May I ask the Prime Minister the programme of business for next week?

On Tuesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill;

On Wednesday, the Committee stage, and

On Thursday, we hope, the Report stage and Third Reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[ The Prime Minister .]

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "Tuesday," and to insert instead thereof the word "Monday."

I am fully aware that an Amendment of this kind is very stringent in the amount of latitude allowed for debate, and I hope, in the remarks I desire to offer, to keep myself strictly within the limited area of debate. I give as a preliminary reason for omitting the word "Tuesday"—

The right hon. Gentleman can speak on the Motion, but the Amendment will not be in order, because to negative the Motion would have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman desires—that is the House would meet on Monday.

Then I do not move my Amendment, and I will confine my remarks to the Motion as it stands. I think that this House ought, at the earliest possible moment, to have a discussion upon the situation in Ireland. I understand, from the statement made by the Prime Minister, that next week is to be allocated to the ordinary business of the Government. That means that the earliest possible moment this House will have of receiving an explanation from the Government of the situation in Ireland and of having a Debate upon it will be Tuesday week, if no other Government business is put down for that date. I suggest that that postponement is far too long a period for affairs in Ireland to proceed without the Government taking the House and the country fully into its confidence. My first reason is that a Debate has already taken place in another place, and the House of Lords has had an opportunity of getting information which has not yet been given to this House. They will also have an opportunity of discussing for two or three days next week, if they please, the whole situation in Ireland and of getting all the latest information, because information was given to another place yesterday which was not given to the House of Commons. I suggest that Monday might be profitably employed receiving a statement from the Government of the fullest possible character as to the grave condition of things which prevails in Ireland at this moment. I say that at the earliest possible moment it is in the highest interest of this country that we should make it clear to our Allies and to our friends abroad that this is purely a sectional movement, and has no support from the real representatives of Ireland. That is of the utmost importance. I think, also, that Monday might well be employed in having a statement from the Government of why, after the fullest warning weeks and months ago of what was likely to take place in Ireland, the Government absolutely ignored it. I happen to have personally information that was given to them of the most vital character—

The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to use this Motion to raise the Debate he is asking for. He is entitled to ask that the House shall not adjourn till Tuesday, but not to debate that question.

I shall confine myself to giving reasons why we ought to sit on Monday. They ought to explain to the House on Monday why these warnings were ignored. They ought to explain why, after the mutineers themselves issued a statement as to the critical situation, they ignored it on Saturday. That statement was issued by the leaders of the rebellion. They might further explain why they accepted an Amendment last week giving facilities to men who are the leaders of this movement—

The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to put forward allegations which cannot be answered on the Motion before the House. It is clear that such allegations must be made at a time when they can be answered.

Then I will not proceed in detail, but give my reasons without arguing them. I say they ought to employ Monday to tell us why that concession was made. They might also explain—and it is due to the House—why the Press is censored as it is at this moment—

The right hon. Gentleman is evading my ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I have now twice called his attention to the matter. I cannot permit the initiation of a debate which cannot be followed. It would be most unjust to other hon. Members in the House. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful to observe my ruling.

I will confine myself to saying that we ought to employ Monday in discussing why at this moment the Press is censored in the manner it is; why editors are being warned by the police not to refer—

The right hon. Gentleman must now resume his seat—

I will not continue the Debate.

I do not think the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made have excited sympathy in any quarter of the House. [An HON, MEMBER: "He never does!"] The only argument he used beyond letting fly a number of insinuations which he knows that it is impossible now to meet—

I will repeat them again in the House.

Certainly repeat them when they can be answered. They can now have nothing but a mischievous effect, and they may be grossly unjust to people who are not able to be here at this moment to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman produced one argument and one only, in my opinion, which is entitled to even a moment's consideration or reply. He said it was desirable at the earliest possible moment that we should make our Allies realise that this deplorable and detestable movement in Ireland has no sympathy from any section of the responsible leaders of the Irish people. That has been made clear this afternoon, made clear by my right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Carson) and by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. John Redmond). The world knows perfectly well that this movement has no sympathy either in responsible quarters in Ireland or anywhere else in the British Empire, and to hold a sitting for the purpose of repeating that which is already perfectly well known is, in my opinion, one of the idlest suggestions ever made.

I have already expressed my view that we shall have to await events before there is any discussion on this subject. At the same time, may I remind the Prime Minister that under existing conditions there are very many people in this country who are in a state of very grave anxiety. There are very few people who have not near and dear relations on the very scene of action. That is a matter which has caused many of us very grave anxiety, and at the same time we can get practically no news from Ireland. I cannot get news of my own relatives in Dublin, and, as the movement is plainly directed against anybody who is prepared to enter British Service, from all the information that I have, and as the shooting has been on men chiefly in khaki, those of us who have relatives or whose wives are in Dublin, are really in a state of great perturbation. Rumours of all kinds reach us, but which of them are true and which of them false we do not know. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not wish to interfere with the convenience of hon. Members in this House—that by adjourning till Tuesday we shall practically be kept three or four days without having any official information whatsoever as regards Ireland. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, even at the inconvenience of meeting together on Monday, that it would be well worth while, under the serious conditions that exist there, to be able to obtain such information as may assist us and can be given.

I can only speak again by leave of the House. I quite sympathise with what my right hon. and learned Friend has said as to the embarrassment and anxiety that is caused by the interruption of communications, but I am glad to say that is diminishing, and I gather from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that communications will be got through either today or to-morrow. As I said a few moments ago, subject only to the censorship necessitated by the military exigencies, there will be no censorship that will interfere with private communications, and I do not think that we should be any better off in that respect if we met on Monday instead of on Tues- day. I undertake, on behalf of the Government, that all information available shall be published with promptitude and without delay, so that it shall be accessible to the whole public, and that means of communication between private individuals shall be interfered with as little as is practicable, having regard to the military conditions of the case.

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the position of embarrassment in which we stand at the present moment. Up to this very minute we are cut off from communication with Ireland, either by letter or by telegram. I have been unable to get either letters or telegrams, or any communication up to the present from Dublin, and the passenger traffic has stopped. That, of course, is a most unfortunate and disquieting situation, and I would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether the statement of the Prime Minister means that ordinary telegraphic and passenger communication between Ireland and this country will be re-established to-day. Further than that, the Prime Minister has made a statement to the effect that from day to day, almost from hour to hour, information will be given to the public, as far as is consistent with the general interest, whether Parliament meets on Monday or not. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel) wants to have Monday fixed for the meeting of the House in order to inaugurate a debate upon the whole question, then I say respectfully to him that really neither he nor I can possibly decide whether it will be safe or right to have such a debate. All that we can say to the Government is that when they have got full information and can give that information to the House, then there ought not to be a moment's delay in having a discussion. But a premature discussion, in my opinion, would be most injurious to the interests which we all have at heart.

I entirely subscribe to every word the hon. and learned Member has said. With regard to the resumption of communications, I do not think it would be desirable to say precisely by what route the restored communications will take place, but I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that it will happen to-day. We do not anticipate that there will be any further difficulty in that respect. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the universal sense of the House when he said that to determine at this moment to have a debate upon the whole subject when the conflagration is now raging—we hope that it may then be stamped out—would really not be in the public interest. I hope that the whole House will agree to suspend the Monday sitting.

May we know the names of those killed?

Yes, they will be published without delay, but we have not yet got the list completed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman now given the House all the information which the Government has at its disposal at the present moment consistent with public safety? There are rumours abroad as to details, to which he seemed to refer in speaking of the spread of the movement. If he could give any further information on that point, I think it might relieve some anxiety.

I do not like, for obvious reasons, to name places, but, as I said, there are places in the West and South, particularly in the West, where there has been a development of this movement. Very stringent precautions are being taken by the military authorities to deal with those particular places, and that is one of the reasons why it is not advisable at this moment to say exactly where they are.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of personal convenience, whether we may take it that there will be no further recess, and that the House will sit, probably, until Whitsuntide?

I cannot say that. I hope that when this deplorable affair is over and we have had a discussion upon it, and have passed the legislation which my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) is introducing to-day, we may have ant opportunity for a short recess.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."

Ordered, "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[ The Prime. Minister .]

I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to military service during the present War."

The Bill forms part of the earlier announcement made on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the day before yesterday. Perhaps it would be convenient if I stated, first of all, with regard to two parts of that policy that it is not proposed to introduce legislation, or to ask leave to introduce legislation, at all events, to-day. It has, already been announced in the House that the Government propose to deal with the liabilities of those who have been called to the Colours and who have found that their service has imposed upon them an undue financial burden. That scheme does not require legislation; it is administrative very largely, and we are advised that, at any rate, at present it is not necessary to ask Parliament for powers. I stated a short time ago that I would endeavour to include in this Bill powers enabling the case of the attested married man who believes he has been misled to be dealt with. I had hoped to introduce Clauses into this Bill to do that, but it is an exceedingly difficult question to deal with satisfactorily. It is very difficult to open the door without making it possible for it to be pushed open much wider than the warmest advocate in favour of the married man would desire should happen. Therefore I am not proposing to include this in this Bill, but if necessary I will introduce separate legislation to deal with the subject. In the meantime, I am not without hope it may be possible to deal with this administratively through the War Department.

The Bill which I have the honour to ask leave to introduce to-day is unlike the greater majority of Bills insomuch that it really is a collection of Clauses dealing with what are in almost every case separate and distinct subjects. It is not a Bill which proposes to set up some particular principle and apply it by varied machinery, but it deals with a variety of questions which have been found to be urgent mainly by the Army Council, and have partly arisen since the passing of the last Military Service Act and partly as a result of our military system. I think, if the House will allow me, my best plan is really not to waste time upon introductory remarks, but to deal with each Clause as briefly and at the same time as clearly as I can.

The first, second, and third Clauses deal with the expiration of terms of service, probably from some points of view the most difficult question in the Bill. I think there is no, division of opinion in this House or out of it among those who have in any degree, however slight, studied our military services or followed the history of our Navy and our Army that it is profoundly distasteful to everybody to be compelled to ask men who have given long years of splendid service in peace time and some of them in previous war time to their country and who are themselves the very salt of our Army and among the very best of the men we have—who have not only given this service in peace and war and who, I am sorry to say, in some cases have bled more than once or twice in the service of their country in this present War—it is, I say, profoundly distasteful to everybody, whatever his views may be about this or that form of military service and be compelled to enact that these men are to serve again. I am not going now to dwell upon the controversial aspect of the case. I take this course not because I think I shall thereby escape discussion—I am not so foolish—but because I do not think I can serve any good purpose by repeating the statement of policy which has already been made to this House and indicated to the country by the Prime Minister. But I am going just to say this—if the House will forgive me for saying it—that I may at all events make this claim for myself. Ever since I was a boy—I have, unfortunately for myself, not had the honour and privilege of serving in His Majesty's Army—I have been a close follower of the fortunes of the Army, and among the rank and file of the Army, and particularly among the men to whom these Clauses specially refer, I have had—and I am proud to say I have to-day friends for whom I have the deepest regard and the most profound respect, and I would be—as, indeed, I believe my colleagues would be—among the last to ask that any injustice should be done to these men if I thought there were a more efficient and better policy.

We are proposing under this Bill first of All to alter the law under which men engage for the Army or for the Territorial Forces for a fixed period. Their period of service during war time may now be extended for a year, and we propose to extend this service till the end of the War. I have said I would not willingly make this proposal with other proposals to which I will presently refer more fully, if I did not myself believe—and I may claim to have had some personal experience of the whole of this recruiting question in all its aspects during the last few months—if I did not firmly believe that the best and most rapid way to secure the services of those who are not now taking their share of military service is by the procedure which we propose to adopt to give an opportunity for direct enlistment. I think there has been some misapprehension on this point. Direct enlistment does not mean that the unattested married men are to go through the form of attestation with power of appeal, and so on. It means that on the day appointed—the 27th May—there must be the stated number of 50,000 men enlisted in the Army and available for service, and not merely attested subject to conditions. That I believe to be the best way to secure at the same time the services of those who have not served and of those who have served.

Is the limit of age prescribed? Will this apply to men over forty-one?

The proposals are under exactly the same provisions as are in the Military Service Act. We do two things. We alter the law as I have stated with regard to men whose period of service has expired, and then we remove the exemption under the Military Service Act which prevents a man, otherwise eligible, from being compelled to serve owing to the fact that he has already served and received his discharge.

Will men over forty-one be liable?

Will married men be brought in under this Bill?

Yes; this applies to all men in the Army whose service has expired. It is retrospective in that sense. Perhaps I may be allowed to state what the Clauses are, because it is really a technical matter and not very easy to deal with. As my hon. Friends know, it does not come within my own Department, therefore it makes it a little more difficult for me to deal with. Perhaps I may be allowed to state the effect of the Bill and to answer questions afterwards. On the whole that would be the most convenient course. I do not say that to relieve myself; I am only thinking of the time I might occupy. Let me say that the Bill deals also with what we call, for the sake of shortness, the continuous eighteens, that is to say, the Military Service Act brought in unmarried men who were eighteen on the 15th August, 1915. Those who became eighteen subsequently were not brought in. We propose now to bring in every unmarried man between the ages of eighteen and forty-one. As soon as a man becomes eighteen he comes in, but a period of one month is allowed before the Bill becomes operative, that is to say, supposing a man is eighteen now, he has one month to make his arrangements, and if he becomes eighteen after the Bill passes he still has a month in which to make his arrangements, but everybody who has become eighteen is in the same position as those dealt with under the Military Service Act.

I have already said that the Bill removes the exceptions in regard to all discharged men who are of military age, but, of course, to those men are given the advantages, such as they are, of the appeals under the Military Service Act, that is to say, they can appeal for all those different reasons which are enacted in the Military Service Act, and the effect of the Bill is to remove the exemptions contained in the Act by which they were protected from its operation. I have said that I do not like—nobody likes—proposing additional service for those men who have already rendered such splendid service, but this Bill is introduced not to carry out any particular pledge or promise, it is introduced solely as a measure of military necessity. It is urged upon the Government by those who are responsible military advisers. In dealing with these time-expired men the Government are most anxious to deal with them in not only a considerate but a generous spirit. In the first place, I am authorised by the Army Council to say that in all these cases friendly consideration will be given to the claims of every one of these men for promotion or advancement, and further, that it has been decided, on a scale which I shall be in a position to produce while this Bill is under discussion, to afford them generous treatment in regard to bounties. Therefore it cannot be said that we are putting these men on exactly the same footing as those who have done no service. We are recognising that by their service they have a claim upon the consideration of their superiors for advancement, and we are recognising, or propose to recognise, that they have a claim upon the country for consideration of a financial character in the shape of bounties. I have said that this Bill is introduced as a matter of military necessity and solely because these men are there now. The difference between these men and those who may be got in other ways is that these splendid fellows are now available. Their time is coming to a close. I suppose that every week sees a certain number of them complete their period of service, and it is necessary, in the opinion of those who advise it, that their services should be retained by the country for the Army if we are to do what we all desire to do, namely, make the best use of the forces at our disposal. That deals with Clauses 1, 2, and 3.

4.0 P.M.

Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 deals with a very vexed and difficult question. The House will remember that when we were discussing the Military Service Bill in Committee, a proposal was made in regard to those who had been medically rejected under the Derby scheme, and I myself felt some hesitation as to what course we ought to take. It was certainly desirable that where medical examinations had not been satisfactory there should be an opportunity for reconsideration. There was some evidence that there had been hasty examinations, and, indeed, some fraudulent proceedings. On the other hand, bearing in mind, as we had to do, that that Bill was really for a fixed and military purpose, it did not seem fair, as the case then stood, to bring in at once all the men who had offered themselves and had been rejected on medical grounds. Therefore we exempted those who had been medically rejected. This has produced a state of hopeless confusion—there is no other word for it. The War Office have found that it is really practically impossible to get on with the system in its present form. There is no doubt whatever, first of all, that at the beginning of the Derby scheme there was a great rush. In some cases hundreds of men were passed through what is called a medical examination in less time, than it would be possible to examine at the outside one-tenth of the number. In some cases certificates were never signed, and they bore on them no indication of the person to whom they referred. There has been complete confusion. The War Office find that there is only one course that can be adopted if we are to get the men who are fit to serve, whose rejection was the result of hasty examination, or, in some cases, was really no rejection at all. If we are to get the men who are fit to serve otherwise, of course, we shall not get them—it is quite evident that we must clear up this muddle. There is no question of breaking faith about it. The position now and the position under the Military Service Act are quite distinct. Then we were dealing with specified cases. Now we are trying, so far as we can by this measure, to make our existing system more workable, and we are amending the Military Service Act. Therefore, what the Army Council take power to do is not to re-examine every person who has been medically rejected, but to take power to have re-examination if they think it necessary. The Clause applies only to men who offered themselves for enlistment. Therefore, the objection which was raised in the course of our earlier Debates, that any reopening of the medically rejected people would mean that all the unfortunate people who are paralysed or bedridden, or in any other way totally unable to serve, would be subjected again to examination into their cases, does not arise at all. This only applies to people who offered themselves for enlistment and have been rejected on medical grounds since 14th August, 1915. Each of these cases can now, if necessary, be reconsidered, but, of course, I need hardly say the last thing the Army Council is likely to do is to deal with this pell mell. All they want to do is, where there is good evidence that there are cases of men—in some cases large numbers of them—who are fit for service and who passed the medical examination, not to allow them to be exempt from service because they claim to have a certificate, which, I am told, in a great many cases cannot be shown to be a certificate properly granted to them after proper medical examination. In some cases they cannot even show that the certificate was granted to them at all. It was granted to someone else and passed on to them.

Then there has been another difficulty. There is power in the Military Service Act which enables certificates of exemption to be granted for a fixed period of time, and then to be re-granted. This is subject to very great abuse, and the result is that you get a certain number of cases where people are really anxious to avoid their service with indifferent excuses. They get temporary exemption and get their certificate renewed, and they may go on doing that for ever. There is also a doubt in the Act of Parliament whether, when an application is made in the case of a certificate which has been varied by the Appeal Tribunal, the application shall be made to the original tribunal or to the Appeal Tribunal. My hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) raised this case some little time ago, and I think we came to the conclusion that there was some doubt as to the interpretation of the Act of Parliament. We propose that the Appeal Court shall have power to fix a definite term to the exemption granted, and that where the Appeal Court varies the decision, any application shall be made to the Appeal Court and not to the original tribunal.

Does that mean that where the local tribunal is upheld by the Appeal Court the case will go back to the local tribunal, and it is only where it has not been upheld or varied that it goes to the Appeal Tribunal?

I think it will work in this way, that where the certificate is for a limited period, if the Appeal Court has upheld the decision of the tribunal I assume the local tribunal will deal with it, but where there has been a variation, then it will be as if it were a new certificate.

The great majority of these cases were dealt with by the Central Appeal Tribunal, and would naturally go back to the local tribunal. It would be an appalling thing if the Central Appeal Tribunal had to go over them all again.

No, I do not think that will arise at all. This is only in cases where the Appeal Tribunal varies the decision, and in those cases, surely, if there is to be a renewal, application must be to the tribunal which has given the decision and not to the tribunal whose decision has been varied. It seems to me to be perfectly clear. I do not think the difficulty my hon. Friend refers to is likely to arise

My right hon. Friend said something about the case of men who got temporary exemption, which I suppose might be for a month or two months, which they could renew again and again, but he did not state what he was going to do. What is the proposal which the Government makes in such a case as that?

I think the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is as to certificates of exemption which are given for a limited period, and are used in this way, that they are turned into perpetual exemption certificates because they are renewed from time to time. We propose that power should be given to the appeal tribunal to grant them for a fixed period, and so put an end to the indefinite prolongation of temporary exemption.

made an observation which was not not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.

May I suggest that these are Committee points which may be left till we see the Bill?

I think that is a very proper suggestion. I do not want to interfere with legitimate anxiety on small points, but this is the First Beading of the Bill. I understand the Bill is to be circulated before Tuesday, when hon. Members will have the details before them.

It would be more convenient to leave the minor points till after the Bill has been printed. Hon. Members will then be in a position to examine into these small points, which are extremely technical. They have to be read in many cases with the other Act. I do not wish to make statements which are in themselves incorrect. On the contrary, I want to make the provisions of the Bill as clear as I can. I think it will be better to outline them in general, and when we come to the Second Reading they can be considered in detail when Members will have the Bill in their hands. If I may come to the next Clause—the question of the two months' grace given on the expiration of certificates—this is really an extremely difficult question. When we were discussing the Military. Service Act we were confronted with the possibility that it might be used, as no one intended it should be used, for what is called industrial compulsion. No one, so far as I know, meant so to use it, but the Prime Minister gave a distinct understanding, and it really was a very difficult task to carry it out. We were anxious to prevent this thing happening, and in order to do it we put in this power. If a man ceased to be employed in employment which protected him from military service, he should have two months during which it was to be possible for him to secure another certificate of exemption by getting employment of national importance. This worked extremely badly, and curiously enough it worked badly on both sides. The Army Council is thoroughly dissatisfied with it, because they do not get the men they ought to get. Men who have ceased to be in the employment and who, therefore, are not longer protected, take advantage of the two months to escape from where they are to some other place and pass on, and it is almost impossible for the Army Council to trace them because they have no means of following them up.

On the other hand, it is stated on indisputable evidence that in some cases men who are of the utmost importance to certain of our trades connected with the output of munitions and other essential products have been taken for military service when they ought not to have been taken, and having been taken, have had to be restored, or are claimed to be restored, to trades to which they are indispensable. Therefore, from both points of view, the existing provision has worked badly. It has been extremely difficult to adjust differences. The real truth is that what we did was to build a Nasmyth hammer in order to crack what was really only a nut. The Nasmyth hammer has done a great deal, but it has not done its work. It has made mischief, and what we now want to find is some simpler machinery which will meet the case, prevent industrial compulsion, and at the same time not allow men to take advantage of that opportunity to escape from the service which they ought to render to the country. I will not read this machinery. What we do is to abolish the two months, and set up instead of it two weeks during which the man is to have an opportunity to make an application. He passes automatically during that time into the Reserve, which gives the Army Council an opportunity of following him up. On the other hand, he is protected from industrial compulsion because he is given that period of two weeks to make his application, and if he succeeds he is released not only from the Army, but from the Army Reserve, and becomes what he was before, a working man engaged on work of national service. I am very hopeful that this provision will work, but on the other hand the thing is so difficult that both the Army Council and those who represent our leading trades are doubtful whether this Clause, as it stands, will exactly meet their case. I put it into the Bill as the best machinery that we have been able to devise, but I say deliberately that between now and the Committee stage the Government would be very ready to consider, and indeed we are going to discuss with the representatives of Labour, and with the Army Council, and see whether there is any weak spot which ought to be removed. We all want the same thing. I do not care whether we represent the Army Council, or the trade unions, or the labour of the country. We want that the man who is essential to national industry shall not be taken for soldiering, and, on the other hand, we want that every man who is not essential shall not take advantage of the protection from the liability to military service which the State is now imposing upon him. That, we believe, will be effected by this Clause as it stands, and with these provisos we put it in the Bill.

By Clause 6 we put on an employer the onus of proving that he did not know that his employé was in fact a deserter or an absentee. He is at present, under the law, liable if he harbours a deserter or absentee, and it is thought desirable to make it clear that it is assumed that he has this knowledge. We deal also with the production of the certificate of exemption under the National Registration Act. I will not deal with that, but it is part of the policy connected with the Registration Act, and I hope it will make that Act more successful. We take power to create a Special Reserve in addition to the existing Reserve. There is no power at present under which a man, if he has enlisted for the Colours and passed, for instance, for Home defence, and found to be redundant for present needs, can be passed automaticaly to the Reserve and given so much a day, and become therefore available for labour, and available, if required, to be called up for service with the Colours. That cannot now be done. We propose to create this new Reserve, into which, if there are men who have been trained for Home service and who are over and above the number required for Home defence, these men can be passed to industry, and in that way relieve the country from the burden of maintaining them and enable them to earn not only a good living for themselves, but to do something to help the country at a time when any labour that is available and can be spared is very urgently needed.

We also deal with the Territorial Force. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Colonel Yate) referred to this matter in a question which he asked to-day. A proposal was made dealing with this matter at the very beginning of the War, and I for one offered opposition to it. I was extremely unwilling, and am very unwilling now, that Territorials should be moved from their own corps to any other corps, but the Army Council feel that it is essential that they should have the same power during the War—I beg the House to remember that—of dealing with Territorials as they have now, under their amended powers, for dealing with soldiers in the Regular Army. At the present time a soldier in the Regular Army can not only be transferred from one corps to another, but from any service in the Army to any other service as the country most wants him at the moment. That cannot be done with the Territorials. I think that in view of the fact that this is a matter of urgent need, that it is done in order to get rid of one of the difficulties which many of my hon. Friends have referred to, namely, that certain units are below strength because they have not got in their reserves at home the necessary men to keep them at the full strength at the front, that the House will accept this proposal. It is one of the things that will help the Territorial Force, and if it is understood that it is only to operate during the War, and that it is in order to make our Army more effective at the front and help those who are responsible for manning our Army, and that at the end of the War every man will be entitled, if he so wishes it, to return to his own Territorial unit, I hope that, although it will naturally arouse some considerable opposition, due to a feeling which I entirely share myself, as one who has strong local opinions and ties, yet when we remember our needs, when we remember that it is believed that this will enable the Territorial Force to be more efficiently used than it is now, I think the House will be willing to agree to this sacrifice, and will enable the Army Council to take these steps.

Will the transfer destroy their exemption from vaccination?

We take power to form a Territorial Corps for more than one county, and the Bill provides that the acceptance of liability to serve outside the United Kingdom shall not be withdrawn by a Territorial during the War. I think I have dealt now with all the Clauses in the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) asked me a question just now which I am afraid I misunderstood. I think he asked me whether in regard to time-expired men the age limit was the same as the age limit in the Act, and I gave him, I am afraid, a misleading answer. The age of the men now serving is not limited under the Bill. It would apply to them even though they are otuside the age limits which are dealt with in the Military Service Act.

Can a man be taken' who is forty-four, forty-five, or even forty-six years of age if he is serving now, but if he has not served before, is forty-one the-limit?

Yes, I think that is so.

What about his period of service?

Does that apply if he has been discharged some considerable time before?

It applies to men of any age-who are in the Army and come under this Clause.

Who are in the-Army?

I mean who are in the Army and whose time is about to expire.

Surely there must be some limit of age. What about a man who may have been discharged ten years ago?

Are not these small Committee points?

I think it is rather unfair when the right hon. Member is asking leave to introduce a Bill for hon. Members to raise all these points.

If a man is in the Army now the Bill will apply, but if he has left the Army and is beyond the age, then it will not apply. I hope I have made it as clear as it is possible for me to do so. I do not profess to be an expert on this question, or in the art of the exposition of a Bill, but I thought it right, with the Prime Minister's permission, and I felt it would be convenient and fair to the House, to make such explanation in regard to the general clauses of the Bill. The Bill, I hope, will be printed and circulated tomorrow and in the hands of Members, and I hope they will be willing to read it a second time next week. I do not present this Bill to the House on the ground that it meets every difficulty, or that it is in itself a specific which will not arouse considerable criticism, but that it is urgently needed. It is pressed upon the attention of the Government by those who are responsible for advising us on military questions, and on these grounds I hope the House will be ready and willing to assent to the motion that I make in asking for leave to introduce it.

After listening to the statement of my right hon Friend, I can only at the outset express my surprise when I am told that we are to pass this Bill in one day's Committee.

I did not say that. I only expressed a hope.

I can only assure my right hon. Friend that it is a hope which will be disappointed, and will necessarily be disappointed. I am in favour of compulsion owing to the exigencies of the War, but I am not in favour of the unfair compulsion that is put in this Bill. Anything more unfair, anything more illogical, anything more unreasonable than the proposals which the Government put forward in this Bill I cannot conceive. I shall only mention two or three points, but my right hon. Friend must understand that if this Bill is persisted in before other people who have never served one moment in the interests of their country are touched by legislation, he must be ready to have the sense of the House taken upon the justice of this Bill. What is the Bill? The Bill says that men who have already served their country for the whole term for which they enlisted, and an additional year, are to be com- pelled to go on to serve to the end of the War. I would not like to have to go out to tell these men that in the trenches. Anybody who has ever read the Army Act under which these men have enlisted will find there a most complete contract as between the State and these people, which goes so far as to say that under no circumstances, when the year has expired which is added on in the event of war, can any officer detain one of these men, and that it is his bounden duty to send them home. These men are to be coerced and they are to be compelled. I would not shirk that, not in the least, if everybody else was treated in the same way. What right have you to single out these men? My right hon. Friend, with the chivalry that always I adorns his oratory in this House, says that he has a great deal of sympathy with these men. He says that some of these men have been home wounded, have seen their families for a few days and gone back to the front again, come home wounded again to see their families for a few days, and again gone out. These are the men who are solemnly and seriously in the British House of Commons put forward as the proper men to coerce, when you do not dare to bring in a general Bill which will make those who have never done, and never intend, if they can help it, a day's work in the interest of their country, to do their duty. You put that off from day to day and decline to bring in the general Bill that I have referred to. Of course, these men have no trades union. They have got nobody like the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) who, if you dare to touch the unattested married men, who have never done anything, will stop the transport of stores reaching the men at the front who have been trying to do their duty for their country out there. The Government are encouraging this country to get out of all sense of perspective as regards the duties of their citizens.

What is the difference between the man at the front and the man who is making munitions here? The difference in the eyes of the Government is this, that if the man at the front does not go on to parade when he is ordered into the trenches they shoot him; but if the man who is making ammunition goes out and "downs" tools they give him 5s. a day more rather than lose his work. All this is out of perspective. You are wrong and unfair in treating these men in this way, and what are you doing it for? You say you want the men immediately. I dare say you do. You wanted them from the 4th of August, 1915, a year after the Wax broke out. They have been going away from you at the rate of 5,000 a month or thereabouts, and you have lost about 40,000 already. They have gone home and joined their families, having fulfilled their contracts with the State; they have set up in little businesses and employment, and now you are going to say to them that they must give up their homes, having served the State for thirteen years, and while their neighbours who have never done a day's work for the State are to remain at home. I do not believe that the sense of justice of this House has become so degraded that they will for a moment assent to a proposition of this kind.

I am in favour of Conscription owing to the exigencies of the War and nothing else. I know the horrors of it just as much as anybody else. I am in favour of equal sacrifice as far as you can make it, but where is there equal sacrifice here? These men with their wounds and their medals, having bravely served their country and settled down at home, are now told by the Government—because they have not been able to make up their minds for the last twelve months to draw up a general scheme of compulsion that might be fair—these men who are the only unprotected men who have no power in this House, and probably no vote for this House—these men are the men who are selected and singled out to do what?—to go out and defend the trenches, as against the men who are idling here at home and are boasting that they will never do a day's work in the trenches. I merely state that to show the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot expect this Bill, unless it is turned into a general Bill, to receive very much support either from myself or those who act with me. There is something more that I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Did he really correctly represent this Bill when he told the House that these men, even if they are over what is the military age in the one compulsory Bill that you have passed, that they are still to be compelled to stay on in the Army?

signified assent.

Could there be anything more monstrous? They are to be compelled to stay on even if they are married and have children?

Yes.