that the Prime Minister has not given due consideration to the Amendment. My complaint is totally different. It is that the Prime Minister has given far too much consideration to this Amendment. I rise to express the hope, which I am certain is shared by many Members on both sides of the House—Members who are here but anxious to get back to more useful duties—that the Prime Minister will not devote the time of this Committee or condescend to give the weight of reasoned argument to the thirty-two pages of deliberately obstructive Amendments to the Bill.

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a charge of that description. It is for me, if I see obstruction, to call attention to it.

Withdraw!

It was not a personal charge. It is a case for the intervention of the Chair.

I have been away so long that I have perhaps got out of touch with Parliamentary procedure. If I was wrong, of course I withdraw the statement, without any invitation from hon. Members opposite. I ought not to have described these Amendments in that way, and I do not; I withdraw the expression. But I am entitled, I conceive, to express my opinion as to how far an Amendment of this character is worthy of the consideration of the Committee. We have here thirty-two pages of Amendments—

Twenty-one.

We have also to consider that expedition is the primary necessity in this matter.

The best way to secure expedition is to keep strictly to the Amendment before the Committee.

May I say one more word, and then if I am called to order again I shall at any rate have the satisfaction of having said what I want to say? This Amendment is calculated to delay the Bill. The whole chorus of opposition to the Bill is represented by twenty-nine votes and thirty-two pages of Amendments. But let us remember that there is the War which we, have got to get on with, and let us deal with that.

I do not desire to deal with the observations of the hon. Member opposite. The Committee is able to appraise those observations at their true value, seeing that the hon. Member is unable even to calculate correctly arithmetically the number of pages of Amendments. I wish to associate myself with the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that the Government have not been able to accept this Amendment. We are entitled to claim, in respect of this Amendment, that no attempt is made to undermine the principle of the Bill, to weaken its machinery, or to delay its being put into operation. The Prime Minister himself admitted that my right hon. Friend claimed that no delay would arise from the adoption of the alternative machinery here suggested. I do not wish to recall once more the terms of the Prime Minister's pledge, but I think it can be substantiated that this Amendment is a literal and meticulous fulfilment of the exact terms of that pledge, and, indeed, that it, far better than the Bill itself, exactly embodies the undertaking contained in Lord Derby's letter. The statement there was that if, after all the claims had been considered and all the exemptions allowed, there were a substantial number outstanding, then they would be dealt with in other ways. That is exactly what the Amendment proposes—that and nothing else.

I was somewhat puzzled at the Prime Minister's comparison between the tender methods of the Bill and the harsh and rigorous methods of the stern compulsionist who has just left the Government. The Prime Minister is mild as compared with his late colleague. While the Prime Minister would scourge the shirkers with rods, apparently the late Home Secretary would scourge them with scorpions. But, after all, I think the Prime Minister will admit that the people affected by this provision are likely to be the best judges of the rigours of the penalties to be imposed. I think it may be very fairly claimed that the great majority of those who claim exemption under this Bill would prefer to submit themselves to the tribunal and to the penalties suggested by my right hon. Friend rather than to the vague and shadowy penalties which lay waiting for them under the Bill. We know under the Amendment what the penalty will be; that the matter will come before the civil Court, that it will be heard in public, and thus that those concerned will have some security for justice. What is to happen to them under the terms of the Bill? They are to be deemed soldiers. What then? There is no provision for trial. We do not know whether they will have any trial. Candidly I do not know what will be the position of those who put forward a claim for exemption and do not receive it. I do not think that any member of the Government has yet suggested what it will be. We have a vague penalty which may be extremely severe. At least in this matter my right hon. Friend suggests a definite penalty, a penalty which everybody will know beforehand; and the man will know also the tribunal which has inflicted the penalty.

There is another consideration which is extremely relevant here in view of the smooth working of the Bill—that is to take into account the feeling of those who have mistrust and suspicion in regard to the operation of the Bill. These people will be better satisfied by a civil tribunal, and by the penalties here suggested. If they would prefer this method of exemption, and subsequent registration, to the method in the Bill, surely it is in the interests of the Government to adopt a system which will meet their wishes and conse- quently bring about the minimum of friction in the operation of the Bill? I have never made any prophecy about the serious consequences arising from this Bill. I do not desire at this time to make such prophecy. But such prophecies have been made in this House. I have no doubt the Government have seriously considered the risks which are involved in this Bill. There cannot be the slightest doubt that those risks will be greatly diminished if, at this time, in framing the machinery, the Government take into consideration the prejudices and suspicions of those who are doubtful about the operation of the Bill. There is one other point which I desire to make, a point which was not made by my right hon. Friend, and which is worthy the attention of the Prime Minister and of the other members of the Government who are in charge of the Bill.

In the course of the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that during the Committee stage the Government, would endeavour to meet the difficulties in regard to the risk of industrial compulsion. I know that that is a very difficult task indeed, because I have applied my mind to the same problem, and although I do not profess to have at my disposal all the resources at the disposal of the Government I realise the difficulties with which the Government have been faced. Indeed, the fact that no Amendment on this matter has appeared in the name of Ministers is an indication of how difficult is the task. Might I point out to the Prime Minister that if this Amendment of the ex-Home Secretary were adopted he would get, right away, rid of the industrial difficulty?

was understood to indicate dissent.

The exemptions would be given. There would be no suspicion on the part of the industrial classes. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will examine the form of the Amendment he will see that it does away completely with the suspicions which are entertained by the working men as to who will be exempted under the Bill. It will only be the people who do not obtain exemption who will be attested under the terms of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. Consequently, I say that not only has the Amendment the merits claimed for it, but it has this additional merit, that it gets rid of the most serious difficulty with which the Government is confronted with regard to this matter—the difficulty with regard to labour—a difficulty which threatened the break-up of the Government in regard to the labour members of the Coalition. Surely, therefore, it is in the interest of the Government, in the light of this consideration, once more to consider this alternative, particularly in view of the fact that it will meet the serious objections put forward.

I must confess that the suggestion made by the last speaker from the opposite side of the House, that a Bill, which for the first time for hundreds of years introduces military service, can be disposed of without any consideration and amendment, clearly shows that he at least does not realise the opinion of the people of the country. Nothing is more fatal—and I repeat it again—than the airy assumption that the people of this country are simply waiting for this Bill. I submit that no countenance will be given by me in encouraging any industrial strife—none whatever! But there is a responsibility attaching to everybody if the Bill has to become law—to see that it works with as much smoothness and absence of friction as possible. The Prime Minister this afternoon based his claim in opposing this Amendment on two grounds. He first based it on the ground that everything anticipated by the Amendment, and everything claimed for the Amendment, has already been accomplished. I assert that that not only is not true, but that if there had been a systematic and properly organised canvass we would not have been in the position we are in to-day. No one who has anything to do with the Derby scheme, no one who was in close touch with the movement, no one who knew what was taking place would dare to assert—and certainly Lord Derby would never suggest it—that every constituency in this country has been properly canvassed. As a matter of fact, for the first month at least out of the six weeks there were continual complaints coming to Lord Derby and to the whole of the tribunals that there were not sufficient canvassers to do the work. It is perfectly true that in the rural districts no effort was made and no opportunity was given properly to canvass the men. Therefore, I would submit that on that ground at least the case as submitted by the Prime Minister has not been established. In the next place, the Prime Minister frankly admitted that, so far as the application of the Bill was concerned, there was very little difference in the position of the Amendment and the Bill as it stands. The difference is this: that there are people in the country who to-day believe that compulsion is being introduced for compulsion's sake.

That is a Second Reading speech.

The hon. and gallant Member need not interrupt. I never interrupt others. He will be able to answer me afterwards. There is rightly or wrongly—this feeling in the country, though the Prime Minister has done his best to disabuse the minds of Members of this House and of the country on the point. Many hon. Members on the other side of the House have, however, never disguised their views. Last night they frankly admitted them. They were not ashamed to state them. If this Bill is to work without friction nothing will help it more than being able to convince everybody that it is purely and simply a Bill in consequence of the pledge of the Prime Minister and nothing else—that is to say, that there is no ulterior motive behind it. I believe this Amendment will go a long way to achieve that object. I believe that first you should be able to show the people of this country that we are not going to make them soldiers without investigation, because let it be observed that in the 650,000 people with whom we are dealing to-day not one of them would have the opportunity of availing himself of exemption as provided in this Bill. If the local tribunals had had the power which is given to them in this Bill, I am certain in my own mind that we would not have been discussing 650,000 persons to-day. The fact is that they have not, and, therefore, all this Amendment says is that it shall be a legal duty entirely for everyone to give a reason. The Government is then in a position to know what their exemptions are, and what are the remainder! As a matter of fact, the Bill as it stands enacts that everybody is to be made a soldier. You do not even take the trouble to ascertain what they are. I submit that if it does not interfere with the fundamental principle of the Bill, if it does not violate that principle—and I certainly do not think it does—the Amendment will go a long way to ease the difficulty in the country, and a long way to convince the people that the suspicion that they now entertain is unfounded. If the Prime Minister can see his way to accept the Amendment I am certain that it will tend to the best principles of voluntary service.

5.0 P.M.

This Bill is brought forward in fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister. It would not have been brought forward if the Prime Minister had not, as he said, believed that it was a national necessity. The First Lord of the Admiralty has also said the same thing. It will be within the recollection of the House that the First Lord of the Admiralty said there were two reasons why he supported the Bill. The first was that it was the fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister, and that it would be discreditable if the House did not fulfil that pledge. But the right hon. Gentleman said there was something greater still, even greater than the pledge of the Prime Minister, greater even than Parliament, and that was the security of the country. In the national interests, in the interest of national safety, he said it was essential that the Bill should be passed. I propose to say a few words in regard to the Amendment, and also in respect to the contents of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill as it is drawn provides an expeditious and very simple method by which, it is true, every one of the 650,000 single men will be treated as enlisted, but which enables anyone so enlisted, who considers that he has grounds for exemption, to come up before the local tribunal and claim exemption. This can be done, let it be noted, not in a fortnight, but within five weeks. So upon the score of liberality the provisions of the Bill are much more favourable to the individual than is the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, if he will pardon me for saying it, seems to me an extremely clumsy method of determining whether men should or should not serve. The Amendment provides actually that every one of the 650,000 men should come forward in a fortnight to put forward an application before the local tribunal whether he has good grounds for exemption or not. Those who have knowledge of legal procedure can understand what the responsibility will be of those concerned to decide these cases, and the difficulty, and the position of those who if they do not go before the tribunal within the fourteen days are liable to imprisonment and fine. The terms of the Amendment, it seems to me, are far harsher, far more onerous, far more burdensome to the individual and others than are the provisions of the Bill. What is more simple in the case of these 650,000 than for a man who believes he is entitled to it to come before the tribunal and claim exemption? The others should not have to make an application. The tribunal, the Prime Minister has stated, will be fairly constituted. It will. I imagine, be only a fraction of the 650,000 who will come forward to claim exemption. Under the Amendment you would have to try 650,000 cases, constitute an enormous number of tribunals, and go to a large amount of expense. In my opinion, the methods prescribed in the Bill are far preferable to those set forth in the Amendment.

I rise to take exception to the speech of one of the hon. Members—I think it was the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)—who put a question to the House as to whether we were going to compel certain persons of this country to become soldiers. The thought just passed through my mind whether it was better that we should compel as many of our able-bodied men, who are ready and fit, to act as soldiers, or allow the people of this country to become the serfs of Germany. Several speakers in this House have assumed a full knowledge and a full opportunity of knowing the exact feelings of the workers of the country. I have also been a trade union leader, with some sort of record—equal, at all events, to some of the people who speak here—and I believe, although it is true there have been weekend meetings, there has also been the malevolence of certain papers, and that goes a long way to account for a great deal of the feeling of apathy among the people. At the same time, I believe the bulk of them will be absolutely loyal to the old flag of this country. I have been in the trenches and met colliery boys and railway workers, and all had the same story. They said, "Go back and help us to get more of your friends out here to take their part, so that what to-day is a great hardship may be made a great game of sport. Give us an opportunity, when we come home for a holiday, of taking a real holiday, and let others come here and share the burden." Although I think it is not necessary unduly all round to rush a measure of compulsion upon the whole country at a time like this, this is a Bill of emergency. If I believed all the Amendments were honestly put down, I should be satisfied, but I am inclined to share the views of those who believe they were put down for mal-purposes, and that the time has been unduly taken up with a view to obstruction.

Am I out of order, Sir?

I am afraid the speech of the hon. Member might be repeated on every Amendment, and other hon. Members might want to do the same. The hon. Member will observe that in Committee we are supposed to keep strictly to the terms of the particular Amendment before the Committee. It is only when we get on the Third Reading that the general question can be raised again.

I apologise if I have been "over the road," as we say down in the mines, but I do not quite understand the procedure of the House. I naturally believed when I had a thought I was justified in getting up and saying a word. However, I take it there is no premium upon a man's honesty of feeling and intention, and I do not say anything in a spiteful way, but I say what I believe to be the truth. I have said certain things, but I had better sit down or else I shall commit myself again.

The vote that was given on the Second Reading of this Bill confirms the general feeling in the country that this War shall be successfully carried through, and that the unmarried slackers shall be brought in to share the burden which has to be borne by a very large number of men in order to carry this War to a successful issue. I being one of those who voted in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill, perhaps the House will permit me to say that I did it believing that my duty is to stand by the Government. We have at the present time a Government led by a statesman whom some of us have delighted to follow for many years, and he asked others, who were acting in a most loyal manner as members of His Majesty's Opposition, to come in and share the responsibility of the Ministry, and I think that it is the duty, as far as possible, to sink minor differences and to give generous and Royal support to the Ministry. We cannot expect in the Cabinet that the views of every—if I may say—party can always prevail, and therefore I regret exceedingly that we have had resignations handed in, and unfortunately the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow found himself obliged to retire. At the present moment we are engaged in considering the principle of compulsory enlistment as against that which has been the declared policy of the nation, and very largely accepted and assented to by the great majority of this House, and in approaching this question I claim that it is the duty of the Government to try, as far as possible, to harmonise the conflicting views in this House and outside. I venture to suggest that in the speech of the Prime Minister himself, on 2nd November, we have the very argument that lies behind the acceptance of this Amendment now before the House. The Prime Minister then said:—

"If you ask me how many men ought we to aim at getting under that scheme, or under any scheme, my answer is that you ought to aim at securing everybody of military age and capacity who is left after you have completely supplied the other national necessities to which I have referred."

If the Prime Minister had been in his place I would have asked him respectfully whether, if this Amendment could be withdrawn now, and seeing that the industrial question is promised consideration by the Cabinet, something could not be done to harmonise and bring in the loyal support of those men who have in the past objected to Conscription, but feel it a national duty, and carrying out the wishes of the people, that this Bill should be passed, because no one would hesitate, I think, to say that something must be done to bring in the slackers who have refused on insufficient grounds to volunteer under the Derby scheme. May I point out at the moment that in the notes as to reserve trades issued by the right hon. Gentleman from the War Office at the suggestion, I believe, of the War Office, Board of Trade, and Local Government Board, there is a list now placed in the hands of the chairman of tribunals insisting that, in the opinion of the Government, "it is essential for the interests of the country that men included in those lists shall not be called up for military service."

I must point out to the hon. Member that we shall make no progress at all unless we keep to this Amendment. So far the hon. Member's speech does not seem to me to appertain to it at all.

Then I will rest content with appealing to the members of His Majesty's Government who have control of this Bill to see if, assuming the Amendment could possibly be withdrawn, they could bring in something that would harmonise with the claims of the industrial interest, and achieve the object accepted by this House by such a magnificent majority as that which was secured the other night. My wish is to follow the Government and put no obstacle in their way, but to try, if we can, to harmonise the general interests of the country with the objects of this Bill.

I will just refer in a sentence or two, in support of this Amendment, to the charge of obstruction which has been brought, I am sorry to say, by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Stanton), whom, I am sure, we will always welcome when taking part in our Debates. He objected to the conduct of those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill. We have not made any obstruction. The two longest Debates we have had have been to extend the Bill, one on the proposal to extend it to Ireland, and another to extend the age. The speeches on the other side—I have not intervened before—by those who want the Bill slightly modified have been brief, concise, and to the point, and I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen who support the Bill to imitate the excellent example we are setting. This Amendment seems to me to touch the one point in the Bill towards which I wished to direct attention on Second Reading. The Prime Minister—who, I am sorry to say, is not here, but who is very ably represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary—suggested that the Bill was not severe, and that it seemed to give in a better and more practicable way the very facility which my right hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment desires. I would like to direct attention to that question for a moment. It has always struck me as most severe in its form, and if, by adopting the Amendment, you make it less severe, and also secure all the objects of the Bill, surely it would be well to consider the Amendment. Why do I say it is a severe Bill? I believe it is the severest form of Conscription that could possibly be proposed. I say that for this simple reason: the moment the Bill passes into law all these classes mentioned for exemption would be in the British Army; they would all be soldiers. That is the point of the Bill. The Amendment is that in this free country, where this principle of freedom has existed for hundreds of years, before they are thus made compulsory soldiers they should be allowed to state their case. That is the whole Amendment. My hon. Friend says they are allowed to state their case. Cannot we get to an understanding on the point? The first Clause of the Bill says that the moment the Bill passes every subject referred to shall—

I will candidly admit that I do think the Prime Minister did show that in the practical working out of the Amendment, as it is placed on the Paper, there might be administrative difficulties. For instance, compelling every man to state a case, whether he desires to state a case or not, I believe is going a long way. We do not want 500,000 or 250,000 cases stated in a Court, but let only those have an opportunity of stating their case who desire to state it. That is the appeal I want to make to the Government. If the whole of the Amendment cannot be accepted, could some compromise be allowed? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We know the great service which the Army is now rendering to the country, of which everybody ought to feel proud, and we cannot see that any stigma is conferred by compulsorily making these men soldiers. There may be people who hold conscientious objections and who have certain feelings with regard to them, and there may be others who will say, "I will not be a soldier in any case." Cannot something be done to adjust this difference if it is admitted to be only a mere matter of machinery? Could there not be some opportunity given of considering these claims and exemptions before a man is compulsorily put into the Army? I admit that the Prime Minister met the Amendment with very full and elaborate arguments, and in a spirit which none of us need object to, but he did not go any way to meet us, and it would greatly abbreviate the Debate on this question if, on this important point, some step was taken to meet us. Is it not admitted that this business is making everybody a soldier before their claim is considered, and is not that a rather severe measure? The maimed, the halt, and the blind, and those with conscientious objections are all made soldiers to start with, and they have then to put forward their claims, and they would be looked upon by those in the Army as trying to make some excuse. Why cannot their claims be considered first? Let a claim be put in where anyone wishes to do so, and let it be adjudicated upon before you make the man compulsorily into a soldier. I addressed some arguments on the Second Reading to the point which the Prime Minister has mentioned, and I am unwilling to go into the matter now at any length. The Prime Minister said that this House had made up its mind that the minority that objected to the Bill was not negligible, but I cannot agree with that. It may turn out that the minority is negligible, and when we get into the working of this Bill one effect will be, when we get close up to the difficulties, we shall find that the young men have not done their duty so badly as the Bill implies. They have come forward in great numbers ever since the War commenced. I respectfully differ from the Prime Minister's statement, and the appeal I put forward is this: Supposing the machinery of this Amendment is complicated and goes a little too far, may not the Committee address itself to this one single point, that some opportunity shall be given to those classes to make their objection before they are compulsorily put into the Army?

I regret that the Government have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. I feel that regret all the more because I am quite satisfied that there is in this country a very considerable body of distrust and suspicion which the acceptance of this Amendment, or something like it, would very largely remove. I would not even desire the Amendment to be acepted on that ground if I were not perfectly satisfied in my own mind that its acceptance cannot delay the calling up of a single soldier by a single day or re- duce the number by a single man. Under the Bill any one of the 650,000 men unstarred who have not come forward can put in a claim for exemption and appear before the tribunal, and I do not think it is unreasonable to suppose, because they have not come forward, that therefore the large majority of them would put in claims. The work which the tribunals will have to do under the Bill will be practically the same as they would have to do under this Amendment; therefore no time would be lost so far as the tribunal is concerned, and in one respect time would be gained. Under the Bill they have right up to the appointed day to put in claims. If there is, as there probably will be, a rush of claims in the last week, say, in the fifth week, the tribunals would have to deal with every one of those before a single man making a claim could be called up. Under my hon. Friend's Amendment the claims would have to come in within fourteen days and would be immediately dealt with and no time would be lost in any way, and there would not be a reduction of a single man when the time came to call them up.

After all, so long as you protect what is the real object of the Bill, namely, to get as many men as possible as quickly as possible, and get them effectively in a position to be called up for training—so long as you protect that principle, surely an Amendment which would bring into line a great many distrustful pepole is one which might very well be accepted. Between the First and Second Reading of the Bill, for both of which I voted, I visited my own Constituency on the Tyneside, and I learned a great deal about the feeling of the workmen in that district. I gathered that they are unanimous in their desire to support the Government as far as they can, and, indeed, many of them have given their approval to the course I took in voting for the First and Second Readings. They have done that with reluctance and distrust, and they have one and all told me they know many of their friends who are strongly opposed to this Bill being brought in before the necessity has been proved. I dare say that seems to some hon. Members an unreal objection, but to them it is not, to them it is something really substantial, and I may say there is a substantial number of them holding that view. Personally, I have very little hope that the number left will be found to be negligible, but there are many men who have not only that hope, but they hold it as a confident belief. I do press upon the Government to meet the feelings of these people who form a substantial number, because I am sure it would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill, and it would be received by the whole of the people of this country with far greater unanimity, while at the same time it would not defeat by one iota the object of the Bill. Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position, and when we are dealing with an industrial Amendment, to see if something cannot be done to meet the object which my right hon. and learned Friend has in view.

I desire to say a few words upon the Amendment which has been submitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have listened with a sympathetic ear to the appeals which have just been made to meet the strong objectors to this Bill in some way upon this Amendment. As a very young Member of this House I am profoundly anxious that we should, as far as possible, reconcile conflicting views with the national interest. Accustomed as I am to view things as they present themselves to us in Australia, I have come in here and with great pride as a Member of this illustrious House, anxious as far as I can to represent the feelings of Australia in this great crisis in the fortunes of our Empire. In Australia we are a democracy of an advanced kind. The experiments there are carried, I will not say to an extreme, but to a length which has not perhaps attracted the approval of hon. Members opposite. We, in Australia, although we are so far away, believe the only possible question which ought to be considered now is not what our rights and liberties were some hundreds of years ago, or what they are now, but what they are likely to be if we are licked. We can pride ourselves in this country upon the glorious fabric of freedom which has been built up not so much by speeches as by the sacrifice of patriot blood in the years that have gone by; and we are now called upon to seriously consider, and very earnestly consider, how we can best preserve this glorious fabric of liberty which is the pride of the British race, and which is the guarantee not only of the security of this vast British Empire of ours, but is the best guarantee of the future liberties of mankind. In that spirit I approach this Amendment. No man has a stronger admiration for the right hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Simon) who has submitted this Amendment than I have, and I am sure his motives are of the sincerest kind, but if some other person had drafted this Amendment I should say without any hesitation that a more ingenious and effective way of wrecking the whole of this Bill could not be devised. We will just take the words of the Bill which have already been passed, and I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon) did not propose, or indicate that at some future stage he would propose, any alteration in the structure of this Clause. How many are included within the Clause, and who would have to make this application?

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

"shall, unless within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to this Act, be deemed as from the appointed day to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty's Regular Forces for general service."

I would respectfully submit to this House that nothing less than that, nothing less effective than an immediate obligation to serve, will meet what has been represented to us as the gravity of the situation. I do not care how often responsible Ministers repeat these assurances of gravity. I regret that it is necessary to make so many repeated assurances as to the gravity of the crisis, and I regret the air of unreality which seems to characterise this illustrious House from the fact that so many assurances have to be given. I have heard, in the course of this Debate, the name of the Secretary of State for War used in terms of the grossest disrespect. I venture, in the name of hundreds of thousands of people thousands of miles away, to say that in our opinion Lord Kitchener in raising these citizen Armies has performed one of the grandest duties any British soldier has ever performed. I feel that the interests of this country require this Bill. I am not a compulsionist in the English sense. We are compulsionists out in Australia—we reckless, ruthless, democrats in Australia. In our Defence Acts every man, married or unmarried, between the ages of eighteen and sixty, is liable to be called up for service on a Proclamation of the Governor-General. That is the statutory position of Australia. That Act was passed with the consent of all parties, and those Clauses were passed without a Division. Out there, in our most democratic country of Australia, these men between eighteen and sixty are divided into five classes. The first class, unmarried men from eighteen to thirty-five, is exhausted right away before the next class is called upon. The next class consists of unmarried men between thirty-five and forty-five. Not a single married man is called up by our democracy until all the single men up to forty-five have been called up. Then the subsequent classes bring in the married men. I say, whilst the glory of this Parliament in times of peace is its fearless prosecution of the objects of inquiring into abuses within the realm, and the ventilation of grievances when the flames of destruction are approaching the fabric of our liberty, let us save our house first and discuss domestic rearrangements afterwards.

It is usual to offer our congratulations, as the Committee knows, to a new Member making his maiden speech, but I venture to say I shall be doing what is more correct, though I am afraid I shall do it very inadequately, if I offer my congratulations to the British Parliament upon the presence amongst us of the distinguished statesman who has just addressed us, and if I thank him for the eloquent and powerful words of counsel which he has addressed to us from his countrymen. An appeal has been made to the Government by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough), by an hon. Member who spoke behind me, and by others, to endeavour to meet those who do not approve of this Bill by some reasonable concession. The Government on this, as on all other occasions, desire where they can without infringing the principle of the Bill to meet reasonable criticism and reasonable objection, but my right hon. Friend cannot have listened to the powerful speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Reid) without appreciating the fact that it is not the Government alone who hold the view that these so-called reasonable concessions really mean the destruction of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to one result of the procedure recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), which he described as the destruction of the Bill, namely, that all those male citizens of the country referred to in the Sub-sections would be called upon to come before the tribunal.

My hon. Friend behind me, a minute or two ago, tried to argue that this procedure would not cause delay. I beg the Committee to realise what would be the effect of the adoption of my right hon. Friend's proposal. If you were to call upon the tribunals, as he proposes, to open their doors to every man who is eligible who comes under the Bill, and who chooses to come to them to hear, not his particular case based upon grounds stated, but to hear whether he is entitled to exemption, the tribunals would be hopelessly blocked with work, and it would be idle to expect that this Bill would come into force in anything like a reasonable time. To-day it was my duty to indicate some reasons why the Government could not accept an extension of the Bill, and I quoted the Secretary of State for War. I desire to thank my right hon. Friend opposite for the true and powerful words which he spoke in reference to the Secretary of State for War. I quoted him with regard to the Amendment then before the House. It is only fair to say that he looks upon the rapid passage of this Bill as of extreme importance. He wants this Bill as rapidly as possible in order that these men may take their place in the fighting line, and every day's delay adds to the anxiety of those responsible for the conduct of the War. It is not because we close our ears to reason or are unwilling to listen to fair criticism. It is because these appeals mean the adoption of Amendments which would destroy the Bill, and it is because we are anxious to pass the Bill and bring it into force that I would ask the Committee to let us decide this question now.

If I had been in the House I should have supported this Bill on the First and Second Reading, but I am bound to admit that the balance of argument to-day has been in favour of the Amendment my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary has put forward. With the greatest respect the speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have not impressed me in the slightest in opposition to the Amendment. If the object of this Bill is simply to carry out a provision which will secure men for the Army—and I take it to be that—and which will fulfil the pledge to the married men, which I desire to see fulfilled to the letter, then the Amendment in my view does procure that more satisfactorily than the Clause in the Bill. It does not wreck the Bill, if I may say so with great respect to the speaker whom we are all so delighted to see in this House (Sir G. Reid). It makes the Bill, if anything, more effective in immediate application, because it requires a man to come forward and say, "Here am I; I come forward, and I wish to state the reason why I do not come under the category of slacker or shirker." I am impressed by the argument that if that were carried out there would be less feeling in the country of suspicion with regard to this Bill, and the men would be obtained as quickly as under the procedure of the Bill.

If I had been in the House I should have supported this Bill on the First and Second Reading, because when a promise has been made it should be kept, but promises have obligations on both sides, and, after the day and a half I have been in the House, for the first time for many months, I am inclined to ask the question: When is a pledge not a pledge? It seems to me, from some of the speeches which I have heard, that a pledge is not a pledge when somebody else makes it. The pledge by which the support of many in this House who dislike compulsion has been obtained was that this Bill was necessary to fulfil an obligation to married men, which was that, after investigation, slackers and shirkers should be made to serve. You cannot satisfactorily ascertain who are the slackers and the shirkers until you have put into operation some machinery such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend. It seems to me to carry out fully the intention of the Bill, and to secure the men, which is the matter of supreme importance. I do therefore appeal, as many have done, in the absence of the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues, in the interests of the Army, in the interests of the men, in the interests of honour, and in the interests of this House, that this Amendment should receive more consideration, and that some via media, some way of concession, if possible, should be found to amalgamate the two interests which I believe are united in purpose to fight this War and to get the men who are necessary to do it.

Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 283.

6.0 P.M.

The decision just arrived at by the Committee disposes of the Amendments next on the Paper down to the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady).

May I ask your ruling, Sir, as to when I shall be able to deal with the two points contained in the Amendment, of which I have given notice? There are two separate points, one of which has been dealt with in the Amendment just disposed of, namely, that notice shall be given to every man before he comes within the Bill; secondly, that he should have an opportunity of being heard by a civil tribunal before he comes within the Bill, to which there is a consequential Amendment on Page 13 of the White Paper. As to the second point, may I have your ruling as to when I shall be able to put that point to the Committee?

I read the hon. Member's two Amendments together. They were clearly put on the Paper with that intention. He will understand that when, after a long discussion, the Committee has decided an important point, that point cannot be reopened, at any rate in this Committee. The point with regard to notice is dealt with in two Amendments further on, one in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and another in the name of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), and one of those will be called.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "been" ["from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted"], to insert the words "classified in the group to which he belongs by age and to have been."

This is a very simple Amendment and appears to be a very necessary one. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept it, but I can put the facts of the case very briefly. If hon. Members look at the Bill and the Amendment they will see that the intention is now that the group system will be open under the Bill, and that the men who become attested shall be placed in their ordinary groups as they would have been before the Bill came into operation, that is to say, a single man becoming a soldier under the terms of this Bill at twenty-eight years of age would be put into the group appropriate to that age. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. I would suggest to the Government that it simply carries their own pledges into effect, because time after time they have made public pronouncements with regard to the Derby scheme and also with regard to the Bill, in which they said that the men would be put in groups according to their age.

I think I can satisfy my hon. Friend that the Amendment is not only not required, but that it would have no meaning. The group system only exists under the scheme that we call the Derby scheme. It is quite unknown to the law, therefore this Amendment would have no meaning. I can, however, give my hon. Friend the assurance on the part of the War Office that they propose to follow that practice of calling up the men, and therefore the group system is part of their practice, although it is not part of the law.

I quite agree with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I would take this opportunity, which is the appropriate place, to ask him a question. The Bill, as drawn, says that any man who from the appointed date is deemed 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."

When he is transferred to the Reserve he becomes subject to various penalties under the Acts which are recited in Sub-section (2), but nothing is said as to the time when he will be withdrawn from his civil employment. In the case of a man of eighteen years of age and under nineteen, it is clear from the statement made by the Colonial Secretary last night, that a year will elapse between the time he enlists and the time he is brought into barracks. What I want to know is how long a time will elapse between the time a man is deemed to be enlisted and transferred to the Reserve and the time he is called up for the purpose of being brought into the ranks. I can conceive that in many cases the transfer will be immediate, or within a few weeks. I suppose a Proclamation will be made, or that some personal notice will be served on each individual man, but unless some explanation is given as to the position occupied by both the man who has enlisted and who is liable to be called up and by the employer who is deprived of that man's services at an uncertain date, and unless that matter is cleared up I foresee both trouble to the man and inconvenience to the employer. I know it is a matter of administration and not of legislation, but if the right hon. Gentleman could possibly give some explanation to the Committee I think it would give general satisfaction.

I do not think there is any inconvenience. The same practice will be followed exactly as has been followed in the case of attested men under the Derby scheme. The time at which they are called up depends entirely upon the arrangement of the groups. The War Office call up the men in groups, and due notice is given that a group is to be called up.

That is an age group?

Yes, they are called up now in age groups. Due notice is given, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. When they go into the Army Reserve they have to receive individual notice. It is impossible to make any statement as to the time that would elapse, because it must depend entirely upon the condition of the Army, the requirements of the War Office, and the age group to which the men belong. We shall deal with them exactly as they are dealt with now under the Derby scheme. So far as I know, there will be no inconvenience to either employers or men.

That is quite true. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that so far only four groups have been called up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eight!"] I have only seen four, and the first four were to come up for service on the 8th February. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-eighth January!"] I am not pressing this in any controversial way. I want to clear up the point, because it has been mentioned to me by a good many people. I suppose the Committee may take it that something like a month's notice or a fortnight's notice will in every case be given to the men, and indirectly to the employer, as to what arrangements will be made?

indicated assent.

Upon that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On a point of Order. Is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) out of order?—

[In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "to have been forthwith transferred to the Reserve," and to insert instead thereof the words "if he fails to do so he shall be liable—

(2) Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall not apply to any case under this Section.

(3) In the application of this Section to a man who at the time of the passing of this Act is undergoing imprisonment for a term of twelve months or less, the date of his discharge shall be substituted for the passing of this Act."]

Yes, that is part of another Amendment dealing with the same matter which has already been disposed of.

Does that mean that we shall not be able to raise later on the question of the penalties under this Bill as it stands?

Questions which are pertinent to Sub-section (2) will come in their appropriate place. There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) [At the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words "all those enumerated in the National Register between the age of sixteen and eighteen, or who during the course of the present War may attain the age of sixteen years, shall be liable for such preliminary training as may be directed"] that is outside the scope of the Bill. The Title of the Bill is:

"A Bill to make provision with respect to Military Service in connection with the present War."

I do not think he can draw boys of sixteen into that. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) [At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words "Provided that no man to whom this Sub-section applies shall be employed against his will in any trade or industry"] is out of place. That should be dealt with on Clause 2, where there are other Amendments of a more specific kind which raise the question to which he desires to call attention.

On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that Subsection (1) of Clause 1 is the governing Sub-section of the Bill, whereas the provision made by way of exception and exemption in the Sub-sections of Clause 2 is only for provisional exceptions and exemptions? By the governing power of this Sub-section (1) the evil to which I wish to call attention becomes not merely possible, but almost inevitable with the present structure of the Bill. I submit, with all respect, that when we are dealing with the consideration of what is the governing Sub-section of the Bill, and consider the further fact that the Clauses to which you call my attention are quite contingent in their character, it might be desirable to have a general discussion on the Sub-section, which really does involve the evil in question.

May I point out that the first part of the Amendment is already covered by an Amendment which the Committee were good enough to insert on line 13?

No, this is an Amendment after the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. With regard to the submission of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I cannot take his Amendment to this Clause as it stands here, because it is altogether too indefinite. For instance, if he takes it as applying to men enlisted under this Clause, I think it would prevent a soldier from being employed in driving a motor car, and various things of that kind. However, I will say this to him, that if the Amendments on Clause 2 do not cover the whole of his point, it will be competent for him to bring up a new Clause which may qualify the effect of Clause 1. In that way, if the matter is not dealt with in one way, he can raise it in another. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) [At the end of Subsection (1) to insert the words "and such person shall thereupon be protected against any legal proceedings for the recovery of rent, rates, taxes, insurance premiums, or interest which become due after the appointed date before-mentioned by reason of liabilities entered into before the appointed date"], I am doubtful about. At any rate I should say this, that, if it is in order at all, it ought to come as a new Clause, and not in this place. I will further consider it in that light.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "(with the exception of Section ninety-six thereof, which relates to the claim of masters to apprentices)."

This is to meet a substantial point, relating to persons who come under the operation of this Act and who are apprentices. In the Militia Ballot Act, amongst, the other persons who were exempted were apprentices, so that we have some claim for asking that a similar exemption should be made in connection with this Bill. I do not base my argument upon what has been done in Acts of Parliament in the past. I base my appeal for this Amendment upon the necessities of the present. The apprenticeship system, though not to-day so extensive as it was, a few decades ago, is yet a very considerable element in the organisation of the trade and business life of the nation. This is a point which must be met. In many of these cases the apprentices or their guardians have paid sums of money. What is to happen in those cases? Are those amounts to be repaid? Is the apprentice to lose the sums which have been paid? But I think there are very many more important arguments than these. These young apprentices, no more than schoolboys in many cases, are receiving, at the only time of their lives that it is possible for them to receive it, the training which will enable them to enter skilled industries in the future, and to maintain themselves as skilled workmen or craftsmen in the future. By taking these apprentices, engaged in this specialised branch of education, you are robbing the industrial life of the future of indispensable elements. On the ground of expediency, the Committee will be well advised in omitting from the operation of this Bill apprentices who are so engaged. I have tried to put the case from the standpoint of the apprentice and the loss to the national life, but I think also the position of their masters should be considered. Now that industry has been depleted of so many adult, mature workmen, many trades and industries will have to rely, in a far greater degree than they have ever had to do before, upon the services of their young craftsmen particularly, and the services of these apprentices, many of them boy apprentices. So that if no provision is made in this Bill to meet this defect there will be this immediate loss and this future loss to industry. It will be increasingly impossible to-day to maintain many of the most specialised industries in the country. It will be difficult, if not impossible, in the future for many years adequately to carry on these industries and specialised trades. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has some figures to give with regard to the number of men who would be affected by this exemption. Considering the average age of the apprentices, whilst it would not make a substantial difference to the military forces of the Crown—substantial in a military sense—it would yet make the most striking difference to the power of the nation to carry on the industries and trades essential to the national welfare. Not only on the grounds suggested, but on the ground of expediency, having regard to the interests of the nation and the need for us not to lose sight, as we so often do, of the necessity for carrying on our national life, as far as possible to preserve intact especially the fabric of our industrial life, I move this Amendment, and I trust it may be possible for the Government to accept it.

My hon. Friend has dealt, not inadequately, with what I think he will see after a moment's consideration is not really a point of the very first importance. He has called attention to the fact that there is a dwindling number of apprentices whose careers will be interfered with by the operation of this Bill. It is undoubtedly true, but it is also true that there is no profession and no business which has not equally been interfered with by the voluntary sytem of this country before this Bill, and will not equally be interfered with after this Bill has passed on to the Statute Book. But it would be a ludicrous position, after Parliament had decided that if certain conditions were complied with a subject of this country should be deemed to be a soldier, that his employer should thereupon be at liberty, by producing, I suppose his apprenticeship articles, to reclaim him from the military authorities. In any case in which it is proper that there should be interference of that kind the matter has been very adequately dealt with in the terms of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that in the national interest it was desirable that such persons should be reclaimed. In the first Sub-section of Clause 2 there is complete provision made for all cases where in the national interest there is any such necessity. An application, it is provided, may be made at any time before the appointed date to the military service tribunal by or in respect of any man for a certificate of exemption on the ground that it is expedient in the national interests that he or they should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work. Therefore an apprentice, either by himself or by his next friend, may go to such a tribunal and ask for a certificate of exemption on that very ground, and if the tribunal does not give him one I am at a loss to see why he should be placed in a better position than any other young man. The supply of persons who are being taught skilled trades will be unduly curtailed by the operations of the Bill to some extent, and by the melancholy fortunes of individuals in this War. But there are thousands of young men to-day learning skilled trades on a scale unknown to any system of apprenticeship which has existed in the last twenty years in this country. All the munition works of the country are teaching young men skilled work. I hope my hon. Friend, who stated his point of view very moderately, will not think it necessary to consume much time over this Amendment.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me, from a legal standpoint, what is to happen in the case of apprentices who have paid premiums to their employers? Is the employer to keep the premium or is it to be refunded? Is the State going to step in in any way to deal with it? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with that specific point?

If I were consulted in my private capacity to advise either an apprentice or his employer for a suitable remuneration I think I might attempt to do so, but the dilemma that my hon. Friend puts to me is not in any sense of perspective a real one. Heavy losses have been suffered day by day through the requisition in some cases of whole fleets of ships. If my hon. Friend will go to the Board of Trade, to the Department presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke), he will find every day that there are hundreds of citizens lodging claims for heavy financial losses. I should require to see the apprenticeship deeds and to consider the terms of the contract entered into before I could give a definite opinion, but even if the consequences were, as my hon. Friend appears to apprehend they are, they are no worse than the case of the thousands of young barristers who have gone to the War and are paying fees for their chambers, and there are many other cases in the commercial world.

I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the courteous way in which he has attempted to answer my question. I appreciate very much the manner in which he has attempted to explain his point to me. But he has not explained it in any adequate way. The point still is, Is the individual boy who has paid a premium for his apprenticeship to lose the money himself or is his employer to lose it? My right hon. Friend has referred to the tribunal which sits to hear claims respecting shipping and other claims for damages, and it scarcely meets this point to point to other grievances which, in part at least, have been met. I trust, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me an answer to this limited question: Does the apprentice himself lose the premium or does the apprentice's master lose it?

Amendment negatived.

There are two Amendments on the Paper dealing with notice, one in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) and the other in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Bower-man). I think the latter is the better form, but the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) has precedence if he wishes to move.

I beg to move, after the word "thereunder" ["orders and regulations made thereunder"], to insert the words "after seven days' notice has been given to him."

I move this Amendment with a good deal of confidence, encouraged by many of the observations which have been made in the course of the Debate this afternoon. There seems to be a general desire that those who ought to be enlisted under this Act should not be deemed to be enlisted without their knowledge. At any rate, opportunity should be given to them to take advantage of the opportunities to claim exemption which will be provided under the Act. I am quite well aware that every citizen of the United Kingdom is expected to be perfectly familiar with every Act of Parliament, but we have never had an Act of Parliament before the violation of which was likely to carry, and, indeed, will carry, such serious consequences as this Act will. Therefore, it is most important that every person who is likely to come under the provisions of this Act should be made quite familiar with his obligations under it. That is really the purpose of my Amendment. It is to provide that, before a man can be deemed to have been enlisted, seven days' notice shall be given to him, and that interval can be utilised in order to appear before the tribunal for the purpose of claiming exemption under the Act. I am quite sure that that will obviate a great deal of hardship, and it cannot possibly cause any delay in securing the men who are needed.

I do not quite follow the reason why this Amendment is moved. If the intention is that two notices are to be given to an individual, it is quite obvious that the Government must resist that. The ordinary notice is given to every Reservist before he is called up. These men, when they become enlisted, pass automatically into the Army Reserve, and before they are called up from the Army Reserve to serve in the Colours they receive notice. If the object of this Amendment is to secure the issue of a second notice, then, undoubtedly, we shall resist it; but if, on the other hand, the object is only to get a single notice, they get that already, and, therefore, the Amendment is not necessary.

I think the object is to ensure that a man shall not be called up merely by a general Proclamation. The assurance we desire is, that the man shall have a specific individual notice, and not merely a general notice which happens to be placarded on the walls of the various towns and cities. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance on that line our Amendment will be met; if not, we have reason to press it.

I do not think that the advocates of this Amendment appreciate its effect. They have warmly supported the provisions of the Bill that tend to make it effective, whatever their views may be as to the policy of the Bill. For one individual I am sure there is no sympathy in any quarter of the House or outside the House, and that is the individual who seeks to evade the call of his country. Quite obviously, if you impose an obligation that an individual, before he is to become liable, is to receive notice to come up, and it is to be an individual notice, you are playing directly into the hands of the man who adopts every artifice to evade service, whereas every loyal, well-conducted man who is anxious to do his duty gets and accepts the summons in the ordinary course. The Amendment is intended to enact that every individual shall have a separate notice before he shall be liable, and therefore you play into the hands of those who are hostile to our policy, and you adopt a course which would be very obstructive to the ordinary machinery of the Bill.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been rather unfair to the Mover of this Amendment. It seems to me that it is very important that it should be ascertained in good time who is really included under this Bill The Prime Minister, on a previous Amendment, said the effect of this Bill would be that unless a man claims exemption he becomes automatically a soldier. Accepting that view, it is still desirable that the man should know at what time he becomes automatically a soldier, and that he should have an opportunity, if he thinks he comes within the exceptions, of getting his case heard and finding out whether he is within the exceptions or not. I do not come here to assist in any way the man who wishes to evade this Act; but if the Bill is passed we want to see it administered effectively and well, and I submit to the Government and the Committee that it will assist the efficiency of this Bill if we ascertain at once who are the men who really come within its provisions. Let me give an instance. Supposing a man is uncertain whether or not he comes within the provisions in this Clause, ( a ), ( b ), or ( c ). Sup- posing he does not know whether he can clearly be said to be ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Supposing he is uncertain whether he comes within the exceptions of the First Schedule. It is surely an advantage that these men should have their cases heard before the time when they find themselves called up as Reservists. It is surely an advantage that it should be ascertained in good time in these doubtful cases whether these men who are on the border line are really soldiers or not. It will not help in the efficiency of this Act to postpone decisions in cases of that sort until the group is actually called up and the Reservist is required to serve with the Colours. A man may really be subjected to grave injustice because, unless he appeals, he finds himself within the categories of this Bill and unable to claim an exemption.

There is a very clear distinction between the exceptions and the exemptions. In the case of a man who thinks he is entitled to exemption he applies for it, but there may be many men who think they come within the exceptions of this Bill, but they are not certain, and as to whom it cannot be certain whether they come within the exceptions or not. It is not easy to say whether a man comes within the exception of being a widower without children depending upon him. That is a case which ought clearly to be heard by a civil tribunal at the first opportunity. If these cases have been fairly tested it is very desirable that a man should have notice given to him to say that in the opinion of the military authorities, or whoever are the authorities, he falls within the Act; otherwise a man may not know that he is deemed to be in the Reserve and very serious injustice may be done. I am sure the Government wish to meet cases of real hardship affecting hundreds and possibly thousands of men if they can be pointed out to them, and I am sure that nothing is to be gained by hon. Members opposite saying, "The thing is so urgent that we must carry the Bill at all costs in its present state, whether it does injustice or not." I submit that there is injustice as the Bill now stands, inasmuch as a man may find himself within the meshes of this Bill without knowing it. Therefore, consideration should be given to all cases where it can reasonably be given. The right hon. Gentleman says that notice will be given when the man is called up in the Reserve. I submit that that notice is too late. It is better, in the interests of justice, that notice should be given to a man as soon as the military authorities say he comes within the Bill. For these reasons I think there is substance in the Amendment.

I think I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) when I put a question to him a short time ago. I thought he then told me that every man would get an individual notice. It seems now that I was mistaken. Am I not?

My right hon. Friend knows the working of the Army Reserve Act better than I do. Under that Act a man gets his notice, and that notice is that he has become a member of the Army Reserve.

I do not want to raise imaginary difficulties, but I can see cases of possible great hardship unless a man gets an individual notice. I rather understood from my right hon. Friend that every individual man was going to get a notice, as if under the Reserve Act. Now I understand—my right hon. Friend must correct me if I am wrong—that a man becomes liable to the various Acts of Parliament mentioned in this Sub-section upon the issue of a general Proclamation. Let the Committee notice the difference between a man who joins the Reserve under this Act and the man who joins the Reserve in the ordinary course after having served seven years in the Army or having joined in the old days the Militia, or what is called to-day the Special Reserve. In the case of the soldier or the Special Reservist he has voluntarily enlisted, and has himself gone personally either to the barracks or the depot or the headquarters, and has rendered himself liable to be called up for service in the Reserve by Proclamation. In the case we are now discussing the man goes into the Reserve without himself having taken any action in the matter, direct or indirect. It is notorious that the provisions of any given Act of Parliament are unknown to, I should think, 80 per cent. of the people of this country. Take so well known an Act as the Insurance Act. Everyone knew that that Act had passed and it benefited most people in this country, but there was hardly one person in a hundred who knew what the provisions of that Act were. This Military Service Act is going to apply to a large number of persons, some of whom will be illiterate, and most of them—I do not say it offensively—will be rather ignorant persons. They are to come under this Act and to be subject to the penalties of the Army Act without having notice. There are no Members in this House, whether supporters of the Bill or not, who have any sympathy with the individual who is called the slacker and who wishes to evade the liabilities of the State. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there may be many men in the counties where we live who reside in districts where people do not often go down into the towns and where they seldom or never read the notices on the doors of the churches or chapels.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentlemen knows parts of Wiltshire as well as I do, and there are many districts that where people do not look at the Proclamations or the notices on the doors of the churches or chapels, and there may be great hardship done to individuals who are perfectly ready to meet their obligations under the Act, unless some individual notice is served upon them. I suggest to the Government that in order to facilitate this Bill and to make it an easy Bill, and, I will not say a popular, but an acceptable Bill, that something should be done in this matter. I appeal to the Government to meet what I believe to be the wishes of a considerable number of hon. Members.

As I understand it, the object of this Amendment is to provide that, although the Bill says that a man is attested, the effect of attestation, namely, bringing him within the Army Act shall not apply until you have found him and served him with a notice. If I wanted to exclude from the operations of the Act as many men as I could, I should heartily support this Amendment. It is all very well for hon. Members to come down here and say in regard to the Derby scheme, "There are so many men you have not canvassed." Why have they not been canvassed? They take good care you do not canvass them, and if this Amendment is to be carried I think the onus is upon those who support it to show how you are to get hold of the man of the type I have described in order to give him notice, otherwise you are not making him an attested person, and he is not helping you to win the War and he is no use to you. I cannot see what real complaint anyone can have if, by Proclamation, you state that persons of a certain age who are attested are required to present themselves on a certain day. That is the effect of the present arrangement in regard to the calling up of people who have already attested. You are only putting a man now, whom you are compelling to be attested, in exactly the same position as the voluntary person who is attested. If he moves and you cannot find him, he is still liable, because he has got the public notice. I cannot for the life of me see, unless you want to exclude people wholesale, why you should want to press this Amendment.

I cannot quite follow what my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has said. On every ground it is desirable that we should be clear. I am not quite clear whether what he has told us is that it is his intention and his understanding of the Bill that at some stage persons who are brought under this Clause should receive personal notice, or whether it is his understanding and intention that they shall not receive personal notice. Possibly my failure to understand him is due partly to an expression of his. It almost seemed as if he thought that under the existing law when you called out Reservists you had to give individual notice to the individual Reservist. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Other people seem to think so. They are utterly mistaken. There is no such provision in the law. As a matter of good sense, they do their best to give notice to Reservists, but the notice which was given on 4th August, 1914, was a general Proclamation, and it is quite a mistake to suppose that Reservists are under no obligation to turn up unless you succeed in serving them with personal notice. It is desirable that we should not misunderstand the intentions of the Government. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend whether he wishes us to understand that the scheme of the Bill is that persons shall not only be deemed to be soldiers, but shall be called up by Proclamation only, or whether, on the other hand, his intention is that in these cases there is to be personal notice?

Of course the Committee will quite understand that we do not pretend to be familiar with the way in which these things are handled, but as far as I can understand, what is suggested by the Amendment is that some men may render themselves liable to penalties quite innocently, through not knowing that they are liable under this. Bill. Is not that a fairly imaginary case? With regard to the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend, as he has said, there is no obligation to send notice, but it is done in every case where it is possible. In the same way under the Derby scheme individual notices are sent in every case. This thing can only apply to some individual whose address cannot be got by the authorities. What sort of a case is that likely to be? It cannot hurt anyone who wishes to serve. If we have the address there will be no penalty, for the notice is sent under the scheme. But suppose there is a person who really is trying to evade, what is the effect? You have to give him seven days' notice, and give him the opportunity of slipping; away. I can assure the Committee that, as far as we can judge, there is no case of hardship such as has been presented. If it will give any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, I will undertake to make inquiry as to how the thing works, and find out definitely whether or not there really is any hardship possible in this case.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to propose, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Reserve" ["transferred to the Reserve; and"], to insert the words "with the exception that persons guilty of an offence under this Act shall be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."

The Committee are well aware that I disbelieve in the principle of this Bill, and that I have opposed this Bill in principle since it was introduced, but I invite the Committee now to consider a possible improvement of this Bill which will certainly make for its smooth working, and will remove one of the worst features of the Bill. I am quite sure that the Government will realise that the question which is now being discussed is a very important and substantial question, and I trust sincerely that they will not meet the case presented by saying that they can make no alteration in the Bill as drafted. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in charge that not only among some of the Members of this House, but in all parts of the country, there is a feeling that an Amendment to this effect is required. This Bill in the middle of the night makes a great number of civilians, an unknowable number of civilians, members of the Army, and transfers them to the Reserve Forces of the Army. A revolution so novel, and which makes so many civilians ignorant of all legal matters into members of the Army, civilians, too, who are unknown to the Government, should contain adequate machinery provided through the Civil Courts to deal with those who in the ordinary course place themselves within the provision of this Bill as to penalties. If we turn to an Act which has been cited very frequently in these discussions, the Militia Ballot Act, we find that those guilty of offences were proceeded against in the Civil Courts. The effect of the Amendment which I am now moving would be that persons guilty of an offence under this Act would be proceeded against in the Civil Courts under the ordinary machinery of justice which has been built up through long years. Such a proposal is a moderate and reasonable proposal. So far from interfering with the object of the Bill or delaying its provisions, it will facilitate the smoothness of its working.

The whole position with regard to those who become consciously or unconsciously offenders against this Bill is one of great doubt, and we have not heard in any of the discussions that have yet taken place what is the course which is to be taken in connection with these offenders, many of whom will be technical offenders only. The Prime Minister, in the speech which he delivered earlier in this sitting, suggested that the Amendment which he was resisting, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waltham-stow, was even more severe in its penal proposals than the Bill itself, and he said that it would be far better that these people without any question of notice should be deemed to be enlisted. I do not know what the Prime Minister meant. I am quite sure that his reference is not at all clear, and that he was quite unintentionally misleading us in thinking that as this Bill has been drawn no penalties have been provided. I venture respectfully to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, might tell us first of all what are the penalties in this Bill, and what is the course which would be taken in connection with those who are defaulters under this Bill. There is a great number of Acts relating to Reserve Forces, and we have to consider the relation of the Reserve Forces Acts to the Army Acts. I am not going to attempt to define the law, but so far as my own investigations have carried me, and I have tried to find out the position, the men who are transferred to the Reserve forces under this Bill will be subject to the Reserve Forces Acts, and under the Reserve Forces Acts, as I understand them, a man may be proceeded against in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or he may be tried by court-martial. I think that it would be from every standpoint unwise that persons who are subjecting themselves to penalties through the provisions of this Act should be tried by court-martial.

7.0 P.M.

Adequate machinery for trial exists. The Courts are sitting, the men who will be subject to penalties under this Act are civilians in every sense except a technical sense, and it is right, therefore, that they should be tried in the ordinary Criminal Courts of the country, and not by court-martial. Court-martial surely would be the worst possible medium for dealing with these cases. I will attempt to show the Committee why. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I will only say, in reply to these remarks, that I intend to make my speech. I am not delaying the proceedings of this Committee. I am, in direct response to the invitation of the Prime Minister, placing substantial points for discussion and for settlement. I think it extremely unfair that in putting a very difficult and complicated point I should be subjected to cries of "Divide!" I was endeavouring to put before the Committee the reason why the Civil Courts were superior for this class of offences than the Military Courts. The Civil Courts have the necessary experience, they have all the facilities, the trial will take place in public, the men who are affected can be represented by counsel; but, above all, there will be the benefit of publicity, and in the case of a miscarriage of justice or in cases of undoubted hardship there is constitutional machinery provided, through the Home Office, which could be used for the discussion or reconsideration, if need be, of these cases. What we have to bear in mind is that there may be, owing to genuine ignorance on the part of many thousands of men concerned, a very great number of technical offences. There may also be a great number of men who are technical offenders by reason of holding conscientious objections to any form of military service. We should allay anxiety, we should avoid arousing discontent, we should allay any dangerous passions which must be aroused if these men are dealt with in a secret court- martial. [An HON. MEMBER: "A court-martial is not secret!"] An hon. and gallant Member states that a court-martial is not secret, but a court-martial may be secret. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It may be secret so far as the public is concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no!"] As the hon. and gallant Member who interrupts me well knows, a court-martial is subject to numerous regulations, which, whilst appropriate and perhaps necessary in the ordinary Army, would be wholly inappropriate and not applicable to civilians who are being tried for offences which might only be technical offences against the Clauses of this Bill.

I say that we should allay discontent and angry passions which would be aroused if we provide that these trials shall be in public before the ordinary Civil Courts, where counsel may be engaged and where everything would be done in public. May I point out to those who interrupt me that if my arguments are worthless they can be shown to be worthless by reply in debate; if my arguments can be answered, there will be an opportunity for answering them. I am going to put my arguments. Let me put this further point, and may I put it with much respect to hon. and gallant Members who are in the Army—I say sincerely with much respect—that a civilian going before a court-martial would be entirely out of his element. He would be embarrassed by the novelty of the tribunal he was called before, and his whole case and defence would be prejudiced by reason of the fact that he was faced by such unfamiliar, and to him, very difficult conditions. It would be far better, and the ends of justice would be far better secured, if such a man were brought before a Civil Court, which understands such cases, and which sits under conditions that are free from the haste which sometimes must prevail in the Army in time of war. I believe the ends of justice would adequately be met by this Amendment, and I can see no advantage in resisting this change which would allow the men to be brought before a Civil Court instead of a court-martial. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and if they do I believe they will allay a great amount of anxiety and unrest that exists throughout the country, and will do something that will more than almost anything else facilitate the smoother working of this measure if it becomes an Act of Parliament.

I think it really ought not to be difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend that the gloomy apprehensions which he entertains as to what may be the fate of these new soldiers are really without any solid basis. What is the position? In the first place, it must not be forgotten that these men, although in the words of the Bill they are deemed, at any rate for certain purposes, to belong to the Army, are in substance soldiers, do not become so until the moment they are called upon, and there is no question at all of their coming into collision with military or any other authority until they are called upon. What is their position when they are called up? They are in precisely the same position as the Reservists under the Reserve Forces Acts, which apply to all Reservists. When a man belonging to the Army Reserve commits an offence he is ( a ) liable to be tried by court-martial, or ( b ), in the alternative, liable to be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

At whose choice?

At the choice of the Army. Let there be no misapprehension; these new soldiers for all purposes are placed in precisely the same position as the Reservists were placed. I must say nothing in the argument of my hon. Friend convinced me that these soldiers should be treated in a different way from the Reservists, who have rendered in many cases, great services to the State. Under this Bill the men are offered precisely the same system as that which exists under the Reserve Forces Act. I really must disabuse the mind of my hon. Friend in regard to his impression, an impression which seems to prevail, as to the character, constitution, and methods of courts-martial. My hon. Friend seemed to think that, a court-martial consisted of persons who sit behind closed doors, and that those concerned on behalf of the persons to be tried were rigorously excluded—a Court where they denied the accused the right of counsel, and in which every conceivable form of injustice might without redress be perpetrated. Such a conception of the court-martial is wholly remote from the facts. I have for the last six months on behalf of the Secretary of State for War been brought in contact with courts-martial in all parts of the theatre of War; I have had opportunities of observing how these tribunals discharge their duties, and I am ready to say that, speaking broadly, and taking those Courts as a whole, there is no more conscientious and no more humane tribunal before whom soldiers could be tried. Over and over again I have seen the merciful view taken where a very different view might not unreasonably have been adopted. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that in these matters the War Office had the choice of tribunal, and not the person accused. It would be perfectly ridiculous to give the option to the person becoming a soldier of going before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

However, if it will reassure my hon. Friend, I can tell him that what he apprehends is not likely to arise. First of all, no case can arise at all until a man is called up, and, in the second place, the War Office do not in the ordinary run of cases in any way desire that they shall be tried by a military court, but that they shall be dealt with by the civil tribunal, and the overwhelming majority of cases will be so dealt with. I have a draft of a circular proposed to be sent out by the Home Office, after consultation with the War Office, for the purpose of dealing with exactly similar cases under Lord Derby's scheme. The instructions of the War Office are to the effect that a Reservist who fails to report at the proper time, and surrenders himself to the military authorities, will, as a rule, be dealt with by the military authorities, and will not go before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but where he is apprehended by the police the Army Council desire that those cases should be dealt with by civil authorities. The Memorandum then goes on to say that, wherever time permits, arrangements are to be made by the police and military authorities for trial in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with the attendance of a non-commissioned officer. So far from there being any desire on the part of the military authorities to assert jurisdiction, these cases will be tried by the Civil Courts, and the military authorities will be delighted that it should be so, because they have plenty of purely military duties to attend to. My hon. Friend would be wrong if he tried to tie down the Army to a hard and fast rule.

The whole question on this Amendment is not that I apprehend at all that there will be any conscious injustice on the part of courts-martial, but that they may be asked to decide cases which are of a very technical and difficult kind, and which it would be much better should be decided by the civil tribunal. I want to be quite clear as to what are the cases which they will have to decide under this Bill. Take the case of a man who is resident in Great Britain for the purpose only of education, or for some other special purpose. The man may think he is not within the Bill, and the military authorities may quite honestly and reasonably think that he ought to be. He will then be deemed to be in the Reserve, and if he fails to answer the call at the proper time, is that question to be decided by a military or a civil tribunal? That is the sort of question which I think ought to be decided in a Civil Court. The men are civilians in their own opinion, and until it is quite clear that they are in the Army they ought to come, I think, within the jurisdiction of the civil tribunal. To the persons who appear before it, the court-martial will seem to be a Court which is certain to wish to get everybody within the Army. That is the whole point. The right hon. Gentleman says they are already in the Army, but there may be many cases where it may be uncertain whether the man falls within the exceptions mentioned in Clause 1; whether, for instance, he is a widower with children dependent upon him, which is a very difficult case to decide, or whether he falls within the exceptions mentioned in the First Schedule. I respectfully submit it will be much better to have cases of that sort decided by the civil tribunal. As the Bill is now drawn they will be decided by court-martial, which is, I contend, a real hardship, and which does not go towards making this a workable and acceptable measure.

Under this Bill you are taking for the first time by force men of all kinds engaged in civil occupations, and many as to whom it may well be doubted whether they come within the Bill or not. Why should not those cases be settled by civil tribunal, and how would it interfere with military discipline, or the efficiency of this Act to give the concession? We have a serious case here, and I am surprised that the Government and the majority of the Committee should not attempt to meet it more than they have already done by the speech of the Attorney-General. He practically told us that a court-martial was good enough for him, and therefore let everybody appear before a court-martial. I do not think that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with what I conceive to be a real difficulty. I should have thought it would have been possible for the Government to have said that in a case where the question is whether a man is within the Act or not, no question of military discipline arises, and that a case of the kind should be disposed of before a civil tribunal.

I am very sorry we have not had a more sympathetic treatment of this proposal from the Attorney-General. Of course his manners were, as always, excellent, and his words, as always, perfectly agreeable and a delight, but it has been said fine words do not butter parsnips, and I wish seriously to put to the right hon. Gentleman a point which has been made repeatedly in argument in this House, but which I venture to think is even more appropriate on this discussion than on any other. There is in the country a very great deal of suspicion and distrust regarding this measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I know there is. I get dozens of letters every day. We shall see in a little time how it is. I am inclined to think that the experience of the next few months will show that this is not a very welcome measure or very welcome legislation to the great masses of the country. There are certain parts of the country, and certain classes, to whom this measure is suspect. I believe that a few concessions in certain directions would do a very great deal to ease the course of this Bill, not only through the Committee and through the House, but also to make it more acceptable to the people, and to work better when it is in operation. This is just one of those things in which I think the Government might have gracefully given way. They have not seen fit to do so. I must appeal to them again as to whether it is wise, because they have got a very great majority who will always accompany them into the Division Lobby, and who when arguments are used go the length of shouting "Divide!" to persist in this attitude of non possumus to all the most reasonable Amendments put forward. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General was perfectly sincere and well-intentioned in his remarks, and really thinks that there is no grievance, and that there can be no injustice and no reasonable suspicion of injustice for a case that comes before Courts in connection with this Bill; but let the right hon. Gentleman remember this, we have given up certain rights in the course of this War to be disillusioned. For instance, when we allowed the Defence of the Realm Acts to be passed—

This appears to me to be too general a dissertation on this Amendment, about which there seems to be a little misapprehension. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) apparently thinks that it deals with matters arising out of the interpretation of this Act. If that had been so, I should have taken a different view of the Amendment. I read it as it stands, as applying only to these Acts—that is to say, the Army Act and the Reserve Forces Act. Perhaps the Attorney-General would put the Committee right on the point.

On a point of Order. Am I not in possession?

If the hon. Member can keep to the point, certainly.

I think I am keeping to the point. Evidently there is a great deal of confusion as to what this Amendment and this Clause actually mean. I think, without any disrespect, that that is evident, when we have to call on the Attorney-General to explain what the exact position is. The civil tribunals, in my opinion, are much more capable than the other of expounding the law. The very fact that you have appealed on this question to the Attorney-General shows that you ought to trust these affairs to competent and existing civil tribunals and not to the military tribunal.

I am sure my hon. Friend's object is to accelerate the Bill. I cannot help thinking that it is a subject of regret that both he and the hon. Member for Burnley, before occupying the time of the House, did not really read the parts of the Bill concerned. My hon. Friend entertained the House with his apprehensions, picturing a court-martial as dealing with such questions as the exceptions under the First Schedule. If my hon. Friend had read that part of the Bill, even with the skill of a layman, he would have seen that it was wholly unnecessary to entertain the House with such apprehensions. The exceptions are stated in the Schedule, and the Clause provides

"Every male British subject who, on the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen,

The question if a man is within the exceptions does not come before this Court at all. I hope we shall get on.

I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not interrupt me in my speech, but even now I am not at all clear on the point. Really it is a very important point, and we have not dealt long with this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is not in the habit of making charges of obstruction against me.

I did not.

The case I want to put is very simple. It is that of a man on the border line, and there are many persons in that position. There is the case of the widower with children. Take another case—that of a man in this country for a special purpose. He is deemed to have enlisted and to have been transferred to the Reserve. He is then called up. He may have had no notice beyond the Proclamation, but he is asked why he has not responded, and he finds himself before a military tribunal. The Attorney-General says that he can apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

My hon. Friend took as the whole basis of his argument. in his first speech a case which is clearly one of the exceptions. I pointed out that if it was a case of exception no question could arise, and that if a man was wrongly "deemed" to have enlisted he had a civilian remedy open to him.

The question is whether a man is rightly or wrongly deemed to come within the Act. That is a very important point, and it is one which I should have thought ought to be settled by a civil tribunal. Can the Attorney-General say clearly whether that is going to be settled by a civil tribunal or by a military tribunal?

In his first observations the hon. Member dealt only with the case of exceptions. I have pointed out two or three times that if you are dealing with exceptions no such question can arise. On the other hand, if you are dealing not with exceptions but with one of the cases which may arise under paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), and ( c ) of Clause 1, Sub-section (1), there are two Courts theoretically available—one a military court and the other a civilian court. I stated that the military authorities contemplated that in the vast majority of cases these matters should be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and indeed preferred that they should be so tried, but that the War Office were not willing by a peremptory Clause, and in view of some classes of cases which might arise, to be deprived of all jurisdiction in regard to these Reservists.

Seeing that the case is now admitted, I should like to restate it in two or three words. It is now admitted that the question whether a man comes within this measure or not will in some cases apparently be decided by a military tribunal.

No; may conceivably in some cases, not "will."

As it is not a question of military discipline it ought always to be decided by a civil tribunal, and I should have thought it quite possible for the Government, without upsetting the structure of the Bill or interfering with its efficiency, to introduce some Amendment providing for that.

I trust the Government will resist this Amendment. The Attorney-General has given my hon. Friend several opportunities of understanding the position, but I am afraid he has not given him the capacity to do it. My objection to the Amendment is that all those thousands of young men who have enlisted voluntarily are subject to the Army Act and the Reserve Forces Act, and I should strongly object to those who come in now having any better tribunal. I fail to see why they should. My hon. Friend speaks of cases on the border line. What sort of question can possibly arise as to whether a man is a British subject? Surely the man knows that. Or resident in Great Britain? Surely the man knows that. Or had attained the age of eighteen years.

Look at the First Schedule.

The First Schedule has nothing to do with it. My hon. Friend will not understand. That does not operate at all here. What question can arise as to whether a man is unmarried or a widower? Surely the man knows whether he is one or the other. Nor does it require a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to tell men whether they have any children dependent upon them. Surely they know that.

Not whether they are legally dependent.

The hon. Member's case has absolutely no substance in it. The only points are these wretched little ones to which I have referred. Every man ought to know whether they apply, and if he does not know he ought to be court-martialled.

In view of the real importance of the measure, which seems to be so often forgotten in our discussions, I think we might now really be allowed to come to a decision on this Amendment.

I think the Committee is prepared almost immediately to come to a decision.

I think the question we have been discussing deserves some consideration. It concerns the liberty of the subject and the question of what Court is to determine the subject's right of resistance to the operation of this measure, and what is to be the penalty for such resistance. The hon. Member for Aberdeen said that he objected to the new soldiers having a different status from the men who have already volunteered. The man who has volunteered comes voluntarily under military discipline, and naturally comes before a Military Court for any breach of that discipline as we know it to-day. But do not let us blind ourselves to the fact that the cases to be dealt with here are of men who refuse to obey this measure—not men who are shirkers, but men who rightly or wrongly say that they are not going to obey the Act and take part in military service. The question is whether these men should have the right of being tried by a Civil Court or whether they should be tried by court-martial. However good courts-martial may be—I do not throw any doubt on their justice or mercy in dealing with such questions of military discipline as usually come before them—I think that on the new issue raised by this Bill a citizen who finds himself deprived of the liberty which for generations past British citizens have enjoyed should have the right of going before a Civil Court for a decision as to what punishment should be inflicted. I have not learnt from the speeches of the Attorney-General, nor is it stated in the Bill, what penalty can be inflicted. I understand that the ultimate penalty for continued resistance to the military authorities is death. That is not denied by the Attorney-General. It will undoubtedly cause dissension and, I think, violent feeling in the country if we pass with so little consideration a measure which brings a man for conscientious objections and for doing what he thinks to be right before a court-martial, with the possible penalty of death. I, at any rate, raise my protest against it.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Reserve" ["enlisted and transferred to the Reserve"], to insert the words, "Provided that if such a person claims to have a conscientious objection to military service, the Court may forthwith remit the case to the local tribunal, which shall deal with the claim as though it were an application made before the appointed date."

I think this Amendment had better come on Clause 2.

On a point of Order. I do not wish on this subject to raise at all the whole question of the conscientious objector, which I think ought to be dealt with later; but this is a matter of machinery. It is an optional case which I think, if allowed, would greatly facilitate the working of the Bill after it becomes an Act. If I may briefly put the point, I think the Committee will be able to deal with it now. The point, then, that I hope the Committee will be able to consider is the case of those limited number of people who have a conscientious objection, but who are prevented from one cause or another from appearing before the tribunals in the limited period of time appointed by the Bill. There are a certain number who are ill, or will be ill. Take the case of a man lying ill with typhoid fever. It will be quite impossible for him to appear before the tribunal in the time allowed. There are, too, people in different parts of the country who will not be aware in time of the provisions of the Bill. Take the case of a Welsh shepherd, who may not understand the matter, and may have no opportunity of understanding the Proclamations that may be issued. There is also a limited class—I hope it will be limited—of persons who will refuse—I think quite mistakenly—to take advantage in the first instance of the tribunal. They will refuse because they are opposed to the whole Bill. I do not agree with them. I think theirs is a most unfortunate attitude. On the other hand, I think we want to avoid making unnecessary suffering, and my proposal gives the Court, when these men are brought up and deemed to be enlisted, and who are not fulfilling their duty, the option to remit their case, if it is a case of conscience, to the local tribunal. It is only an option. It lies with the Court. If the Court so decides, they can refer these cases to be judged by the tribunal which is specially constituted to deal with cases under the Bill. I hope the Government may be able to meet this point, because it will certainly facilitate the working of the measure, and will avoid certain cases of injustice or seeming injustice.

It is understood that this Amendment does not raise any wider question.

I particularly wish that to be understood.

In a sentence I should like to support the Amendment. I think it may very well be convenient that the military authorities should have the power to relegate to the tribunal the decision of cases of conscience of this kind, for which military authorities are not, I will not say unfitted, but which they have not had experience of, and for which, under this Bill, there is the intention of the Government to provide special machinery.

I really do not think that this Amendment is required. The scheme of the Bill is that we propose that those cases which claim exemption in respect of a particular reason shall apply to a tribunal, and we have given a limited time in which application must be made. I do not share the view of some hon. Members of the Committee who think this Bill is not going to become very generally known. We have already sent out an intimation, all over the country, wide and broadcast; and when the Proclamations are issued, as they will be, in every hamlet throughout the country, and placed in the most prominent places on church doors, and so on, I am sure that everybody will have the necessary information. I think that we should not mix up this Clause, which deals with those people who will have to serve under certain conditions, with the class of exemptions which come under Clause 2. There we deal with people who claim exemptions on special grounds. I hope the Committee will keep the two separate. If there is any weakness in Clause 2 when we come to it will be the time to deal with it. It will be a great mistake in this portion of the Bill to introduce a method which is quite distinct, and has nothing to do with the class which is dealt with in Clause 2.

May I just briefly put to the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty which arises in these cases, and which I think only arises in the case of the conscientious objector. It may be said that the conscientious objector is a very unreasonable person. I do not share his views in this matter. But there are a great many of these people. I have talked to-day with some of them who have openly stated that they will not avail themselves of the opportunity given to come before the tribunal, or take any step to facilitate the working of this Bill. They say that they will sit still in their houses until the appointed day is past, when they will become soldiers. It is precisely that case which the Amendment is designed to meet.

That is the person who claims to have a conscientious objection?

But this person has not put forward his claim until he has been fetched to be a soldier. He will not move until men are sent to him and he will then be in the hands of the military authorities, and there is no power, as I understand it, in the Bill, for the military authorities to exempt him on the ground of conscientious objection. We have to meet that case. The military authorities cannot refer it to the tribunal. My hon. Friend proposes that in this really difficult case of conscience, which you will be right up against, and which is one of the hardest cases with which you will have to deal, that machinery should be set up. These people are absolutely insistent upon their view. Such persons will go to prison or be shot rather than do anything to facilitate the operations of this Bill. I would ask my right hon. Friend that if he will not deal with the case in the way suggested in the Amendment that he will introduce into the Bill some way out of the difficulty, and of meeting this most difficult case. These cases are likely to cause some trouble if the Government insist upon providing no remedy for them. I am quite certain that in this case the Government are right up against conscientious objectors of the first order for which there is at present no way of dealing. If the Government are going to meet conscientious objection at all, they ought to meet this kind of case. I am quite confident that the Bill as it stands does not provide for this class of conscientious objection, although it already provides for conscientious objectors.

May I suggest that it will be necessary to put some words in Clause 2 to give the tribunal power in proper cases to extend the time. There are cases in which men may not be able to appear at the proper time. There are cases where a man will have no opportunity of applying. Some words ought to be put into Clause 2 which would give a general power to the tribunal to extend the time until such a period as they think fit. Such an extension would apply not only to conscientious objectors of this kind, but to others.

May I assure the two right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of this Bill that those of us who know something about these cases of conscientious objectors do genuinely believe that some words like these should be inserted. It would really help the Bill and help the Government afterwards. We genuinely believe that there may be some considerable number of the cases referred to. I really believe it would help the Government very much, and that it is with a genuine desire to get over the difficulty that may be raised that my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment.

I should like to testify from the correspondence which has reached me, and the considerable pains I have been at really to investigate the mental attitude of many of these men who have complained that this piece of machinery might be set up, and a suitable option given to the Court, if they felt that this was a case of the sort to refer it to the Court dealing with all these other conscientious objections. That is all we ask in this place. We have looked through this Bill, and we want to avoid the unnecessary martyrdom of men who really feel as stated. In the view of many Members present they do exist in this country. We want the House and the Government to understand the difficulty which the working of this Bill will be up against, and by inserting these few words here meet the case. They are only intended to give an opportunity to a particular Court to say that these are men in ill-health or of mental inability or extreme crankiness, or whatever you like to call it—that that Court should say, "We cannot discuss the motive put forward here; we would much rather that the case be considered by the Court which is considering these kinds of objections." Therefore we suggest an option which might be given. They may be a few cases, but the movement may spread. At any rate this class of case, I think, ought to be considered by the tribunal which is considering other similar cases.

I want to add a single sentence to what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I hope the Government will find some way of meeting the difficulty that undoubtedly will be a real difficulty, and which will enable some people to take extreme action, with, I think, embarrassing difficulty to the authorities. By a simple arrangement or a simple carrying out of the proposal of this Amendment that can be avoided.

We must all take note of the extremely painful cases to which reference has been made, but the real question is whether, by any legislation, you can avoid these cases. They are very painful. They no doubt arise from the highest motives, and they are extremely difficult to deal with. It is quite clear that the Amendment on the Paper goes a great deal too far. By trying to meet this case it would open a door which might prove to be a most dangerous entrance to all sorts of people and give them the benefit.

It is at the option of the Court.

8.0 P.M.

Yes, I know, but we have also to consider the possibility of overcrowding and overpressure upon these various tribunals which might result from a series of applications of this kind. I confess that I believe that it is almost impossible to meet these cases without running the risk of providing facilities for the kind of case which we do not want to facilitate in any sort of way. At the same time we have all heard of these cases. Many of us know some of them. They are difficult. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I am making no promise, nor am I holding out any definite hope that I shall be able, on behalf of the Government, to deal with this question on the Report stage, but it will be again considered by us. If it is dealt with, it ought not to be in this place or in this form. If it is possible to avoid any hardship of that kind, we will seek to do so, but I cannot make any more definite promise than that. I think in the circumstances, having regard to the complexity of the case, that ought to satisfy the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot make a very definite promise, but I am very glad he is willing to consider the position which will certainly arise if no machinery is provided to deal with this case. The case he put before the Committee is that of the obstinate man who, having a conscientious objection, refuses to state it in the particular way provided by the Bill. There is also the case I have mentioned of a person who is physically unable. I think both those cases will have to be dealt with in some way if there is not to arise a great feeling of injustice, which, I am sure, everybody wants to avoid. But I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has promised to consider the matter, and, In view of the spirit of that assurance, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "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 so enlisted and transferred."

I attach a very great deal of importance to this Amendment, and I hope the Attorney-General will be kind enough to give me his best attention, because it is a matter which has distinct legal novelty and weight in connection with our legal principles entitling it to every consideration. When this Bill comes into force many a man will say, "I am excepted under the Schedule." There are certain classes of men who are absolutely excepted out of the Bill. A man excepted out of the Bill, of course, does nothing further, but a day may arise when someone will come along and say, "Oh, you ought to be in the Army now. What is the reason you have not joined up, and are not in the Army under this new Military Service Act?" And the man, according to the Army Act and the Reserve Forces Act, may actually be hailed away by any person who has any suspicion, or even no suspicion, taken into custody, and brought before a tribunal. The man may say, "Oh, I have been excepted out of this Bill," and the onus of proof will be, if these words are still left in, upon the man that he has got a dependant. If a man is summoned to a Court for an offence it always lies with the prosecution to prove he is guilty, but under this Bill, and for the first time, a man himself will have to prove that he is not guilty, and moreover he can be forced—this also is an entirely new principle in English law—by the Court to give evidence against himself. I think some very startling and new principles are going to come out of this Bill; but, for the life of me, I cannot imagine anything worse, anything more novel, unexpected, or more subversive of our whole system of law and justice than that a man should be hailed, on mere suspicion, before a Court of law, and told to give evidence against himself, and if that evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the Court of law he is at once deemed to be guilty.

Guilty of what?

Guilty of being an offender, or, rather, guilty of not having presented himself as deemed to have been enlisted. By the machinery you are going to put up you are laying the burden upon him of proving he is an excepted man. I say the whole principle of justice is, that if a man is excepted he is excepted, and if you want to prove him as being guilty the onus of proof must lie on the people who bring the accusation against him. The case is even worse when you come to consider that if a man is deemed to have enlisted and is acting as if not enlisted, he is a deserter, and if he persists in doing so he may be subjected to the severest penalties; he may be subjected not only to penal servitude but also to be shot. The penalties in the Army Act which are applied to persons in these cases are of this nature, that if a man thinks himself excepted out of the Bill and takes no action, he is charged with being an offender, or with not being an excepted person, when he contended he was, and unless he satisfies the Court, and proves he is innocent, he is liable to be shot. I say the whole legal position which arises out of these words is outrageous. It is entirely subversive of English law, and I hope in the interests of justice, and of the smooth and just working of this Bill, the proposal which I now make that these words should be omitted will be accepted.

My hon. Friend's apprehensions once again, if he will allow me to say so, are most ludicrously exaggerated. What is the case which he has cited with such gloomy apprehension? He attempts to shock the House by talking of the consequences—that a man might be shot, and that he might be hailed to supply evidence against himself. He is not the first speaker who in the course of these Debates has spoken about the death penalty, not in relation to comparatively trivial matters, but in relation to much graver matters. It may interest the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to know that of all the millions of soldiers who have from time to time been collected in this country from the beginning of the War to the present day, and in all the most grave offences that have naturally occurred among so large a number of men, not one single man has been shot from the day the War broke out to the present day. Let us, then, not have this idle talk about liability to be shot. What is the basis of the case which has been made out by the hon. Gentleman? He says it has been an old-established principle of English law that an accused man shall not have his guilt presumed; in other words, the prosecution should prove his guilt. I would like to point out to my hon. Friend that we are not dealing here at all with guilty people. To avoid a further misapprehension, I may tell him we are not dealing with exceptions. No question of the exceptions can possibly arise under this particular Clause, and I hope no one in the Committee any longer has any misconception on that point. What alone we are dealing with or can deal with under this Sub-section (2) is the case of a man called up by Proclamation, and who has not for some reason obeyed the Proclamation. Let the Committee judge whether the burden, such as it is, which is put upon a man by the Bill is excessive or too severe. We say, "You are a man who, prima facie being twenty years of age, and being unmarried, fall under this scheme, and we want to know why you have not presented yourself for your duties?" It may be because he thinks he has good ground, or it may be without his having a good ground. We are not talking about guilt in the ordinary sense. It entirely confuses the issues which the Committee has to determine. The real point is this: You produce a man who prima facie ought to be in the Army, and should have presented himself, because ex hypothesi he is nineteen years old and liable. When you get him there he says he is not liable, and those who preside over the Court say, " Prima facie you are, having regard to your age, but if you say you are not liable, then tell us why." Now this part of the Sub-section provides that the Court may require that the man shall give evidence. Is that unfair?

I do not share my hon. Friend's views of justice and injustice. Supposing my hon. Friend is nineteen years old and, therefore, is prima facie liable under this Act, and supposing he does not present himself, as he is bound to present himself, being nineteen and unmarried, and he goes before the Court, which has not the advantage of being closely aware of all my hon. Friend's family arrangements. They may not know whether he is married, or is a widower with children dependent upon him, and what is the conceivable injustice when he comes before the Court that they should require him to tell whether he claims to be a widower with children dependent upon him or to be married? Does he really ask me to say it is unfair that he should be required to answer those questions? I yield to no one in my desire, when we are talking of innocence and guilt, that the law should exact to the uttermost the duty of establishing that which the law has imposed on the prosecution. We are not talking here of innocence or guilt, but of the liability of a man, who prima facie is in possession of all the facts, to place them before the tribunal before the decision is taken. I ask the Committee to say this is a complaint of no basis, on which no time should be spent.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has imagined the case, and I will imagine an extension of that case. Supposing the man is called up by Proclamation, and he does not come and you have to fetch him. He is asked, "Why did you not take any notice?" and he says, "I am a clerk in holy orders." They say to him, "But you do not wear a white tie, you never wear clerical clothes, and you are engaged in other pursuits." That man has a perfectly sound reason why he has not obeyed the Proclamation, and he bases his position on the exceptions and not the exemptions.

Does the hon. Member suggest that a clerk in holy orders would have a grievance simply because he was asked to state the fact that he was a clerk in holy orders? Surely my hon. Friend does not suggest that it is a reflection upon him because he is asked to state that he is a clerk in holy orders!

That is really trifling with the matter, because there are many cases where clerks in holy orders do not wish to be considered as such. If you look in the list of exceptions you will find there are a great many cases which may arise. A man is excepted who is resident in Great Britain for the purpose only of his education or for some other special purpose. What does "some other special purpose" mean?

Does my hon. Friend really not see that if it is a case which comes under the exceptions he cannot be compelled to say anything? He can say, "I am exceptional," and he is not a soldier and not a person amenable to that Court.

If that is really admitted, then I have nothing more to say.

That is the position.

I accept the Attorney-General's explanation, and I have nothing more to say.

It is not a question of whether this man is excepted or not, because he may be asked to state his reason for regarding himself as outside this Act, apart from exceptions. If any question of this kind arises, he may be required to come before the Court and give evidence as to whether he is one of those persons or not. The whole question turns upon whether he gives satisfactory evidence or not. If it is thought that he has not given satisfactory evidence, then under the words of the Clause the matter may be determined there and then, and that man may be deemed to have been so enlisted. It all lies in the words "satisfactory evidence," and according to the words of the Clause this body which asked him to give some prima facie evidence has power to decide the whole matter. If it decides that the evidence is not satisfactory, then the man has no right of appeal to a Civil Court. That is how I read the words, and I think the word "satisfactory" is vital there and disposes of the case as put by the Attorney-General.

There is not the slightest difference of aim between us as far as that particular point is concerned. The persons who come within the exceptions have and always must have an appeal to a Civil Court, and that right is preserved throughout the whole Bill, therefore we are at one as to what we desire. I will promise to have this point considered again by the draftsman if there is any doubt upon it.