I have to inform the House that I have received from the President of the Russian Imperial Duma a communication to the effect that on 3rd April last that Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the attack which was made in the Black Sea on the Hospital and Red Cross ship "Portugal" as being contrary to all international conventions, and at the same time asking me to inform the House of Commons of that resolution. I have no doubt that the House would desire me to send a proper and an adequate answer. [ The House assented. ]

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I promised last Thursday that I would make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity with regard not only to the Bill which was then under discussion, but also to the various questions connected with it. I might make my statement, by the indulgence of the House, but it would be better, I think, that I should formally move the Adjournment. A week ago I endeavoured in our Secret Session to make clear the grounds on which the Government proposals with regard to recruiting were based. Some of those proposals involved immediate compulsion; others, compulsion contingent on the men required not coming forward in the requisite number by the prescribed time. It was one of our main objections in putting our proposals forward in that form to secure, if we could, something in the nature of general consent—nor am I in the least afraid to add that I attached great importance, in view of their well-known and often expressed views, to the assent of the representatives of organised Labour. It is upon the class to which they belong and for which they claim to speak that any form of recruiting, either voluntary or compulsory, makes by far its largest demand. It is for them and their families, their flesh and blood, that war exacts its heaviest toll, and I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I say that by no body of men or women in the community has that toll been more unflinchingly borne or more cheerfully paid. That was the main purport of our reluctant recourse to the novel expedient of a Secret Session, but when we came last Thursday to present to the House in a concrete form the first instalment of our plan it became plain, not that the plan itself, but that the mode of dealing with it by instalments, found no favour in any quarter of the House. As long as the end is attained the question of the mode of attaining it is one of method. The Government will therefore invite the House to deal without delay with all sides of the problem in a single measure.

I think it is right, before that measure is introduced, as I hope it will be to-morrow, I should take the opportunity of summarising, with the utmost brevity in public, some of the reasons I gave last week to the House in private for the necessity of our main demand. I will first call attention to the actual growth which has taken place in the Army since the beginning of the War. In August, 1914, our Army at home consisted of six Regular and fourteen Territorial Divisions, in addition to the garrisons overseas, which may roughly be estimated at six divisions. That makes 26 in all. We have now in all 42 Regular and 28 Territorial divisions—that is to say, 70—and if you add the Naval Divisions, as I think you ought, 71. [An Hon. MEMBER: "All voluntary!"] And in addition, if one wants to estimate the contribution of the Empire as a whole, you must add, excluding India for the moment, 12 divisions from the Dominions, which makes 83 divisions in all. As I said last week, and I repeat it now, the total naval and military effort of the Empire from the beginning of the War up to this moment exceeds 5,000,000 of men. To obtain this enormous addition to our forces has involved a prodigious effort both here and throughout the Empire. Recruiting was well maintained, with some occasional lapses, during the first half of 1915, after which it began to fall off. The Bill for the National Register was introduced and became law in July, and immediately afterwards investigations were made by the Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by Lord Crewe, who reported that for the purpose of maintaining a seventy-division Army a weekly influx of 25,000 to 30,000 men must be obtained. Conseqeuently, in the middle of October, Lord Derby's recruiting campaign was started, and the pledge, the familiar pledge, was given to the married men. It proved that the unmarried men—it seemed to us that they were a substantial number—did not come forward, and in consequence the Military Service Act, applying compulsion to unmarried men, was introduced and passed. In the month of January the Government conducted an exhaustive inquiry by a Cabinet Committee with the object of co-ordinating our military, financial, and industrial efforts. There are two limiting conditions in the matter of recruiting which apply to us and hardly at all, if at all, to any of the other belligerent countries. I mean, first, the maintenance of sea power and sea supremacy both by means of the Navy and of the Mercantile Marine, and, next, the financing of the Allies. Those conditions, their scope and their effect, were carefully considered in relation to the military demand, and in the end the Committee advised, and the Cabinet accepted their advice, that if the War Office should proceed to carry out their full scheme it was of the utmost importance and inevitable—many points, both as to the progress of recruiting and as to its effect upon our industrial conditions, then obscure, had been made clear—that there should be a further review.

That further review was made, and the Government came to three conclusions. The first was, and is, the provision of additional men—those included in the Bill introduced last week—and the 200,000 men who it was admitted were still unattested married men—in the latter part of the year is of vital importance to the maintenance, in due strength, of the Army in the field, in view of the contingencies of the Summer and Autumn campaign. Our second conclusion was that that number of men could not and would not be obtained in due time under the existing machinery. Our third and last conclusion was that the number of men whom it was estimated that this demand will yield is a number which is actually available—that is to say, that can be spared from industry without incapacitating us from the discharge of our other responsibilities, which, in our judgment, are quite as essential to the successful prosecution of the War as the maintenance of a fixed number of men at the front. These were our conclusions, and if they are true, if they are well-founded as we believe them to be, the inference is plain. It is the duty of the country to provide these men. The question, therefore, if these premises are accepted, is-reduced to one of method.

This brings one once more face to face with the question of the application of compulsion. I need hardly remind the House—I have done so more than once—that as far back as the beginning of last November I stated my own opinion, and I believe it to be that of my colleagues, that for the purposes of the War compulsion is a pure question of practical expediency, and that for that purpose only, and regarding it from that point of view only, the limitation, the sole limitation, so far as I am concerned, I have never had any doubt is that if compulsion is to be applied, and if it is to be applied successfully, it must be with something in the nature of general consent. The proposals we put before the House last week were framed on those lines. As I said then, and I repeat it now, by a general and immediate compulsion such as we are going to propose in our Bill there is no reason to believe you will get a larger number of men or that you will get the number you want in an appreciably shorter time. On the other hand there is the immense advantage of getting rid of the piecemeal treatment to-which so much objection was taken in all quarters of the House, and of the sense of at any rate, temporary injustice and inequality which that mode of treatment is apt to engender. The speeches made last Thursday, particularly from the Labour benches, encouraged the belief that there is what may be described, without exaggeration, as a general desire to settle the whole matter, with all the controversy and heated feeling which has been introduced once and for all and to get it finally out of the way at the earliest moment. It is our earnest hope and belief that this will be the effect of the Bill which we intend to introduce. I hope that anything in the nature of a general discussion will be deferred until to-morrow when the Bill will be presented to the House. Therefore I only want to make one or two observation of a more general character.

I have again to-day, as I have for months past, emphasised the need for national unity. I do so, not because I have any doubt as to the prospects of our cause on the sea or in the field, but because of the damaging effect of division here at home, upon our Allies and upon neutral countries. People are naturally impatient—and no one can blame them—for some decisive victory. They are naturally sore and depressed at a deplorable incident, though not one of serious military significance, like the surrender last week of the heroic garrison of Kut. That has been the case in every great war in which we have ever been engaged. Let any one turn to the speeches, articles, and pamphlets during the earlier year of the Revolutionary War when Mr. Pitt was Prime Minister of this country or later, and more remarkable still when the Duke of Wellington was fighting up to the very eve of Salamanca in the Peninsula. You will find yourselves reading exactly the same kind of thing that is furnished to the public daily in the newspapers. There is the same denunciation of indecision, of procrastination, of half-heartedness, and of delay; the same portraits are drawn of vacillating statesmen and incompetent generals, the Duke of Wellington being the chief villain in the piece; and the same cry—exactly the same cry—for the appearance of a saviour, or a combination of saviours. Even the same criticism in detail repeat themselves. At one moment the country was told—as it is told now—it was quite contrary to the fact—that civilians in the Government insisted throughout on overruling their naval and military experts. At another moment it is told—as I feel sure it will be said when the Papers about Mesopotamia which we are about to produce are circulated, that the Government was the too subservient tool of their military advisers. It is told again, and it seems to be told again by way of reproach to the Government that we are everywhere on the defensive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but when the next offensive, with its toll of casualties, occurs, we shall be lectured by the same people on the folly of premature action. My answer to all this is not that there have not been mistakes—of course, there have—not that there have not been blunders, perhaps, both in policy and in strategy, but that our contribution, the contribution of this Kingdom and of this Empire to the common cause has grown and is growing steadily month by month, and is greater at this moment and better directed than it has ever been, and that the naval and military situation of the Allies as a whole was never so good as it is to-day. We have to put up with these things. We can be indifferent to them, as long as we feel that we have behind us the confidence of the people.

You have not.

If we have not—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is only Billing!"]—then let the House say so, and let it find—I do not care where it seeks for them—another body of men. It will find none, I venture to say, more zealous, more loyal, and more assiduous in the discharge of this task. Let it find another body of men better qualified for the art of Government and for the practice of administration in these exacting days. I can say with perfect sincerity that there is not a man who sits on this Bench among my colleagues who is attached to his daily work by any other ties than a sense of duty to and a love of his country. We cannot—I say it deliberately—carry the heaviest burden that has ever been laid upon the shoulders of British statesmen unless we can feel that we have not only the sympathy, but the trust of our countrymen.

I do not think this is an occasion upon which it is necessary to go into any criticism of the scheme that the Government have just announced. It is certainly not necessary for me in any sense to proceed to praise the Government, or to express my sympathy with them—they always do that for themselves. I would like to make this observation: that upon a day when the whole nation is anxious and mourning about such a disaster as the surrender of Kut, I do not think you can appease their minds and their anxieties by simply perorating and trying by words to mitigate what everybody must know has been a great calamity. We shall have another opportunity of discussing that, but for my own part I cannot let this opportunity go by without bearing testimony—for I was in the Cabinet at the time—to the indefatigable pains that the Secretary of State for India too to ascertain, not merely from scratch information, but from every possible Department that we had, what were the possibilities of carrying out a successful attack upon Bagdad, and I certainly, unless there are matters to be revealed of which I know nothing, would lend myself to no attack whatsoever in a case of that kind where I believe every possible Department had been consulted. The Prime Minister said that at one time they were charged with not backing up their military advisers, and at another time were charged with acting with their military advisers.

No.

He said "subservient to them."

I do not suppose it is doing any harm, after the great many months that have elapsed now, to say this: that when I went into the Cabinet, being entirely inexperienced, I made up my mind absolutely to back, on all occasions, the military advisers of the Government, but the misfortune was that I found very little to back, and I am very glad to know that at the present moment there is, and for some time past there has been, put at the head of affairs in the War Office a man who has done more in the few months that he has been there, according to what I can hear, to organise that office for war than was done in the whole time before.

With reference to the statement the Prime Minister has made as regards recruiting, I do not intend, although I suppose I would have the same liberty without fear of criminal consequences, to repeat the speech I made in the Secret Session. Nobody has ever doubted that this country has made enormous, gigantic efforts towards turning itself into a military nation for the purpose of putting down what the Prime Minister has called "Prussian domination." That is not the question. The question is: have we done enough, not what have we actually done. I am bound to say that the kind of views the Prime Minister gives us on all these occasions, so far from stimulating the country to further effort, are rather inclined to leave the country under the impression that because they have done so much there is nothing more that they really can do. I am glad that once and for all we are going to have a Bill settling this recruiting question. All I will say about it is that for the last twelve months there has been no day on which there has not been anxiety amongst our military-advisers as to how they can keep up the forces in the field, and surely that one fact is enough to show you that if there is any other effort which can be made, it is the duty of the country to make it. The only thing I regret about it is that the Prime Minister did not use that eloquence which so often adorns his speeches in recommending this policy to the country rather than putting it forward in an apologetic manner. What he really means is that "I, as Prime Minister of this country, and entrusted with the destinies of this nation and of the Empire, tell you that we cannot go on with: any hope of winning this war, or bringing it at all events to the peace that I want, unless you give me powers over every man who is available." And I believe if he had at any time within the last twelve months on his own responsibility made that statement, no matter from what quarter of the House, the innate patriotism of Scotchmen, Englishmen, and Irishmen would have all backed him up and said, "That whatever he demanded he must get."

There is only one other observation I should like to make. I pass by what the Prime Minister said about the Labour Party and those whom they represent being chiefly interested. I do not think we ought to draw any distinction between any classes. Every class from the highest to the lowest has given of its best in this War, and, while I feel full sympathy with, anybody who has to give up his house and home to go and fight for his country, the classes which will suffer most are the professional classes, many of whom have sent me bitter tales of what has happened to their business and to their families and to the bringing up of their children in the sphere of life in which they were born. There is no difference in classes. It is equally hard upon everybody. There is the same glory attaching to a man whether he be a peer, a peasant, or labouring man, or anybody else. I hope the Bill will be so drawn that there will be the fullest powers taken by the Government of doing, as best they can, equal and full justice between all. What I mean by that is this. We have had the case of the time expired man, we have had the case of boys before us, and we have had a great deal said about what the right hon. Gentleman calls those who alone can be spared from industry. I hope there will be Clauses in this Bill which will enable the Government, as far as possible, in regard to these time expired men and to these youths, to give them such chances as they can of having rest, and having the necessary work done by others who so far have done nothing. I hope there may be an interchange, where it is not skilled occupation, of men who are doing work in the workshops and professions, so that some of these men who come home here may be able to take up their work and give them a rest while at the same time they are serving their country. I believe if the Bill is drawn in that way, you will mitigate a great deal of the objections and of the suffering of these people, and you will be doing something to bring about this possible justice.

The only word I will say in conclusion is this: If anybody objects to this general compulsion—and I do not believe there will be many—let him point out a juster scheme. But, above all, let him recollect this, and I will commend this especially to the Labour Party. We all admit that after this war, as regards the labouring classes, working men and others, things never can be as they were before. We all admit, everyone of us, that the men who nave stayed at home here in ease and comparative comfort must, when the War is over, recognise that our great trust is to do justice to the people who have fought for us, and if that is so, if the future is to be to their advantage, as God knows I hope it will, and if one of the matters which work out from this war is the betterment of our people, is it not only fair that all classes who are going to receive that betterment should make their contribution to bring about such a successful result?

4.0 P.M.

In half-a-dozen sentences may I say at this stage that if I and my Friends were convinced by the experience of the last three or four months that our opposition to the adoption of compulsion in January last was mistaken, I trust we share those feelings which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed for us all, in that we wish nothing but that the best should be done to win the War, and we would frankly get up and confess that we were wrong. But while that is not the case in our judgment now, I would ask the House of Commons to believe that that is not because we were not willing to be convinced if our reason convinced us. But the difficulty is this: It is really impossible for us to regard this, the final decision of the Government, as being based upon calculations so final and so inevitable as to justify a change in our own convictions. This Bill, I quite agree, is the logical consequence, and it may be the necessary consequence, of the Bill of January last, and I further agree that it is to this extent straightforward and plain, that it does not attempt to delude either the House or the country by pretending to be anything else but what it is. But the Government which introduced this Bill cannot itself recommend it to the House or to the country by any such argument. They told us that their Bill in January was a Bill which was brought forward simply for the purpose of fulfilling a particular pledge. The Prime Minister himself told us he saw no occasion for general compulsion. The First Lord of the Admiralty himself told us that the argument was absurd to pretend that this was the thin end of the wedge. These things having been stated so recently as January, it is really too much to ask those of us who hold firmly to the other as the wiser view, and the view which is best calculated to make the most of our country's strength, to accept this new gospel from these same mouths in the month of May. I will point out to the House three reasons—I will state them and not argue them—which, as it seems to me, go to show that if there was justice and substance in our view in January last, that view is authorised by the experience of the intervening time now. In the first place, we thought, in January last, that the adoption of compulsion would not be found to be the adoption of a fruitful instrument for increasing the national strength. Does anybody doubt to-day that whatever else compulsion does, it kills voluntaryism? It kills the spirit which created the great voluntary Army which is the pride of us all. In the second place, some of us thought then, and argued then, that however carefully you might devise your regulations, the application of compulsion was bound to have this result—it was bound to create many difficulties and hardships in selection as between one man and another, and that any pretence that it was equality of sacrifice you were exacting would necessarily be shown to be unfounded. I am sure the Local Government Board has done its best, and the President of the Local Government Board has been most zealous in endeavouring to prevent excess and abuses; but is there any Member of this House who would say he is satisfied with the way in which the local tribunals have been worked? We all know perfectly well how impossible it has been to get justice between one man and another, and is it not plain that when you apply this system to married men the difficulties of the case will be immensely exaggerated? In the third place, there is this difference between January and May. In the interval further claims upon the strength of the country, if we are to put forward our maximum force, have become increasingly evident. The demands, which have always been great upon this country ever since the War began, demands for assistance in every form, assistance for the Allies, and so forth, were never greater than they are to-day. The extent to which our labouring population and the rest of our population is called upon to increase our strength by every possible effort was never so great as it is to-day. The congestion at our ports was never greater than it is to-day, and the need for the rapid building of new merchant ships was never greater than it is to-day. All these considerations, which I know the Government have endeavoured to take into account, but which are sometimes set on one side by compulsionists, are considerations I believe to day with more compelling force than ever. I will say nothing more now, but I will ask the House to believe that, as it strikes the judgment of myself and others who agree with me, no case has been made out for the extension of compulsion to the rest of the community. The experiment that has been made has not been a fruitful experiment. It is an experiment which has disappointed many of its own advocates. While I well understand that the Prime Minister recommends compulsion not because he likes it, but because he regards this as one of the questions which are questions of mere expediency, I am bound to say, with the history of the last few weeks before my eyes, that I believe the expediency is very largely political expediency.

The speech we have just listened to from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is certainly one of the most remarkable that has ever been addressed to this House. Not only in the Secret Session, about which we cannot speak, but even this afternoon, the Prime Minister of this country, speaking with all the authority of his office, informed the House and the country that in his opinion, and in the opinion of his military advisers, some system of further compulsion was necessary in order to keep up our Armies in the field. The right hon. Gentleman, who was for many years a member of the Cabinet and a colleague of the Prime Minister's, gets up and absolutely and flatly refuses to believe what the Prime Minister has said. He accuses the Prime Minister of making a proposal to this country not on the ground of military necessity, but on the ground of political expediency. He is the leader of a party which the Prime Minister has been expected to bow to in the name of national unity. What is the meaning of the phrase "national unity" which we have heard so often? The great majority of men in this country have for months past been asked to remain silent in regard to the carrying out of a policy that would have supported our Armies in the field better than they have been supported by the system that prevailed, and they have been asked to do that because a small number, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one, absolutely refused to give up their political predispositions for the sake of the national welfare. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about shipbuilding is just as fallacious now as ever it was. I was told the other day by an officer back from Egypt that you have got boilermakers and engineers guiding mules in the desert there who ought to be employed at home, and the reason why you have not got these men at home is because you have no system by which men who are not doing useful work here could be sent out to replace those boilermakers and engineers. The reason why you have not been able to build ships is because of the voluntary system and the want of organistaion.

I am glad that the Prime Minister, even at the eleventh hour, has agreed upon a scheme of general compulsion. I was one of the few who, a long time ago, in opposition to the political traditions of the party to which I belong, and to which my Friends who support my views belong, urged that we should adopt a rational and equitable and a fair scheme of compulsory service. We have arrived at that at last by a long, dilatory, and tedious process. We have been informed over and over again that there was no necessity for this course being adopted on the ground of military necessity. We have heard to-day from the Prime Minister, though many of us knew it before, that last autumn recruiting had almost ceased and our Armies in the field were not being adequately supported. The Derby scheme was pioneered in order to save the face of what is called voluntaryism, and these face-saving operations have been carried on so long that the country is tired of them, they discourage our Armies in the field, and they puzzle our Allies. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen speak about the wishes of organised Labour, I always think that it would be a good thing if they would ask for the opinion of the men in the trenches. I wonder how much they realise the appalling feeling which is created among the men who are fighting by the character of the discussions which take place here, which almost tend to indicate that it is not the maximum but the minimum effort that we are anxious to put forward in support of our Armies in the field! I had a letter from an officer at the front a few days ago, and he said, "It appears to me that you people at home seem to look at this matter as a kind of practical joke; you are always trying to see how few men you can get, instead of getting all the possible men into the field with the object of winning the War." That is the impression which is created in the minds of our men. I am glad to think that we have arrived at last at a time when this controversy will end. Some of us will no longer be told that the principle for which we have been fighting has merely been a base intrigue against the Prime Minister, that it has merely been an agitation on the part of certain newspapers, and has merely been a plan for gulling and compelling working men. I am perfectly convinced that the bulk of the opposition of organised labour to compulsory military service is not and never has been due to the objection to equality of sacrifice in the field, but it has been due, if anything, to the remarks of speakers and the statements of those who are opposing this system on the ground that it was not a case of military necessity but some dubious scheme in order to compel labour industrially which was at the the bottom of the minds of those who advocated it. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has made many speeches on this subject, and in speech after speech he has intimated to his fellow working men that what the compulsionists were trying to bring about was wage slavery. That has been disproved entirely by what the Prime Minister has said.

I would like to refer to the concluding part of the Prime Minister's speech. I am sure that all sections of the House and all sections of the country realise to the full the heavy burden which the Government are carrying in this great War, and I am sure that it is not idly that anyone would add to that burden. But I would say this: How can people judge of the efforts of their leaders except by the results? If the results are bad, how can the leaders expect to retain the confidence of those they lead? The very subject we are discussing now, and the very changes of method we are discussing now, the signs of indecision and vacillation, the trouble in Ireland, the fall of Kut, the failure in Gallipoli—these things do not tend to impress the country with a feeling of confidence in the Government. The country cannot apportion the blame between civilian and military advisers. The country cannot apportion the blame between different Ministers. The country can only look at the Government as a whole as being responsible for what happens. They praise the Government if it is successful and not unnaturally blame the Government if it fails. I do not think the Prime Minister has much to complain of as to the way in which this House or the country has supported him. Never has any House of Commons and never has any people so loyally supported the Governmnet as the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been supported since the War broke out. Never has there been such a subservient House of Commons or a House of Commons so little anxious to-criticise. Never has there been a people so content to trust the man at the helm. But when the ship of State is drifting from one rock to another and from one shoal to another, and when you see in every direction mismanagement, waste and muddle, I do not understand how we can be asked to go on having this blind confidence in those who lead us. Of course, some great things have been done, but I do think—and there are many who feel, with me—that much might have been done which has not been done. On every hoarding we see large placards appealing for economies, and yet every day we hear more and more of waste going on under Government control which could be avoided under better management. It is these things which naturally annoy and irritate the business life of the country. It is these things which make people doubt whether after all the management of the War is the best than can possibly be found. By their fruits we can judge them, and, unfortunately, up till now the goods that have-been delivered to us have not been of the succulent character we were sometimes led to expect. The Prime Minister last November gave us a glowing account of the excellent way in which the Mesopotamia campaign was going.

So it was.

I have not the slightest doubt, then, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand the disappointment which we and the country must feel at the final result. The country naturally feels that this campaign has been blundered in some directions. That being the case, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to show the impatience which he shows this afternoon of mild criticism, from time to time, of the Government, or to announce, as he did, that they would gladly make way for any other body of men who could be selected. I do not know that anybody wants to select any other body of men. What the country asks for, and what they feel is, that more vigour should be shown in the future than they think, perhaps not erroneously, has been shown before. There is no use in disguising the fact—it would be unfair to do so—that the Government have seriously lost the confidence of the country. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] I find that this is the case far more outside this House than in this House, amongst the people one meets. Undoubtedly what is wanted is that the Government should at the earliest opportunity regain that confidence which has been seriously shaken, and if this is impossible, then I say in all seriousness that I do not believe that the election which has been condemned and against which there is so much to be said would be the greatest evil that could happen

I think that there could be a greater evil even than a General Election. That is a Government and a House of Commons divorced from the general feeling of the people of the country. I think, perhaps, that that is the position into which we are drifting, and I think that it is a really dangerous position. I am certain that a Government which no longer feels that it has the support of the electors behind it, has on many occasions acted with less vigour and less strength, and has less strongly opposed a certain section of the population, than a Government which feels that it has behind it the mandate of a united country. That is one of the reasons why this question has now to be considered again. A Government which has behind it the mandate of the majority of the country can handle the whole question with infinitely more decision and deter- mination than a Government with no mandate behind it, and which, therefore, not unnaturally, has to listen to many points of view, and as to which it is much more difficult to gauge how far its point of view is representative of popular opinion or not. As I said when I started, I am glad that some of us who had the courage to take up this question have been justified by events in the line which we took. I am glad that we have been relieved from the imputations which were freely showered on us, because we took it that our action was dictated rather by disloyalty to one who for years has been our Leader, or dictated by ulterior objects which have nothing to do with the course of the War. Events have proved, as they must have done to anyone who had logically thought it out, that there is a period in long wars when voluntary effort has to be supplemented by compulsory effort that that period is bound to arise, and that that period has arisen. The sooner we take it in hand the quicker we shall attain our object. It is better to take it in hand even now than to allow it to drag on for a few more months, watching once more the operation of compulsory voluntaryism, of which we have had an example terrifying enough on the last occasion.

The Prime Minister has been assured that the Bill, the introduction of which he announces for tomorrow, will have full and whole-hearted support, and that the Government itself, apart from this measure, has entirely lost the confidence of the people of this country. I do not know whether either one or the other or both of these statements will be specially comforting to the Prime Minister. In the opening parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) he expressed great surprise at the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow. Surely my right hon. Friend is entitled to this consolation at the present time, that he at least was true in his predictions regarding the Military Service Act. He was the only man who was accurate regarding the figures and calculations which were passed from side to side in this House during the course of the Debate. He then said that the Derby Report was a bogus Report, that the men who were said to be forthcoming under that Report would not be forthcoming; and the fact that now in the month of May, three months after the passing of the Military Service Act, you have once more inevitably and of necessity to extend your system of compulsion, in spite of all the pledges made from the Treasury Bench, justifies up to the hilt the case which was then made by the right hon. Gentleman against the Military Service Bill. My right hon. Friend reminds me that at that time not only the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Local Government Board, but every one of the Gentlemen who spoke from the Front Bench on the Bill told us that the men whom they would get under that Act would be adequate to win the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Kitchener!"] The President of the Local Government Board quoted Lord Kitchener. For the first time we had the unique spectacle of the Front Bench speaking with one mind; and they have been all wrong. They come to us and tell us that the only remedy is to continue on the course which has been proved to be a failure.

We have had from the Prime Minister to-day what we have only had before in Secret Session—the true history of the failure of the voluntary system. It is very important to remember it. The Prime Minister has told us that up to the middle of last year the voluntary system was giving us the men who were necessary for the needs of the Army. There was then a falling off, and I would remind the House that it was not his fault that other action present time last year that the present Government was formed. In other words, so long as the Liberal Government was in power we were still getting enough. But that was not all. The advent of the Coalition Government to power was the signal for the starting of great agitation for the overthrow of the voluntary system. In the very week in which the present Government was formed a campaign was started in the most powerfully organised Press of this country intended to discredit the voluntary system. One leading newspaper, which boasts the largest circulation in the country, refused actually to publish Lord Kitchener's advertisements. Many obscure individuals up and down the country were prosecuted for discouraging recruiting, but no action was taken against the powerful nobleman who controls the syndicate. I do not know whether any explanation of that can be given. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lloyd George can give it!"] I do not know; I have often endeavoured to get it. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow could only deal with these things in debate in the House of Commons proves, I think, that it was precisely within a month of the was not taken. There are other people in the Cabinet!

But this is not the only ground. There were other speeches. There were speeches made by members of the Government at that time which had an extremely serious effect upon voluntary recruiting. On the 3rd of June, 1915, the Minister of Munitions went to Manchester, and he said, "We do not want any more recruits for the Army. We are getting too many men for the Army. We are getting more than we can equip. What we want is not compulsion for the Army, but compulsion for the workshop." And the right hon. Gentleman opposite now comes and assures us that the fears of workmen regarding compulsion in the workshop are due to the inflammatory speeches of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr.. Thomas). They are nothing of the kind. They are due to the speeches of the Minister of Munitions. Yes, and I will remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite of another significant statement in regard to this matter.

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

I am entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said. I am not raising this question. It was raised by the right hon. Gentleman who, like the right hon. Member for Pontefract, is a member of the Ginger group. If he will deny infallibility to the Government he will not claim immunity for the Ginger group. On the Second Reading of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill I ventured to make an appeal to the Minister of Munitions on this very question of compulsion for labour. I appealed to him to withdraw the fetters which he had already placed upon labour by his Munitions of War Act. The right hon. Gentleman opposite immediately rose and asked the right hon. Gentleman not to lessen the amount of compulsion for labour, but to increase the amount of compulsion for labour. Who, then, have caused suspicion and distrust among the working men? Not the hon. Member for Derby, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Minister of Munitions, whom he has so unfortunately inspired. That was only one of the speeches of the Minister of Munitions in June last. There was another speech made on the 5th June last year, just at the time when voluntary recruiting fell off. It was made by the then Chancellor of the Duchy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill). He re-echoed the speech of the Minister of Munitions that we were getting too many men for the Army, and he said that we were only a few miles from victory at the Dardanelles. We all know for a fact that in Scotland in particular from the date of that speech voluntary recruiting in Scotland went down. These are the facts regarding the failure of voluntary recruiting, and when they had accomplished that object, then we had a movement in this House, begun by the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Captain Guest), and assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea and sundry others, who were quoting the figures of the falling off of recruiting produced by the action of their Friends in order to justify the introduction of compulsion into this country. These are the facts of the history of recruiting. They prove that compulsion has not been brought about by military necessity, but solely by the manœuvres of Gentlemen who desire to bring about compulsion for this country for its own sake. I do not desire to refer at any length to what the Prime Minister has said. He has made several statements which I am sure a large number of hon. Members must have heard with some surprise. He said, for example, that the naval and military situation of this country and of the Allies was never better.

Hear, hear.

A great many of us would very much like to believe it, but as we have not the information which my right hon. Friend has had at his disposal—there was no such information vouchsafed to us at the Secret Session—many of us may be excused if we are unable to accept it. We know, for example, that only on Thursday last the First Lord of the Admiralty called a new kind of meeting, a meeting of editors of newspapers, to which he gave information regarding the serious situation respecting tonnage, information which has not been given to this House, and gave it with the request that the editors of our newspapers should not publish it in the public Press. Surely a situation like that is not calculated to inspire us with any great confidence in the declarations which are now made, or lead us to accept without question any assurance given without any evidence further than the bare statement made on behalf of the Government. I wish, indeed, that we could believe that both on land and sea the position of our country and of the Allies was such as the Prime Minister represented it to be. For myself, I believe that the danger to the success of our country is not to be found upon the land at all. It is true that there are deficiencies in our military forces, but so far as we are concerned, the decision in this War is not to be reached on land but will, in the long run, depend upon the sea power of this country, and upon its financial resources. It is the view of many of us that the attention of this House and of the country is being diverted from the real danger—the real perils of our position—by all this controversy regarding the introduction of compulsory service into this country. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech to-day, reminded us of the controversies which took place in this country in the days of Pitt and in the days of his successors, in the great wars of a hundred years ago. He reminded us that the criticisms made then have been repeated by the critics of the present Government. He forgot one thing, that the analogy is not complete: that if Pitt and his successors were successful it was because they, in spite of all criticism, in spite of all failures, in spite of all complaints, adhered with the utmost strictness to the traditional policy of this country, namely, never to enter upon a Continental war on the basis of unlimited military liability. That we have done in the present case. It is not only unlimited military liability, but, apparently, unlimited financial liability. It is because of these things that our cause is being imperilled, and it is because we see this peril that we, here, protest against this dangerous policy.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made reference to a group with which I have the honour to act and to which has been given the nickname, "Ginger group." Various nicknames have been applied to various groups. There are the "Government Bonnets," "Government Hacks," "Simon Satellites"—

And some are Government rats.

I think the less we use nicknames in this House the better it will be. I do not quite know what my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) means by people being in favour of compulsion for compulsion's sake. I have always been in favour of compulsion since the War began, because I think compulsion the best and most just means of ensuring that everybody shall share in the obligations to the State. The hon. Member also made the insinuation that the right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) would have prosecuted the "Daily Mail" if he had not been stopped by the Cabinet. I do not know what ground he has for making that statement; he may be right or he may be wrong, but I do not think people should make those insinuations unless they can prove them. The right hon. Member for Walthamstow is here, and if he likes he can confirm or contradict the statement, and he is the man who can completely deal with it. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Prime Minister on taking the bull by the horns, and bringing in a measure of compulsion. As I have said before, it is the only just way of making everyone bear their share of the burden. I think that justice is often a better policy than even expediency, which I think has been honoured a little too much. I rather agree with what the schoolboy said of his headmaster—that

"he was a beast, but a just beast."

And, if the head of the Government will remember that, I think expediency may then take a back seat and that justice may be found to be the best policy for the head of the Government. There has been no justice at all in our system of recruiting. The right hon. Member for Walthamstow has often referred to the voluntary system as the voluntary act of a free people. But it has been nothing of the sort; for the last twelve months this so-called voluntary act of a free people has been, in my opinion, a pure piece of hypocrisy. After the first million or so of troops had come in under the voluntary system, the number of remaining troops raised was under a system of cajolery and of threats. Actually the Government or the War Office sent round to the large employers to ask them not to engage men who were eligible for the Army—in other words, they starved men into the Army. Is that a voluntary system? It is just as much compulsion as is the compulsion which the Government now propose to exercise. I am very glad that the Government are now going to bring in a Compulsory Service Bill, which I hope will now stop the accusation of intrigue, because for the last twelve months, in many cases, accusations have been made of intimidating the country. A great argument against compulsion has always seemed to be that it was an intrigue against somebody—very often against the Prime Minister. When I came back to the House, at the end of September, I expressed my opinion in the Lobby that I thought that we ought to have a Bill for full compulsory service brought in, and several Members said, "Don't you know it is an intrigue against the Prime Minister?" That has always been the argument against compulsory service—intrigue against the Prime Minister or the Government, or even working men. It has always been that there was some ulterior object. We have had all this before. What we want is compulsory service, because we think it is the best way of helping the Government to prosecute the War. I do not wonder that my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) objects to compulsory service, because, in a speech he lately delivered he said that the Government were prosecuting the War too vigorously! These were his words:

"Absolutely necessary to restrict itself to a less vigorous military policy."

I am not surprised the hon. Member wishes the Government to restrict itself to a less vigorous military policy, and that he should be against Conscription, for he further stated, on that particular occasion—

"All the mistakes and blunders are due to entering on war on the principle of unlimited liability."

But if we go to war with other nations we must pull our last ounce; we cannot go on the principle of limited liability; it is an absolute impossibilty, and, therefore, I think it is our business to pursue the War with the utmost vigour we can and pull every ounce it is possible for us to pull. I might refer to the notion that is held by some of the working classes, that the people who advocate compulsory service have an ulterior object in view. I believe that nine-tenths of the opposition to compulsory service in the country is due to the idea that we have some object in view in order to make the position of the working classes worse after the War is over. I am not surprised that the working classes are under that impression, because Members of this House have actually told the working classes that it is so. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden)—I am glad to see him in his place—stands on the platform and tells the working classes that the Government object in bringing in compulsory military service was to exploit them. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan) has said the same thing. He said—

"It is cant, hypocrisy and sham to say that the Bill is introduced merely for the purpose of winning the War. It is being introduced for the period after the War, and for placing chains upon you."

That is their opinion of capitalists and other people who have advocated this policy of compulsion. I ask the hon. Member for Blackburn whether he is now going down to the country and tell the working classes that this Bill has been brought in, not for the purpose of helping to win the War, but to interfere with the working classes?

Yes.

Really, it is a gross libel.

"Hear, hear!"

Tory cheers.

And Liberal cheers.

To say of those who advocate compulsory service for the purpose of winning the War, and for the purpose of helping the Government, who, I believe, are as anxious as we are to win the War, that they have this ulterior object in view, is a gross libel; it is grossly unfair, and they know it. I am glad indeed that we have done with half measures. The Government have got a great deal of ill will in this House, and enemies of the Prime Minister outside speak of shuffling and procrastination. We are the legislative assembly of this country, and of all the things we ought to bear in mind, it is that we ought to do justice, and justice is the last thing that voluntary recruiting has brought about. Where everybody has to serve the country, rich or poor, high or low, where everybody is obliged to do his duty, then I think we will have more justice—as we ought to have it—than there has been in the past. The Prime Minister spoke some time ago about not sheathing the sword and fighting to the last farthing of our money and last ounce of our strength. I should like to know whether he really meant the last voluntary man and the last voluntary farthing. If he did, I do not think we will win the War. I think we shall have to put forth everything that we possess if we are going to win this War. I am a Radical. I have always voted for one man one vote. I have always believed that every man in this country had the same stake in the country. I believe a poor man has his all at stake, which is as much as anybody can have at stake. I believe also in one man one rifle, and I believe it is an obligation on every man, either high or low, to defend his country.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) told us that the Government had lost the confidence of the country. When I am in London I believe it, but when I am in my own native country I do not. It is a curious thing that ever since the autumn of 1914 the atmosphere of the Metropolis has been poisoned by one form of venom or another. It has been more subject to alarm and rumour than any other part of the country, more ready to believe disaster has befallen our own Forces at the front than any other part of the country, and certainly more ready to believe than any other part of the country that the Government was rotten to the core. None of us, and especially the Members of this House, are free from those influences. This House makes a very easy target for those whose business it is to destroy confidence in the Government. I do not pretend that the Coalition Ministry deserve any very high credit, for the simple reason that the task which they have undertaken is the kind of task for which no Ministry can earn praise—and the hon. Member opposite, with all his sneers, knows it perfectly well—until it has achieved success. We know quite well that one of the greatest difficulties in the way of our achievement of success, speaking as a Nation and not merely as a Parliament, is that prior to the War we were the least highly organised nation in the world. Everyone knows perfectly well that in order to achieve proper organisation for war you need time. The attempt to get that organisation, the attempt to swing every man into line where he was most needed, has been an attempt carried out piecemeal, and I believe inevitably carried out piecemeal. In some ways I think the Government have been too slow in letting the country know exactly where they stood as regards the needs of men. I believe with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) that if the Government came six months earlier and said. that the needs of the Army had of course began to grow seriously, and that also the supply of recruits for the Army at that time had begun to fall off, they might have proved to themselves much more quickly that the Measure which they are now about to ask the House of Commons to pass should have been asked for very much sooner.

I know that I shall be told by all those whom I have previously regarded as my political friends that in saying that such a measure as this is necessary I am not only deserting my own political beliefs and my own political friends, but that I am mortgaging the future. I am prepared to say that I do not care what or whom I desert in time of war, provided it be in the national interest. I must add, in full answer to the criticism, that I see no reason for supposing why the adoption of National Service at this moment is necessarily or inherently a mortgaging of the future. To begin with, no one can say what kind of future will lie before us when Peace is signed, but you may be perfectly certain of this, that as long as this country is organised politically, as it has been in the past, no power on earth will persuade the industrial North, and my own native country, to undergo the compulsion of Conscription unless the absolute necessity of it is proved up to the hilt. I am perfectly certain that that really is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). There are two other points to which I want to draw the attention of the Government. If I understand the speech of the Prime Minister aright, he is about to ask for a general measure of compulsion. I want to know whether he reads that measure as being that in proportion as he drives men from industrial life to serve the recruiting needs of the Army, he will need to reorganise the industrial life of this country. I want to know whether he accepts that as a result of the compulsion proposed to the House of Commons this afternoon. The Labour party call that industrial compulsion, and for the moment I have no better term for it. I want to know whether the Government accept that as a necessary consequence of the Bill which they are about to introduce. I believe, properly regarded, it is a necessary consequence, but the compulsion of industry does not figure in my mind as it figures in the minds of those who usually propose it. I am well aware that there is no magic in compulsion, and that if a man for one reason or another has been driving fewer rivets than he ought to have done that you are not going to get one single additional rivet out of him by any compulsion or military law that you may have in your power to inflict, but that you may easily end by making him drive less.

Therefore, if in this measure the Government are going to take summary powers to be used in the direction of industrial compulsion, I hope that those powers will be most sparingly and wisely used. I am perfectly certain, to go a good long way back, different results might have been achieved if the coal strike in South Wales had been properly handled from the beginning, and if the engineers' trouble on the Clyde had also been properly handled from the beginning. I believe that the proper handling consists in a judicious mixture of firmness with sympathy, and the Government showed neither. If the Government are going to have those summary powers, as I suppose they must under this Bill, then those powers must be used with knowledge, with sympathy, and with firmness; but the use to which they are to be put must be very carefully explored before they are actually used, or otherwise there may be great trouble. The form in which I see industrial compulsion is this. It is not a measure to deal with strikes. I do not believe that you can deal with strikes in that way. If you are going to deduct from the civil population successively enough men to keep your seventy divisions up to strength, it stands to reason that the civilian labour available for civil and military purposes at home must be put to its best possible use. No one will maintain that at this moment the labour of the country as a whole is put to its best possible use. Therefore I ask the Government the question, in order to elicit information, what means have they in their minds at this moment, and first of all whether they accept the view that anything in the form of industrial reorganisation is necessary, and if they do accept that view, how they propose to achieve it.

I want now to turn to another question, which is certainly as important as any I have raised. You have accepted the committments of seventy divisions, and you are proposing to take a general control of the manhood of this country, whether for military or other purposes, in order to win the War. I want to ask the Government in all seriousness, have they satisfied themselves that the staffs, and especially the brigade and divisional staffs at the front, are up to the measure of their task, and whether the manner in which those staffs are recruited is such as to elicit all merit in the ranks which they command. I do not refer to the supreme staff, the General Headquarters Staff at the front. I do refer, and I think I am justified in referring, from the repeated and innumerable complaints which have come to me alone and must come to many other Members in the House, to the fact that there seems to be a lack of something—and I am not going to characterise it—and that the staffs as a whole have been found so grievously lacking in qualities most necessary for success that they have in many cases lost the confidence of those whom they are directing at the front. That has a very important bearing upon the manner in which your compulsory measure is going to be accepted by the people. I do not say it is universal, but it is sufficiently 'widespread to have aroused a feeling of disgust in the minds of many of us, and to have found its way home and, this is the important point, in sufficient volume to affect the attitude of the man in the street generally towards the way in which the armies are handled. Therefore in saying that I for one am prepared to welcome the Bill, I feel that I am bound to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself that the minor staffs at the front are really recruited in such a manner as to bring forward the best material that there is at the disposal of the Army at this moment.

5.0 P.M.

As one who has not had the opportunity of saying a word in the House for a long time past, and will not probably have many more opportunities for a long time, I hope I may be permitted to say a few words on the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, I find myself almost in complete agreement, but there are two observations which he made from which I should wish to differ. The first was the remark in which he appeared to imply that the sense held in London and in this House and in the Lobbies of this House upon the question of the Government was different to the view held outside in the country about the Government. I think he stigmatised the views passed in the Lobby by the name of intrigue and that sort of thing. For my own part, I think I may be held to have a clear record in that matter, because, as far as I know, I have been a party to no intrigue. But I am perfectly convinced that in order to think clearly about the position of the Government and the position in which we find ourselves, it is necessary to clear our minds as to what is involved by so-called loyalty to the Coalition. All that I shall say at the moment about that is that I hope with all my heart that what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon may be taken as an earnest of the fact that at last the Government realise that it is up to them to give the country a perfectly straight lead. I think that in after years it will be thought a somewhat extraordinary thing that in the twentieth month of the War we should still have been having one delay after another, that we should still up to the last moment have been making frenzied efforts in the cause of straightforward voluntary recruiting, and that we should have been having one recruiting statement after another. All these things very much resemble the situation in a business concern the heads of which, faced with an annual deficit, instead of making an honest attempt to put their finances upon a sound footing, rely from year to year upon a special whip-up which leaves the situation very much where it was before. I hope we have seen the last of that kind of delay.

We are, however, entitled to ask how it is that things have drifted into the situation in which they now are. The causes, I think, are two. For one of them Ministers are not to blame; for the other I think they are. In the first place, it is surely becoming more and more clear day by day that a Cabinet of the size of the present Cabinet, even if it were a Cabinet of archangels, is not an ideal body for administering a great war in which you require prompt decisions and, above all, men to be at liberty to think without being immersed in Departmental work. I hope that in the months before us, which are likely to be the most critical of the War, the Prime Minister and the Government will give favourable consideration to the possibility of so reconstructing our machinery of government that we may have a real small War Council, with supreme responsibility and supreme powers, who will not be fettered by Departmental work, but who will be at liberty really to think out the great problems, and to put the results of that thinking into execution. I am well aware that the Prime Minister has said on previous occasions that this proposal raises great constitutional difficulties. I would respectfully urge him to consider whether those constitutional difficulties are not susceptible of being overcome, and whether it is not probable that some such scheme as that would enormously increase the efficiency of the direction of our higher commands, and thereby conduce to a more speedy conclusion of the War. With regard to the other matter, for which, I think, Ministers are mainly responsible, I would suggest that everything that has been and is happening goes to show that the Government are hopelessly out of touch with the mass of the people of the country. Of that I have no sort of doubt whatever. Ask the chairman of any recruiting tribunal. I was talking this morning to one who has before him day by day anything from forty to 100 cases. Every one of the men concerned, I am informed, tells the same tale. They have no objection whatever to being taken if only everybody—their friends, their competitors, and all the rest of it—is treated in the same way. What you produce by the present system is a not unreasonable sense of injustice and a most hopeless state of confusion in your recruiting and in the whole of your national stocktaking. Are all the by-elections quite without significance? It seems to me that you would not have the kind of feeling which has been shown unless it answered to something definite in the country, and unless there was behind it a good deal which thereby found expression.

If there is any truth in that, what is the remedy that one can suggest? I, for my part, feel that everyone of us ought, as far as possible, to clear his mind as to what he means by loyalty to the Coalition and loyalty to the cause of national unity. When I supported the Coalition, on the rare occasions when I was able to be present, I did so only because it appeared to me to represent one thing—not because it included a certain number of Unionist leaders, but because I supposed it was the best machinery for carrying on the War. As soon as I began to doubt that, as I do doubt it to-day, I conceived that my loyalty to the Coalition was gone, and I am prepared to give that loyalty to that party of men—no matter what party it may be, whether it be the Labour party or any other—who are prepared to carry on the War, as I conceive, with more vigour. If that were not so, if it were not the spirit of the very birth of the Coalition itself—that all the old party labels were to be washed away and replaced by a far wider loyalty—the only effect of the Coalition would have been that where the ordinary man in the country was under one party machine he would by the Coalition have been placed under two. That, I think, was not the design or the intention of those who supported the formation of that Government.

When hon. Members say that in what we do and in the views we form we must be guided by the House of Commons as it is, I would ask them to consider whether they are quite satisfied that the House of Commons as it exists to-day is representative of the country. I am satisfied that it is not. I think that the real representatives of the people who are left in the country are not necessarily Members of of Parliament, but the relations—sons, nephews, brothers, and uncles—of the people left in the country who are themselves fighting abroad in France or elsewhere. I suppose that the unit which I command includes almost every class of man from the West Riding, which is not generally supposed to be a very Conservative place. It includes men who are trade unionists and men who are not, men of no education and men with a great deal of education. It includes every sort of man; but I would dare wager that you would not find a single man in that unit who, if he were asked, would not at once say that he was in favour of all-round compulsory service, of equal sacrifice with equal obligation for every able-bodied man of military age in the country. If the Government are unpopular in the country, as I believe they are, the reason is not, as members of the Government affect to think, that they have not brought victories; it is not that they have been unsuccessful at Kut—although I believe that many people are apt to think that while we were likely to have some blunders we have had rather too many—but it is mainly that the Government seem never to have done anything until they have been forced to do it by some section, either in this House or in the Press. That is not a dignified attitude for a Government which is expected to lead and to form opinion, instead of having its own opinion formed for it.

I would urge, therefore, that, important as it is to secure national unity, there are two ways of getting national agreement. One is to advocate perpetual compromises. The other is yourselves to realise the secret of leadership, and to feel sufficient faith in yourselves to know that by the inspiration of leadership you would induce agreement if you once offered the people a definite lead. If that were done, you would not only induce agreement through your own vigorous policy, but you would remove the sense of injustice which is not unreasonably felt by various of the attested men. You would also—which I conceive to be vitally important—for the first time be able to take what I consider to be the right point of view as to the sacrifices we are all called upon to make. Is it not true that the Government are in effect saying to the country that in considering exemptions they are guided to a considerable extent—it is not expressed in these words, but this is the underlying principle—by the amount of hardship inflicted on any particular individual who may be called up for service? I submit that that is a fundamentally wrong premise upon which to begin your examination. Is it not much sounder to say, "We will consider, not the individual hardship, but what good this man may or can be to the country." If I may quote a personal case, my own French interpreter at the front told me that before the War he had a certain business at Cherbourg, where he employed eleven men besides himself. At the outbreak of War he and the whole of those eleven men were called up and left the same morning, leaving his wife and the boy who polished the door-handle to carry on. I submit that we in this country, even making all allowances for the various industrial calls, and so on, that we have to meet, are yet within miles of the spirit that would accept that kind of thing without viewing it as an intolerable hardship. But if you approached the matter from the point of view of what advantages the country most, I submit that all that would fall into line, and you would for the first time have a perfectly definite and clear principle upon which to proceed.

Lastly, the Government have tried to deal with the matter by a policy of secrecy and half measures. As far as I know, the country has never been, in the sense in which it ought to be, told the truth. I have never read in any paper what all of us, or a great many of us, know to be true as to a great many things. I have never heard of any Minister going up and down the country or explaining to the country what it is we are really up against. I would not mind wagering now that the average man in the country who reads Ministers' statements or who reads the statement of the Prime Minister to-day is thinking more or less comfortably that the War is going to be over in the autumn.

Hear, hear!

I hope it will be. But if Ministers think it worth while at the time of an election to stump the country and to make speeches, I would ask whether it is not worth while to go into our big cities and up and down the country to explain to men and women what are the efforts they will have to make if we are going to win? I myself do not think, if we do not bestir ourselves, that we are within miles of being able to secure the terms that we ought to secure, if we are to get a lasting peace, and those things for which we are fighting, and for which so many brave men have died. I repeat, I do not think that the ordinary man in the country in the least realises the situation, and nothing is done to make him. For that reason, while I welcome most warmly the policy that the Prime Minister has outlined to-day, and while I would, with all my heart, further welcome it if it is to be a final settlement of the recruiting question, and a settlement that will raise the men that we require to fulfil our commitments to the Allies, yet I am bound to say, on my own behalf, if I am able to attend this House, I will be guided by one thing, and one thing only: That when and if the opportunity offers, if this Government does not prosecute the War as vigorously as it might be prosecuted, I conceive myself that I will be a party to no intrigue and not to be wanting in any loyalty if I state perfectly frankly that I shall support whatever party, be it the Labour party or be it another coalition of parties, which appears to hold out a promise of waging the War to the most successful and speedy conclusion.

It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow should be told in blunt terms that he neither represents his constituency nor the average Liberal Member in this House. In some parts of the country I know a totally false impression of the value of his utterances goes forth. So far as I know Liberal Members, both above and below the Gangway, the Prime Minister can depend upon absolute loyalty, and in that support we will be supported by the overwhelming mass of our constituents, to whatever party they may belong. I was amazed to hear the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He was lately in the Cabinet. He has told us that his withdrawal was painful because of his personal attachment to the chief to whom he owed so much. I was distressed to hear the suggestion to-day that that chief is now guided by some political object rather than by belligerent necessity. What is the meaning of it? Can there be a more severe charge brought against the Prime Minister than that in the middle of a great war, at the risk of dividing his Cabinet—he has had to announce already to the House that his Cabinet was divided and that he was doing his best to reconcile its members and their divergent views—he is doing as suggested. Surely the Prime Minister is not going through the ordeal suggested for some political object when he has for so many years attained the height of his ambition! The thing is incomprehensible. I do not know what it does mean. Further, I cannot understand the assertions of certain Liberal Members who met in this House a few weeks ago and appointed a deputation to wait upon the Prime Minister and assure him that he was the indispensable head of the Government, and that practically they would give him a blank cheque upon this very question. One of the Members chosen to convey that message to the Prime Minister was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow. I was not asked to the meeting upstairs, and if I had been asked I would not have gone. But the hypocrisy of such proceedings overwhelms me. I have no doubt that the Liberal Members who attended the meeting felt the position keenly as they came away, for they had not got into the Lobby before they were disputing about compulsion, some saying that the meeting meant support of the Prime Minister and others saying that it did not.

There was, however, just one point connected with this matter in the speech of the Prime Minister which I think is not a complete view of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman took us back to the time of Pitt and tried to impress the House with the fact that the circumstances of to-day were parallel. I venture to say, "No," in one most important detail. So far as I know, Pitt never came down and told the House that his Cabinet was hopelessly divided upon the main question of the day, but that they were united upon one idea, and that that idea was to keep their present posts. No speech of that kind was made by Pitt. I am here to give loyal support to the Government. I am sure that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke shows that he was looking for a reason to support the Cabinet, and that he wants to support them, as we all do on these benches. We will have nothing to do with any kind of conspiracy, or trying for another man. We only want more vigour and energy on the part of the Government, and less truckling to the small minority that sits around me here below the Gangway. The Government laregly spoilt their last Bill because they attached too much importance to the criticism of people who scarcely dared to go into the Division Lobby in support of their own Amendments. I trust the Government will not repeat that blunder. Many of these men, I know, are perfectly sincere in the wish that we should succeed in this War. I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow credit for that point of view, as well as the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. I know they are just as keen to-beat the Germans as I am. But they take into the Lobby with them some who are against the War, and who plainly say so outside this House; they say they are irrevocably opposed to it. While that is so, then, why should that minority, made up half of dissentient Liberals and half of those who do not at all believe in the War, be allowed to terrify the Government, who would have an overwhelming majority of ten or twenty to one if they were to strengthen their Bills rather than weaken, them? I venture to hope that the Government, when they do table their proposals, will not begin to whittle them down in their passage through this House by accepting innocent looking amendments which are very often brought forward in order that they may injure the measure. Amendments were brought forward on the last Bill and innocently accepted by the Government in the hope of conciliating opposition. They, however, have had disastrous results in the country in that thousands and thousands of desirable people have been prevented from being now enrolled in the Army. I appeal to the Government. They can rely for support upon practically the entire Irish party.

It does not apply to Ireland.

Whatever Government is in power can rely upon them for support in the vigorous prosecution of the War. They will not go into the Lobby any more with the hon. Member for Hanley. They would not dare to do that any more than the hon. Member would go down to his own constituency. The Government can rely upon the entire support of the regular opposition of this House, upon the great majority of the Labour party, and upon the overwhelming majority of Liberals and Radicals, whether above or below the Gangway. That being the case, I hope they will not repeat their previous mistakes, and weaken their Bill in its passage through the House. I was further amazed in regard to one or two points about this Liberal meeting, because one or two of the men who took a principal part in it have tried to throw out the Government. If they had pressed their Motions to a Division on some occasions it would have meant that the Government would have had to resign. There was the action on the Registration Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. There was that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wal-thamstow to reject the other Bill, followed by a handful of Socialist pro-Germans. If the Division had been successful it would have meant the resignation of the Cabinet. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow formed part of the deputation of half a dozen a few days ago to assure the Prime Minister that he was indispensable, and that he must remain at the head of affairs. What does all this mean?

I venture to speak my mind on this occasion. I have not spoken in any of these Debates. I have never committed myself in public ever since I took up political life for or against compulsion. The attitude which the majority on these benches have taken up all along has been this: That whatever the Government think is necessary we will support, whether or not it is disagreeable to us in our constituencies or to our friends we do not care a jot. Member after Member has got up and talked about the views he held, the principles he professed, in the days that are gone, I do not care a tinker's curse for the whole lot of them. We are fighting a deadly enemy in the shape of the German Army and the German Navy. I am not even concerned about the consistency of my own pre-war views and present views, nor as to what was said in my various election addresses. I do not care what my colleagues said on platforms at that time. At present we are engaged in a dire struggle. The man who claims that he is going to be consistent in the middle of this War with all he said in the piping times of peace writes himself down a donkey. The very fact that he desires to be consistent with the views he expressed years ago, when nobody thought, and all were agreed, that we should never have an European conflagration, shows that he does not at all grasp the present situation. It is time, I think, that we heard a little less about these so called Liberal, or Radical, or Labour pledges against compulsion in time of war.

A man, whether he sits on these Benches or not, who pledged himself that even if we were in the midst of a deadly struggle with a mortal enemy that nothing would induce him to part from ideal principles, and that he would stick to voluntaryism, whether it failed or whether it succeeded, would not, I think, get returned to Parliament in time of peace much less in time of war. Men realise the danger now in a way they cannot when they are over head and ears in commerce, making money, engaged in organising scientific and other matters and working Help Ourselves Societies. Anyone who attempts to commit the Liberal party to such a position as that, is not merely untrue; he is doing the party no good from an electoral standpoint. Take all the meddlesome legislations brought into this House during the few years preceding the War. I stood here Friday after Friday slogging away against the multiplication of inspectors and State interferers with peoples habits of life, and all through I have been opposed by the small Socialist group who now, for the first time in their lives, are deeply concerned as to the principles of individual liberty. They have raised the question of industrial compulsion. It is hypocritical for men who, year after year, have passed resolutions in favour of the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, to go against industrial compulsion. All their lives they have been advocating compulsion and pressing it as a Divine principle. Therefore, when I find men whose lifelong attachment has been to principles of that kind trying to foment a feeling in this country against the legislation of the Government, then I think it should be openly called in question.

There is one other matter; and here I want to point out to the Government that they have themselves to thank for some of their troubles. Men have been going round in the Liberal party from time to time in the last year whispering that they are opposing, first of all, the Registration Bill, and, secondly, the Compulsion Bill, at the request of Liberal Members. They really want us to get up a good agitation, and then it strengthens their hands against the Conservatives in the country. That is the kind of doctrine that is talked about in the smoke-room and lobbies, and even on these benches, and it is time is was exposed. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) made a statement which has never been cleared up by the Government. It is perfectly true what he said, that he was going about in the full belief that he was serving the ends of some Liberal members in the Cabinet in actually working against the Government at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "You clear it up!"] I will help a little. I will venture to say that there is no more sincere Member in this House than the hon. Member for Tottenham. When he made his speech against the Bill—I am sure I am not breaking private confidence, but it was known to many of us to whom he spoke—he felt that it would possibly terminate his political career, that it might prevent his being re-elected, and he felt the burden keenly. As everyone who knows him is aware, he is one of the most conscientious of men and is incapable of inventing a statement. He is about the last Member in this House who would be guilty of inventing such a story, but he is not the only one who has gone round with these stories. We have had the seeds of disunion sown from time to time in the Liberal party upon this question by men who ought to have known better, representing that they were really trying to serve the ends of a section of the Cabinet, and then, when the Prime Minister comes down and says the Cabinet is hopelessly divided, it seems, of course, to confirm what has been going on. I venture to appeal to those who sit on that Front Bench, whom I have served hitherto as political chiefs, that they should not countenance anything of this kind. They know very well who the mischief-makers are—some are in the Press, and some sit on these Benches—who are going about representing that they are really the mouthpiece and the spokesmen of somebody inside the Cabinet. That has been repeatedly done in order to get a sort of vote against the Ministry of the day on some point.

I venture to say, with regard to the majority of Liberal Members, that we shall support this Government through thick and thin, especially in any vigorous measure it brings forward. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) will never decoy me to vote on an amendment against the Government. As he knows, at the time I felt we must support the Ministry of the day, and I say quite frankly I join with the hon. Member for Ripon, and I would give the same loyal support if it were an entirely Conservative Government or an entirely Labour Government, or a mixed Government at the head of affairs doing its best to win the War. As for political considerations, I suggest that we on these Benches are entitled to an explanation from the two Members who spoke and pressed that point, the right hon. and learned Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) and the hon. Member for N. W. Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle. What is it they mean when they say that this measure foreshadowed by the Government is being brought forward for political ends? The right hon. and learned Member for Walthamstow, and, I understand, his man "Friday," are identifying themselves in this matter. What really is the fact? Some hon. Members have voted against the Government on matters that would have turned them out. How can they justify those votes in the middle of a war? I want to ask them, as one who has never given a vote since coming into this House that would turn my right hon. Friend out of the position of Prime Minister, and it would take a great deal to make me do so. Certainly I would not do so because he was asking for more powers to win the War, and I venture to think this is about the last occasion to turn out our chosen leader when he is asking us to take a forward move in order to terminate this War.

In closing, I wish to take this opportunity of condemning, as severely as Parliamentary forms will allow, the personal attack upon the Minister of Munitions made by a leading Liberal organ. We in this House know there is one fact brooding over our minds which makes us partially depressed to-day, and which none of us are inclined to speak about, but I would remind the hon. Member who appealed to our Ministers to have courage to face the position that one Minister of the Cabinet has occasionally ventured to warn the country about the serious position, and almost invariably there has followed an optimistic speech from somebody else. I venture to say this country would have put forward greater energies than it has done, and met this advanced step much more willingly and freely but for optimistic speeches. Really, when people are told that the campaign in Mesopotamia is going to add to the glorious record of our annals, and is one of the brightest incidents of the War—I am not pressing it unduly; I do not know enough to impute any blame—but when a speech is made like that about Mesopotamia, and when we are told by one Minister after another how near to victory we were at the Dardanelles, how can you get the people, who up to the present have lived all their lives against, compulsion, to turn round and suddenly embrace it? When we go to our Liberal workmen and Labour workmen, as we intend to go, and tell them in our opinion the Government should be supported in this measure of compulsion, it does not help us when we have to battle with undue optimism.

I remember over a year ago suggesting to my own executive in my own division that I thought the War would be a fairly long one, and that we should have, perhaps, a series of bad things from time to time, but that we must make up our minds we would see it through at all costs, and that we must be prepared to change some of our ideas rather than be beaten by this horrid combination of Prussian militarism. They said, "It is very kind of the Member to come down, but of course we do not take his view. We take the view of the Prime Minister, the right hon. and gallant Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill), and the Noble Lord the present Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They do not think the War is going to last another year." This was Easter of 1915 I am talking about, and I could not get anyone in the North of England to believe that the War would last till now, and I appeal to hon. Members here who also come from the North of England, whether they could get the average man there a year ago to believe that the War would last so long. I doubt if they can name one in a hundred of their constituents who dreamt of it a year ago. When you go to men like that and recommend sacrifice, determination, the casting away, it may be, of political views, and rallying to the Cabinet in the introduction of compulsion, I say it does not help you to have these unduly optimistic speeches made; and when the Minister of Munitions takes upon himself solemnly to warn the country and the House, then he meets with the hostility of the Liberal party hack and the Liberal party journalist. What is the object of that? When the Prime Minister says, in his opinion, it is essential that there should be a united Cabinet and the others agree, and patient, clever, cautions, and magnificent as he is, he comes out of it with a united Cabinet behind him, one-of our Liberal newspapers must try to create disunion, try to divide us into camps again, try to set Liberal member against Liberal member, Liberal journalist against Liberal journalist, and Liberal Cabinet Minister against Liberal Cabinet Minister. The charges are totally unfounded. The points in the article I am able to test are untrue. It is ridiculous to suppose that a contest is taking place between two personalities, the Minister of Munitions and the Prime Minister. Nothing is further from the truth. Such a thing is only introducing prejudice. I hope I am not unduly introducing the personal side when I say I think I know something of the views of the Minister of Munitions with regard to his chief. Never, either privately or in any group, have I ever heard since I came into this House the slightest suspicion of disloyalty between the Minister of Munitions and his chief, but always the most unbounded confidence, and appeals from the Minister of Munitions to Liberal Members who might be annoying the Prime Minister from time to time to cease. I say when men go about insinuating and whispering for the mere sake of trouble and circulation, I am going to denounce action of that kind. There is no necessity for it.

I venture to make this speech without any idea of the fortunes of any Liberal Member or party. Things are far too serious. Why are these things printed? Why are they said? The last idea I had when I came into the House was of speaking. I should have thought there would have been a general response to the appeal of the Prime Minister, and an assurance to him, to our Allies, and to our troops all over the world that, no matter if we had a black week, the determination of Members of this House was that we should put forward more energy rather than less because of the temporary disappointment. Except from the chairman of my own group, the hon. Baronet the Member for Prestwich (Sir F. Cawley), and one or two others, there has been scarcely a word of welcome to the Prime Minister, or an assurance that now he has decided on this advanced course, and this bold step, this House will stand behind him, and it will stand behind him. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) will not stand behind him, but his constituency does. I have been told that the hon. Member would not be able to get a nomination paper signed. I am perfectly certain, at any rate, that the proper message for the Members of this House to give the Prime Minister to-day is that we welcome the announcement that the Government is resolved unanimously to bring the Bill in, and we appeal to them not to weaken it, but rather to strengthen it as a result of suggestions in this House, and I believe it will have the overwhelming support of every party in this House, and still more of the constituencies outside.

It is a long time since I had an opportunity of speaking in this House, and I have had experiences during the past few months which, had I been weak on the subject of compulsion, would have strengthened my hands in supporting the Government in any scheme they may have to adopt in order that the requisite number of men may be obtained to bring this War to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) amused me with some of the statements he made, and, at all events on this side of the House, we understood what he referred to when he suddenly changed one word he was going to use to "donkey." We had an idea as to what he meant, but at the same time I would like to draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that at all events the statements that he made—no doubt intended to be true—were not in every iota just what he intended. I remember the hon. Member in bygone days, Friday after Friday, coming down to this House, and when he stated that in this respect he was alone I think perhaps he had overlooked the fact that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was one of his greatest supporters in that matter.

I think I said that I was alone on these benches.

No doubt that is what the hon. Member intended to say, but I do not think he will find that I am wrong when he reads the OFFICIAL BEPORT. I am pleased to-day to see in this House greater unanimity than we have had for a long time, and I am only wondering, after the speech made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, whether the same feelings in regard to universal service animates each and every member of His Majesty's Government. I think the general feeling in the House is that we want to be satisfied that the whole of the members of the Cabinet intend to back the Prime Minister up in the policy which he announced this afternoon. We do not want any question of weakening. I am of opinion that this matter has been deferred too long. I cannot help thinking that months ago, when we knew and saw the difficulties with which we were confronted with regard to recruiting, surely it was not necessary to leave it to the twentieth month of the War simply and solely to satisfy, or, shall I say pour ointment into the wounds of some hon. Members who have always been bitterly opposed to compulsory service, whether it was necessary or not. These old ideas as to what might have been necessary years ago might have been all well and good in times of peace or in times of small wars, but we have never before been faced with a combination like the one which we are faced with at the present time. We have got to see this business through to a satisfactory conclusion. We are to have no half measures, and our object can only be achieved if we carry out the suggestions put forward by the Army Council.

Many hon. Members of this House have not had the opportunity of seeing what I have witnessed. I remember, during one rather bad time, seeing new troops marching up in very small bodies of twelve or fourteen hour after hour for two days in succession, and this was the moving up of a new division. I have seen these young soldiers, who, in many cases, have never heard the firing of a heavy gun before, march along roads which soon afterwards have been bombarded, and they have made no semblance of a complaint. They are heroes, every one of them prepared to do their duty and suffer any disability and danger they might be asked to suffer. The only thing one hears is not any complaint as to what they are called upon to suffer, but they do ask why others are to be left at home when it is known full well that they are wanted at the front. That is the question which I put before the House, and I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), in view of all the matters with which he had to deal and the positions he has held and the support he gave to the Government up to a certain time after this War was started—in fact, he supported the Government for sixteen months after the commencement of the War—and then, because the Prime Minister is satisfied in his own mind from the reports that he has received from those who are competent to judge that now is the time we must bring in some measure to get the men in one way if we cannot get them in another, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow is not satisfied with leaving the Government in a quiet manner, but he must try his best to bring up some question of organisation to militate entirely against the efforts of the Government.

Picture the difference between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns). In all probability the ideas of these two right hon. Gentlemen coincide, but at all events this House has not been under the painful necessity of listening to such speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea as those which have been made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow. I take myself back to a meeting of the House of the 4th of August, 1914, when the Foreign Secretary came down here and told the House plainly what he had endeavoured to do in order that this country should not be plunged into war. I should have thought that after the full, comprehensive, and straightforward statement that was made then by the Foreign Secretary every single Member of this House would have considered it his duty to have assisted the Government as far as they possibly could. On that occasion Ave saw many hon. Members jumping up in their places and speaking against the Government, but I wonder, after careful consideration, when they have reviewed the circumstances to-day, whether the opinions they held then are the same opinions which they hold to-day. I cannot help thinking that, at all events, they must have come to one conclusion, and it is that had we not taken it upon ourselves to defend the policy which we had put forward we should have been in the most invidious position with regard to other countries. Having taken up that position, surely it is our duty to utilise every possible power we possess to see that a satisfactory conclusion of this War is brought about.

6.0 P.M.

I hope there will be no question of whittling down of the measures that the Prime Minister is satisfied in his own mind that it is necessary for us to embark upon. We have seen various measures brought forward in this House which commend themselves to hon. Members, and then in consequence of opposition from various parts of the House, and in order to save the Bill, the Government have found it necessary to accept proposals whittling down those measures to such an extent that there was practically no strength left in them. I hope that will not be the case in this instance. I have heard from various parts of the House, at different times, hon. Members apologising and saying that although in the ordinary course of events they are entirely opposed to compulsion, yet, perhaps, under the circumstances they were prepared to give their support to the Government in this particular case. On this occasion we do not want any questions of that sort at all. We want a united House of Commons showing a united front, in order that it may present itself to our Allies and to our enemies and to neutral countries as a country with no divisions, absolutely united for one purpose—that is, to bring the War to a satisfactory conclusion at a date, I hope, earlier than most of us are anticipating. If we are to bring the War to that satisfactory conclusion to which the Prime Minister has referred time and time again, surely it is necessary for us to sink any question of party feelings. The hon. Member for Pontefract opened our eyes a great deal by his references to differences that existed in regard to matters that have been brought before his special notice. From my knowledge of the hon. Member, I know full well that he would be no party to making statements in this House which were not absolutely true, and what he has said reminds me of the old proverb, "God protect me from my friends; I will protect myself from my enemies." If that sort of feeling exists in any quarter of this House, let us get rid of it altogether. We consist mainly of two parties in the ordinary course of events, strongly divided upon the majority of political questions, but do not let us have any divisions over this question. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow spread out his net and imagine that he is going to bring any more into it. Let the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outh-waite), who was so very kindly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Booth), wipe away the scales from his eyes and look at the facts not as they presented themselves some ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago when he was under the impression that there was no necessity for anything but a voluntary Army, but at the facts as they have been presented to-day by the Prime Minister, and if he is wishful of serving his constituency and his country, let him, if he cannot assist the Government by voting with them, at all events refrain from going about preaching these false doctrines. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) talks about the Government being desirous of enslaving the working classes. I do not know on what he has founded such an idea, but I suppose the easiest way to get cheap popularity and cheap advertisement is to disagree with the majority of those who have thought the matter out very carefully. If the hon. Member has any doubt whatever as to the advisability of carrying out the policy that has been suggested by the Prime Minister, let him take his part in the trenches and see what the job is. He will find that so far as the soldiers are concerned there is only one question and one point raised: "I am doing my job; send the other men from home to do their's." That is the only question we ever hear raised irrespective of what they have to go through, and I suppose it is well known here that there are many hardships all borne cheerfully and bravely as one would expect from the proverbial nature of the English soldier.

The hon. Member for Pontefract referred to the way in which the Prime Minister discussed the question with regard to Pitt. If my memory serves me rightly, Pitt had a very drastic method of dealing with any of those who did not agree with him. There was no question of trying to deal with members of his Cabinet in the docile manner in which the Prime Minister has tried to deal with those in his flock. He had a peculiar habit of just passing the pen through the names of these Ministers and they ceased to exist. [Laughter.] Yes, they ceased to exist as members of the Government. I am not going to suggest that it may be absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister to adopt that drastic method, but we ought to be satisfied that the Ministry present one idea and one front, that they have one object in view, and that they have all made up their minds that the time has-arrived when some compulsion should be applied in order that the men required by the Army Council may be obtained. We were told last Thursday that 50,000 men were to be raised by 27th May, and that 200,000 altogether were to be raised. The report went round that compulsion would mean a loss of time, and that we could get these men a great deal quicker by the voluntary system. I should like to ask whether the Government are still of the same opinion that compulsion is going to delay obtaining the 50,000 men by 27th May, and, if so, what is the reason for any delay, and why there should be any greater loss of time under compulsion than under the voluntary system?

I should like to ask another thing with regard to the time-expired men. Anybody who knows anything about soldiering at all knows full well that the time-expired man is at this period a very great asset. I want the Government to utilise the services of these men, but I want them at the same time to bear in mind that these men in many cases have been a long time out at the front or carrying out their duties in some part of the country, and to carefully consider whether they cannot be allowed a reasonable breathing space between the expiration of their service and their reenlistment. I suggest, if possible, that a period of two months would not be too long for men who have been serving in this struggle ever since 4th August, 1914. It must also be remembered that these men undertook onerous duties long before that time. I therefore hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion. I hate Coalition Governments, and I suppose nobody likes them, but, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Sir G. Reid), I am prepared to support this Government or any Government who are going to have the courage of their convictions and carry the War through to a successful conclusion. I want no wobbling. I want to know where we are. I want the Government to make up its mind, and having made up its mind I want it to be certain that it is not going to have its policy, which it is convinced should be carried out, whittled down by any small minority there may be in the House who have always shown a desire to find fault with somebody or some policy.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has urged me to take steps to remove the scales from my eyes, so that I might see a way of being of some assistance to my Constituents and to my country. I may say that any of my views of twenty or thirty years ago that I may have to discard would be Conservative and not Liberal views. My views then on foreign policy were those I had adopted from Conservative relatives who had seen some service in India and in the East. It is because I believe that our whole policy in this War is detrimental to the interests of this country that I am opposed to any further measure of compulsion. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that the statement made by the Prime Minister ought to convince me of the necessity of further compulsion. The Prime Minister did not meet my point at all. He spoke of the necessity being met by the provision of 200,000 unattested married men, and he spoke of the necessity arising from the probable casualties in an offensive in the summer and autumn of this year. The hon. Member for Ripon (Major Wood) suggested that it would be a good thing if Cabinet Ministers went up and down the country and told the people the exact position they were up against. I wish they would. I interpret the statement made by the Prime Minister in this way. We are to have a great offensive, and that offensive will lead to gigantic casualties, casualties amounting to hundreds of thousands of men, and it is because of the casualties we are to sustain that it is necessary to rake in the last 200,000 men. I want to know whether that policy is a necessary policy. I have always maintained, from the beginning of this War, that the right way to win through is by the maintenance of our sea power and the maintenance of our financial position, and I want to know whether it is necessary to adopt these tactics of the offensive and to lose these hundreds of thousands of men. In this War I have only had one object in view: How to get out of it with the least loss of British lives, and I want the Prime Minister to tell me, and I wish he would tell the country, whether that is the only method by which we can bring this War to a successful conclusion.

My difficulty arises from these conflicting policies. We are told one day that it is to be a war of attrition and is to be decided by sea power, and the next day we have the Prime Minister coming down and saying we must have further compulsion to get the last of our manhood because of the offensive that is to take place and the losses that will result. Which is it to be? If we can win by the maintenance of our sea power and by the maintenance of our financial position and our assistance to the Allies, then these great losses which create the necessity for compulsion are themselves unnecessary and are a waste of human life. My opposition to compulsion to-day is greater than it was when the Military Service Bill was introduced, because, as far as we can learn from the tactics of the Germans at Verdun, it seems to me that they have demonstrated that the tactics of the offensive lead to gigantic losses with small results. Therefore it seems to me it should turn us in the direction of striving to gain advantage by means of the maintenance of our sea power and of our financial position. Judging from the statements we have heard to-day we have come to a position of weakening in regard to these essentials of success, and when we hear the First Lord of the Admiralty telling us that the Navy cannot get guns and that great battleships cannot be equipped through lack of labour because so many men have been taken for the Army, I say it points to a weakening of the essentials of our position.

I am strengthened in my opposition to our campaign in the East by what we are told. I am convinced that that is one of the wrong policies which has brought us to the position in which the Government are demanding compulsion on the ground of necessity. The Prime Minister has not told us what advantage this country is going to reap by fighting in the East in order to give Constantinople to Russia. What advantage is going to be gained by the people of this country? If we had concentrated on a policy which was within our power, a policy of maintaining the Western front, this demand for compulsion would have fallen to the ground. Can a policy of compulsion be necessary? I think it was Napoleon who said, when he got his first Conscription measures through the Con- vention, "I can now waste 30,000 men." It we go on with this military policy of attacking impregnable works, involving the loss of lives of hundreds of thousands of men then, of course, it can be said that Conscription is necessary. But I am convinced that that policy is a wrong policy. I am convinced that the policy of a summer and autumn campaign for an offensive in the West is wrong. I have not yet heard anything from the Prime Minister convincing me of the necessity of compulsion other than the statement that we are likely to incur gigantic losses shortly.

We have already five millions of men under arms. It seems to me that that is sufficient We have more men to-day with the Colours than has France, and probably more than Russia, although the latter started the War with no fewer than 21,500,000 men of military age. We have, in fact, a larger number of men than other countries which have essential war industries, and I do not see any necessity for bringing in a further number of men. Still, I would sooner have a measure of compulsion at this time than such an Act as the Military Service Act. I did not support that Act as a moderate measure. The only thing to be said for Conscription is that it calls for equality of sacrifice. I do not believe it can establish true equality of sacrifice. The first measure was a contemptible measure, because it segregated the weak few, and because they were weak and few they had applied to them a measure of compulsion which was unjust in itself and which would have been detrimental in its effect on the country. I would, therefore, sooner have a wide measure of compulsion. I could understand the advocacy of such a measure, rather than a limited measure which is to be applied only to the Jew and weak.

I would say to the Labour Members who support this measure of compulsion, that I can see no object in confining that compulsion to the provision of men for the Army. The need of this country is not merely a military need, and if there is a need for cheaper production of material, if it is a financial need which is confronting us, as no doubt it will be before long, if it is necessary to call for equality of sacrifice, then if the advocates of compulsion are honest, if they desire to establish real equality of sacrifice, I can see no reason whatever why men in the trenches should get a shilling a day while men in the factories are paid one pound a day. I can see no reason why they should not be brought to the same level, because I believe if the War continues the lengthy period which some people anticipate—I hope it will not—there is no reason whatever why, as a logical outcome of Conscription, labour should not be compelled to work in the factories under military law for something like the same wage as men are compelled to risk their lives in the trenches for. I am more than ever convinced that I am right in opposing Conscription on the ground that the necessity has not been made out, unless, indeed, it be the necessity that will arise from a vast loss of life through the adoption of a war policy which I hold to be absolutely unnecessary, and which, in my opinion, the nation should not permit.

I am sure it is a matter of congratulation to all of us that this question of recruiting looks as if it may be settled finally. I have heard most of the speeches made during the last few weeks upon this subject, and there are two facts which appear to be quite clear—one which has been dealt with with considerable skill by representatives of the Cabinet, and the other which has been evaded with equal skill by the Prime Minister and other distinguished representatives of the Government. The Prime Minister and other Ministers are claiming credit for having found a solution of the problem, and they are claiming still greater credit for having found one which satisfies all people. But they have evaded and shirked the point that we are now confronted with difficulties which might have been entirely avoided. It is quite true we have found the solution of the recruiting problem, but it is equally true that we have made a mess and a muddle, that we have wasted time, and that the Government has discredited itself, and that all this might have been avoided if only the Government had healt with the recruiting problem firmly twelve months ago.

We have had the admission by the Prime Minister to-day that nine months ago recruiting fell off, that in July and August, 1915, the recruiting returns were unsatisfactory, and that at that time the question of getting men into the Army was giving cause for anxiety to the Government and yet they waited till now—till April and May, 1916, before really attempting to tackle this question. Then take the other admission of the Prime Minister, that in January, 1916, a Cabinet Committee examined into the relative demands and needs of finance and of the Army and the Navy. But in January, 1916, this country had been at war eighteen months, and why was not this vital question, why were not the respective and relative needs of the Army, the Navy, and finance all examined into by a Cabinet Committee before January, 1916? How could they possibly expect to wage the War successfully if they waited for eighteen months before tackling this problem? I understood that the object of bringing in the Registration Bill in the summer of 1915 was to put the Government into possession of the necessary data for dealing with these requirements. Why did they not deal with them as soon as they had the data before them? Why did they wait until January, 1916, before proceeding to weigh the relative needs of these three great Services? The fact is the Government are dealing with the question now, not because it is the last stage of a carefully thought out programme, not because they are working to a scheduled time, but because they are compelled at the last moment to face the facts.

What I and other Members of this House and what a much larger class of people outside this House are asking the Government is, What is the Prime Minister going to do with those Ministers who prevented this question being dealt with before May, 1916? It is quite evident that there have been two parties in the Cabinet—the one which was looking ahead and wanted to settle the problem of recruiting once and for all, and the other party which was opposed to it six months ago and a year ago, and which last summer opposed the proposals of their colleagues to deal with the matter in time. There have been these anchors in the Cabinet. Is the Prime Minister going to keep them there to be a perpetual drag on the progress of this War? Are there to be no changes whatever in this Government? Is the Prime Minister just going to say, "It is true I have found a solution. Six months ago or twelve months ago I might have done it; but let us forget bygones and go ahead as if nothing had happened"? I have never blamed or criticised hon. Members opposite, especially Members of the Labour party, for opposing national service. Could one blame them when the Government told them it was not necessary? They were basing their opposition to national service on the assurance of the Government, who they imagined had all the facts before them, that it was not needed. I have, therefore, never blamed hon. Members opposite in the past for opposing national service, but I have blamed—and I think the blame is accumulating—the Cabinet for not facing the facts and for not telling the House and the country the truth; for not telling the House and the country what they needed; for not telling them that recruiting was going down and that they must adopt other methods to supplement the deficiencies of the Army.

I have in the past heard speeches in opposition to a measure of conscription snowing that many Members were talking at cross purposes, and it seems to me as if the Cabinet have also been thinking at cross purposes on this question. I have heard hon. Members opposite oppose compulsion, because they said it was militarism and Prussianism. They opposed national service because, according to their views, it represented what we were fighting against in this war. But we are hot fighting to prevent Germany having national service, any more than we are trying to prevent our ally, France, or Australia, having a system of universal service. What we are fighting against is the spirit of Prussianism and the spirit of morality which leads to the breaking of treaties. We are fighting against the spirit of aggression which led to the overrunning of Belgium, and against the spirit of Prussianism which was exemplified at Louvain and at Wittenberg. That is quite different from national service. The right of every individual to defend his country and to fight for his country is quite different from the spirit of Prussianism which we have seen exemplified at Wittenberg. While I have never blamed hon. Members of the Labour party for opposing national service because they were told it was not necessary, I do blame hon. Members who oppose it at the present moment, even after the Prime Minister tells them that this measure of compulsion is necessary to win the War. I can understand hon. Members opposing it when the Government tell them that it is not necessary, but I cannot understand hon. Members opposing it merely because it does away with their pre-war theories and prejudices, and in spite of the fact that the head of the State tells them that it is necessary to win this War.

We have heard a great deal, and there have been hints again to-day, of plots and intrigues, especially of plots and intrigues in the Press. In examining these legends and allegations of plots, we have to ask ourselves who is it that is making them? Who is it that is attacking a certain section of the Press for ulterior motives? It is those same newspapers who almost turned green, if they were able to do it, at the thought of our going to war. It is these self-same papers who in peace time have told us that the German nation consisted of benevolent professors whose one ambition was to be on friendly terms with this country. I hold no brief for Lord Northcliffe, but one must examine the way in which this campaign has been conducted. The Press I have been referring to began by attacking Lord Northcliffe. Then, when they thought they had discredited him, they began to attack what they called Conscription on the ground that it had been advocated by Lord Northcliffe, whom they claimed to have discredited. The fact that they are obliged to attack compulsion not on its merits but through personalities to my mind shows how weak is the case against conscription at the present day.

It is now proposed, in this universal measure that is to be introduced, to bring into the Army all the young men of eighteen, that is to say, we have, in a period of three months, an absolute reversal of the Government's policy. We were told three months ago, not that they were not needed, but that victory was assured without them. We were told on behalf of the Cabinet that the Army did not require these young men of eighteen because victory was assured without them. In ordinary time a Cabinet Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister, may make a wrong estimate, shall we say of the revenue that will come in from tea, or beer, or anything else, and it does not very much matter if he has an excess or a deficit, but in a question like this a miscalculation or a mistake of this sort as to the needs of the Army means human lives. That is the difference.

Hon. Members cannot say, "Oh! well, it is true we were hopelessly wrong in January; we admit it now, let us go ahead and forget all about it." If a general before a battle, when he is preparing his plan of campaign, so miscalculates the situation that he leaves several divisions far away in the rear in reserve so that at the time of need he is unable to lay his hand on them—if he says to himself, "I can do with 'X' Divisions and I do not want these 'Y' Divisions," and if events show that he is wrong in his cal- culations and that owing to the fact of his not having the "Y" Divisions handy ha is not able to win or to push through, you do not depend upon him. You promote him, perhaps, but you promote him elsewhere. Why should we give different treatment to the Government in this case? They made a hopeless miscalculation of the military needs last January. They told us that victory was assured without these young men of eighteen. Are we to forget all that? Is it fair to ask us and the country to forget it all and not to emphasise the fact that they made a huge blunder on that occasion? The justification during the last few days of the Government's programme, of their programme to-day, and also of the programme of last Thursday, has been put forward as being unity. The Prime Minister and other speakers have told us that by their proposals we were going to get unity and consent. Nobody realises more than I do the need of having unity either in the House of Commons or in the country. Where we differ is in the method of obtaining unity. The Cabinet appear to think we are to get unity by delay. The way to get unity now, and the way they would have got unity in the past, was to tell the country the truth. The heart of the country has been absolutely sound. From the beginning of the War the country has shown that it has been prepared to give to the Government anything that the Government said was necessary to win the War. The Government are claiming that they have unity now. The Government could have had unity six months or twelve months ago if they had only told the truth. The great difficulty at the present moment is that the Government have made so many miscalculations and have misled the country so frequently that unless the Government make some drastic changes they will continue to lose the confidence of the country.

I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) with more than usual agreement. I had hardly expected him to get up, but when he got up I anticipated possibly some denunciation of the Government for lack of resolution, lack of capacity, wobbling, and for being unable to make up its mind; but I found that the speech in fact was all jam and no ginger. What was the effect of it? It was to urge this House to give its confidence to the Government, to support it to-day and to do everything it could to strengthen its hand. He visited the strongest censure on those who had endeavoured to defeat it in this House, to criticise it, to embarrass it, and to discredit it. I agree with the general principle in regard to this Government, and with regard to any Government, in time of war. It is no effective war policy from either one side or the other to attempt to force upon a Government which is conducting a war a policy in which that Government does not believe. The Government cannot conduct, under the stress of war, with any prospect of success, a policy which is not its own policy or a policy which has been forced upon it by critics in the House of Commons. So long, therefore, as I have general confidence—I emphasise the words "general confidence"—in the Government, in any Government, in this Government, in the Liberal Government, or in a Conservative Government, in a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or in a Government led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson)—if I may venture so to call him, because I have never had any personal animus against him—so long as I have general confidence in any Government, I would endeavour by all the means in my power in this House to strengthen its hands and back it up in the policy which it thought necessary for the conduct of the War, even if, in my individual judgment, I might think that that policy was the wrong policy. My hon. Friend, I think, asserted that principle. Apart from the principle, I agree with him in the criticism which he visited upon many of those who have attacked the Government, criticised it, and even voted against it up to the present time. He referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon). I share many of the views which my right hon. Friend holds, but I do not share them to the extent of voting against the Government in regard to any measure for recruiting or reinforcing the Army which it thinks necessary in order to win this War. I regard that as the prime necessity, involving all the other principles of democracy and liberty in this country in which I am interested. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of those who, holding theoretical views, have pushed them to the extent of voting against the Government in regard to the measures it thinks necessary to win this War.

I agree with my hon. Friend also in his strong reprobation of the attacks which have been made upon individual Ministers. He specially referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions, who has been the subject of prolonged attacks in many of the newspapers. My hon. Friend referred particularly to Press attacks, and I presume he was referring to the attacks upon the right hon. Gentleman which have appeared in the "Daily News" and the "Daily Mail," because both of those newspapers seem to have made the same kind of attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, and both have asserted the same thing, namely, that he was conspiring against his colleagues, endeavouring to embarrass them, to defeat their policy and to alter their policy by pressure from outside. I know of no overt act which would lead me to believe that those criticisms are true, and until I find the Minister of Munitions doing some overt action which seems aimed at betraying his colleagues or wrecking the Government of which he is part and with which he shares full responsibility, I shall extend to him the same confidence and support that I extend to the Cabinet as a whole. Other Ministers have been subjected to attack. The right hon. Gentleman is not the only Minister who has been the subject of these prolonged and persistent attacks in the Press and elsewhere. My hon. Friend only referred to one, but I am sure that he would be the first, if he had time, to extend the reprobation which he expressed of this particular attack to the other attacks which have been made upon other Ministers. I agreed with the censure with which he visited those critics and embarrassers of the Government, and as I listened I felt what a sublime spectacle it was to see Satan rebuking sin. Somehow or other I had obtained the impression that my hon. Friend himself was one of those who bad criticised the Government very severely, and sometimes even voted against them.

When?

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

No.

Does my hon. Friend say he has never voted against the Government?

My hon. Friend cannot point to any speech I have made in or out of the House referring to the military, naval, or financial policy of the Government or to their general conduct of this War. I have never discussed it in public in any way, and I have given them regular support by my vote in this House.

Somehow or other I seem to have a recollection of some speeches which did not convey that impression to me at the time. My hon. Friend made a speech about Serbia in which there was very strong criticism of the general strategic policy of the Government. I may be wrong, but that is the impression which was conveyed to me, and I have some recollection of my hon. Friend voting against the Government on a very important Motion for the Adjournment which had some effect upon Government policy. It all shows, on a nearer view, how matters have improved. I said it was a spectacle of Satan rebuking sin, but on this nearer view and on a closer understanding of what the real attitude of my hon. Friend is, I find Satan is not so objectionable a person as I had expected. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give us more frequently the benefit of his counsel in this Chamber than he has been doing for some time past. He has been conspicuous by his absence, but if he reinforces our counsels by such speeches as he has made to-day I am sure he will help considerably towards the unity of this House, towards the strengthening of the Government, and towards the effective conduct of the War.

I think the whole House was very much relieved this afternoon to hear the statement of the Prime Minister. The Government has got on the right lines at last. I only regret that, from the composition of the Government itself, and through being out of touch generally with opinion in the House, they made the mistake they did last Thursday. However, they have rectified that now. Compulsion, we all know, is a new thing for this country. No one likes it. But when the military authorities tell us through the Government that they must have these men in order to win the War, the whole House will be united. I see two of my Whips at the corner. Perhaps they will just listen to the advice I am going to give them. What is the reason why the Government made that mistake last Thursday? In my opinion it is the fact that they have no machinery to keep in touch with the feel- ing of the House There are Whips, but the Whips' Office is not working in the usual way. One knows the reason. It is because it is a Coalition Government. There are hostile Committees on both sides of the House, but it seems to be no one's business to defend the Government. I think the reason is that we on this side are willing to support our Members who are in the Government, but some of us do not like supporting our old political enemies. The same applies on the other side of the House. They naturally like to support their own Members in the Government, but are not so much in love with our Members. I think the Coalition Government ought to get some machinery to keep in touch with us. If they had had that machinery they would not have made the mistake they made on Thursday. They were not aware of the very strong feeling there was on this side of the House or they would never have made that mistake. I do not wish to advise them as to what kind of machinery they ought to have, but I am certain I am right in this, that the Whips' Office is not working. Occasionally we get a three-lined Whip, but that is all. We are never asked to do anything to support the Coalition Government in any way. Our feelings are not consulted with regard to policy, and I am certain the Coalition Government wants to keep in touch with the whole House and also with the country. The Prime Minister this afternoon made an appeal for unity. I entirely sympathise with what he said. We have thrown aside for the time being ordinary politics. Do not let us squabble about methods of conducting the War. Let us try to get some unity in that matter, and the same in the country and in the Press. The Government, of course, suffer in other ways. In every war the Government keeps free from criticism so long as things go well in the field of war, but when reverses come, as they have come just at the present moment, then the country begins to think the Government is to blame. It is a natural situation and perhaps one ought not to be too particular about it, but I am perfectly sure the country is united, and it is united in this, that this War must be prosecuted to a successful issue. That is the object we all have in view. The object we do not want is an inconclusive peace. An inconclusive peace would practically mean defeat, because we should have to begin again to prepare and organise both our Army and our Navy to face another war within a very brief period. I sincerely trust that will not take place. Let us go forward with a united front and we shall have a conclusive peace in our favour.

7.0 P.M.

I have listened and been present at every discussion that has yet taken place on the question of Conscription, and I think I am justified in saying that every Member of the House, whatever his views or opinions may be, is satisfied that the country is in great danger. They are satisfied that the statement that we are fighting for our existence is not exaggerated, and, whether we agree or differ on the merits of the proposal, I think we are entitled to say that we are all desirous of winning the War. Therefore, there is no need to be accused of want of patriotism. There will be general agreement that the issues are so important and so vital, not only to the future of this country, but to the future of Europe, that nothing but success must attend the Allied cause. But I join issue entirely with the various criticisms of the Government and their effect in the country. The Prime Minister himself stated that, while personally he was quite indifferent to the criticism, and indeed was able to show that never was there a war in which similar criticism had not been made, yet he deprecated it, not from the standpoint of the Government or indeed of the country, but rather from its effect upon the Allied cause. I get in touch with the people week after week, and the one thing that I deprecate about the criticism of the Government is the feeling that is being engendered in the minds of the people. There is no town, village, or hamlet in which there is not some home mourning the loss of a loved one. There are mothers and fathers whose one thought daily is of their sons or husbands far away, and when they receive the news of a son or husband killed I ask the House to appreciate their feelings when they are to-day told, not that this life has been given for the country, not that it has been sacrificed in order that liberty may live, not that it has been given in defence of a great and noble cause, but that it has been sacrified because of the blundering and muddle of those who are controlling affairs. Whether you realise it or not, that is the kind of thing that engenders bitterness and hatred in the minds of these people. Surely those who have given their sons or fathers are entitled at least to know that those lives have not been wasted, and I have no hesitation in saying that the continual criticism, the continual suggestion that every action of the Government is mere blundering, that they are responsible for every disaster that has happened, that the Prime Minister himself is incapable of leading the country to victory, that the action, in short, of the Government is the action of traitors and not loyal men, can form no other impression in the minds of the people of this country than that the time has arrived when they ought not to be called upon to make further sacrifices. We are engaged in a struggle where we want the best out of the people. When we have been engaged in labour disputes, when we have found the odds against us, when we have found ourselves losing the battle, have we got the best out of our men by continually attacking the leaders? Have we got the men to rally to us by suggesting to them that the real cause of failure is the incapacity of those at the top? No, Sir. When it has gone blackest, when the odds were most against us, that has been the time when we have found it necessary to give hope and encouragement and inspiration to those from whom we were expecting the best. I say in the same circumstances, whether this House realises it or not, it is having a demoralising effect in the country when there is this continual suggestion of incapacity on the part of those who are controlling affairs. While that may be the position of the man in the street, it ought, not to be the position of Members of this House. If to-night there was an unfortunate Zeppelin raid, and it happened in the constituency of an hon. Member of this House, with slaughter and suffering as a result, and if that hon. Member were to go to that constituency and say, "If I were in charge I would have been able to prevent the raid; if my policy had been in operation these lives would have been saved," we all know perfectly well that that is the kind of spirit and that is the kind of feeling which would be accepted because of the temperament of the people at the moment. But we, at least in this House, ought to rise above that kind of thing. We ought to know perfectly well that just as the Government may be blamed for a disaster for which they are not in the least responsible, if by a chain of circumstances victory was to attend us to-morrow, if we were to hear of some brilliant military success, all these criticisms would vanish into thin air. It is because I believe that this continual harping and criticism has the effect of weakening and disheartening the people that I deprecate it in the strongest possible way. No one knows better than Members of this House that it would be an easy matter to bring an indictment against the Government. It would be an easy matter to rake up some scandal that we hear of from day to day. It would be an easy matter to draw attention to some muddle or other, but I put it to the House whether that is the kind of thing that is going to get the best out of the people who are giving their sons and husbands in this struggle. It is because I believe that the worst possible service is being rendered by this kind of criticism that I beg the House to rise above such a scandalous policy.

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) that no section of the people have a right in this War to claim a monopoly of virtue or of sacrifice. I frankly admit that the aristocracy of this country have not only given of their best in blood, but have shown an admirable example to all classes, and equally I say that when you have men coming from the slums and the hovels, it shows the true patriotism of the working classes as well. But it was not from that standpoint that I understood the Prime Minister to refer to the workers to-day. As I followed his speech I gathered that he appealed to the workers because the workers themselves have a deep-rooted prejudice against Conscription. You may argue that they are wrong. You may argue that no ulterior motive is intended, but that does not dispose of the fact that there is, or there has been, a deep-rooted suspicion in the minds of the working classes, and for one good obvious reason, that in the past in other countries Conscription has been used against the workers, and because they know perfectly well that wherever Conscription has been in operation, it has been used to suppress the aspirations of the working classes. It is because of that, whether we like it or hot, the question of Conscription to-day cannot possibly have a fair chance. We must admit that the circumstances under which it was brought about —never mind whether the fault is on one side or the other—and under which this question has been engineered, have not only caused the workers to be suspicious of it, but they are satisfied that it has been engineered for an ulterior purpose. Therefore, surely, the Government are not only entitled but justified in taking the only possible and sensible course of using all the means open to them to try, if possible, to allay these suspicions. We have got to consider this question from the standpoint of practical politics. A large number of Gentlemen, especially from that side of the House, have expressed their views for a considerable time in favour of Conscription. The right hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) in a speech to-day, and he has said the same thing on previous occasions, not only deprecated what he called the delay in this matter, but he took credit to himself that he had advocated this policy long ago. We are entitled to examine the value of that statement. Is there anyone who will pretend to-day that if Conscription had, been introduced at the commencement of the War, or six months or nine months after the War had commenced, you would have got more men than you did at that time? It is common property that at that period and at various stages there was such a large influx of recruits that the military authorities not only could not cope with them, but they had to raise the standard in order to lessen the number. I agree that the answer to that may be, "Yes, but what we mean and what we wanted was that the men could be placed wherever they were wanted and could be used in a scientific manner." That, I understand, is the kind of answer we get on that point. I reply to that by saying, "Surely it does not require compulsion to have scientific organisation. You are not going to suggest that it is necessary, to have Conscription in order adequately to apportion your men, because, although all kinds of criticisms have been made against what is called the badging and starring of trades, the same people who were responsible for the starring of trades under voluntaryism were responsible for the starring of trades under Conscription." It was not a Committee of this House. It was the highest experts in the employ of the Government who were wholly responsible for the starring of trades as we know them to-day. Therefore, it is these same scientific people who, under compulsion, would do the same thing. It is not sufficient for hon. and right hon. Members to get up and say that all these anomalies and evils would be removed if we only had Conscription in operation in this country.

The right hon. Member for Trinity College made a very significant statement to-day. He said that when he joined the Cabinet he went there determined to follow the military advice. In other words, he said that so far as he was concerned, as a layman, whatever the military experts said he would accept it. I submit that in a war where the military situation is not the only factor, that that is not a most commendable policy for a Cabinet Minister to take up. But the right hon. Gentleman said something more than that. He said that when he got there, although he wanted to follow the military advice, he found that there was no military advice to follow. Let it be observed that this was twelve months after the War had commenced. Twelve months after the War had commenced the right hon. Gentleman found when joining the Cabinet, that so far from following the military advice, there was no military advice there. It does not rest with him, therefore, to start condemning the Government to-day. It would have been much better for him at that stage to have told the country the position, and not wait until ten months after before he says anything about it. There is another point. If we were so bankrupt of military advisers then, if we were so bankrupt of brains, and if the War was being controlled by people, according to his statement, who were absolutely incompetent and incapable, is it not true to say that the same people are in authority to-day? Is it not true to say that the same Secretary of State for War who could not give him advice then is the same Secretary of State for War to-day? Can he expect the working classes of this country, who do not know the inner history, who have no inside knowledge, who do not know the exact significance of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to take kindly to the proposal to hand over their lives to-day to the same people whom he admits are absolutely incapable and incompetent? Whether you get this measure through easily or or not, whether you will, by an overwhelming majority, pass this measure, I maintain that when the workers of this country know the significance of the admission by the right hon. Gentleman to-day, they will put an entirely different construction upon it from that which the right hon. Gentleman himself desires.

What about Sir William Robertson?

I am dealing now with the Secretary of State for War. I will deal with Robertson in a moment, but whatever individuals you may drag in the Secretary of State for War who was the Secretary of State when the right hon. Gentleman joined the Cabinet is the same Secretary of State for War to-day. So far as this House and the country know he is vested with the same authority to-day as he was then. That is the importance and the significance of the point. Now we are told a lot about Sir William Robertson. We ought to be proud of his magnificent and brilliant service We ought to be proud that according to all those who have had an opportunity of judging his ability he is a man to be trusted. But dismissing entirely any question as to which is the head let us remember that three months ago we were discussing the Military Service Bill, a Military Service Bill that was brought in as a result of the Prime Minister's pledge. An Amendment was moved to bring in lads under eighteen.

Not under eighteen.

The proposal was to bring in lads immediately on reaching eighteen. That Amendment was put down—so it is rumoured—at the request of the War Office. I remember taking part in the Debate on that Amendment. The same general staff was in authority then, and we were told that not only was this Bill sufficient, but that no extension of the Bill was necessary to win this War. That was three months ago, and these are the same military experts whose opinions we were told we must accept blindly to-day. I submit that all these things prove conclusively that it cannot be expected that the people of this country will take kindly to the proposal. I know that there is a lot of glib talk about equal sacrifice, and Members get up and say, "So far as we are concerned we want everybody to be on an equal footing." That must mean only one thing. The only way in a matter of this kind of having equal sacrifice is to make it equal from the start. That is to say, when you take a man's labour you take his wealth, because a man's labour is his only capital, and if you really mean equal sacrifice the only form of equal sacrifice is to take everybody's wealth as well, and that would put us on an equal footing. That is what you do not mean. But you could give some approach to it. You could say that just as men are necessary to win the War, so are wealth and capital necessary, and therefore the nearest approach to equal sacrifice would be at least to say that during this War all the resources of the nation shall be profitably and scientifically mobilised, that no man shall have more than a certain income, and that the State shall take the rest. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"] There will be a difference of opinion as between £400 and those who are getting more. But it need not be suggested that we want to apply this only to incomes over £400. The standard of the gallant colonel who interrupted will be much higher than mine, and therefore I would be prepared to give him a little higher standard than me, but not quite so high as he has got now. That would enable us to have something like a true equal sacrifice.

But when we find the Government indicating to-day that these proposals are to be accompanied by a better and more liberal scale of relief, I think that the House from all quarters will appreciate that and support it. Are we not entitled to say from our actual experience that there are large numbers of men who have failed to respond up to now, not because they are cowards or are wanting in patriotism, but because the Government have failed to make adequate provision for their wives and families. Therefore I am satisfied that if the Government took this question seriously and realise the many hardships that have accrued, they would not be talking about shortage of men to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said that he knew perfectly well that there has never been a day since the War commenced when the military advisers were not anxious about the supply of men. That cannot be true of the early stages of the War. It cannot be true for the period when they deliberately stopped recruiting, and it certainly can only be comparable to the position of the military advisers in all countries. Will anyone pretend that the same problem and the same difficulty have not faced the French military authorities, or that, whatever the position of Germany may be, that problem is not in the minds of the German military authorities to-day. But I certainly believe that we have not to be wholly influenced by the purely military side, because when we examine it we see that, as a nation, our contribution is equal to that of any of our Allies.

Examine the position in your shipyards, your munition factories, your boot factories, your cloth factories. There we are told the same tale, and the provision that we are making not alone for our own Army but for the Armies of the Allies as well. And it is not fair to suggest that we are not doing our share in this War. I agree that nothing is too much. I do not want to depreciate the Allied Powers in the least; but I do submit that we have got to view the question in proportion. What is the use of our daily Press pointing out the depreciation of the German mark as a clear indication of German bankruptcy? Is not that applicable to the French franc? Is not that applicable to every belligerent country to-day with the exception of our own? Look at the foreign exchange, and I will challenge any hon. Member to point out one of the nations which stands at par to-day in the foreign markets of the world except our own. [An HON. MEMBER: "Japan!"] Not even Japan. We are the only one. Why is it? Because it is recognised that the greatest of all contributions which we can render in this War is to maintain the financial credit of the Allies. That can only be done and is only being done by our viewing the question from a relative standpoint.

A lot has been said about the voice of labour in this matter. Members on these benches disagree on the question of Conscription. Members are entitled—as I am entitled—to express their own opinion; but let it be observed that whatever may be said about the Labour vote, the only conferences that have been held since Conscription was introduced have condemned it nearly unanimously. So recently as last week the Scottish Trades Union Congress not only condemned the previous Military Service Act but by a large majority demanded its repeal. They may be wrong. I am not arguing it. I am entitled at least to respect those opinions as being a factor in the country. My own union—the largest in the country—after hearing the matter discussed during a private conference, decided unanimously against the principle of any extension of the Military Service Act. Therefore, when weighing the situation up, we have got first to remember that according to the most optimistic statement 200,000 men is the maximum number which it is suggested could be obtained. That is, the maximum. But if that calculation is based upon estimates and figures similar to those submitted in the case of the single men, there will not be 30,000 men obtained, because we were then told that they would get 650,000. But no one pretends to-day that anything approaching that number has been obtained. Therefore, weighing it from that standpoint, we see that the maximum that could be obtained is 200,000 men. And when we remember that there are 20,000,000 combatants engaged in this contest it is difficult for one to bring himself to believe that 200,000 are going to be the determining factor in the situation. On the other hand, I hope that there will be no trouble and no disturbance. I want to see us win this War, but I do submit that, viewing every conceivable standpoint, there is no justification for the Government's proposal. Holding those views, I shall go into the Lobby against it.

I have listened to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and I have noticed that it is rather frequent for hon. Members in his position to drive in their political conclusions, and while they do not deceive a man like myself, yet that may be the result with regard to others outside. With great earnestness the last speaker told us that he hoped at any rate no trouble would be made, and I hope also that the hon. Member for Derby will not help to create trouble.

I think it is necessary to be quite clear on this point. My action all through is well understood in the House of Commons, and I may remind the House that when a number of the men I represent came out, I ordered them to go back—

I thought the hon. Gentlman was rising to a point of Order.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member to question the sincerity of another Member unless he has evidence which justifies him in doing so?

I suppose I am within my right here in stating my reasons for the views which I hold. Of course it may be that my hon. Friend is perfectly honest in what he states, only I am not satisfied when something is stated at meetings like that at Wigan which helps to poison the minds of the men. There are Labour Members who represent thousands of workers, and are those workers not prepared to stand by the Government if they bring in Conscription] What I say about Labour is that if they are left alone Labour will be found to be as loyal as any other section of the community. Labour realises, the miners realise, that the volunteers who have gone to the Front choked up the recruiting offices when the War broke out. All the good ones went, but there were thousands of others who would have gone but for their liabilities at home. To-day every mart must realise that he should be up and doing. The people do not love war, and are not anxious to become soldiers, but they realise their responsibility to the State, as I hope every hon. Member of this House realises, and that they must be up and doing, and that now is the time. Passive resisters, and faddists, and nincompoops, or whatever you like to call them, go round at week-ends preaching against Conscription, and delegates state certain views opposed to war to the people, who enjoy the protection which the country affords, and do not realise that the necessity has now arisen when every man must be prepared to do his duty by the State. I should like to see greater earnestness shown in this House, and the hon. Member for Derby, and others, have great influence with their men. Just now it is not a question of levelling up or levelling down, and we should all stand for the Old Country and get on with the War. It is of no use telling the workers that they would certainly not be worse off under German rule than they are under British rule.