MILITARY SERVICE BILL. (Hansard, 9 May 1916)

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they may divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the enlistment of married men between the ages of eighteen and forty-one years, and the other dealing with the other matters contained in this measure."
This is a very important question. I did not put down this Motion until I had not only listened to but considered the very important statement that was made in the course of the Debate at the very end of it on Thursday night by the President of the Board of Education. After the conclusion of that Debate, there was left no opportunity of inquiring into the extremely important piece of information that he gave us. He told us that instead of the Derby figure, as has been generally supposed, having proved to be over advantageous, and based upon too hopeful an estimate, Lord Derby calculated that there were 660,000 single men of military age who did not come forward. Some thought that was an overestimate. It now turns out that that was an underestimate and that there were no fewer than 750,000 of those single men who had not come forward. Of these, let me say, the military authorities should obtain 340,000, and already 187,826 are with the Colours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1916, col. 262.] That was a very surprising statement. Though I suppose that most of us these days are accustomed to unexpected pieces of information, it took me certainly by surprise, because during the course of the Secret Session and at other times in the House there have been constant suggestions made that the Derby canvass did not produce the men whom the Government expected, that the figures of the Derby Report were exaggerated, and that as a result the compulsion of married men had become necessary. It would appear from the statement of the President of the 468 Board of Education, accepting what evidently it was intended to lead to, that we had all the men under the Derby canvass and the figures in the estimate that we had expected. It should follow from that that the Government should give us some additional reason why we should immediately proceed to the compulsory enlistment of married men, and the more so because of course not only before the compulsory enlistment of single men was introduced, but also at the very end of the discussion after the middle of January it was announced on behalf of the Government that, in the event of the Bill passing, it would not only give us all the men we wanted, but it would provide all the troops for the future in such a way that it would secure victory. That promise was given in the most solemn and repeated manner after having been considered apparently—the very words of the promise—with the Secretary of State for War on the morning of the 17th of January, and yet we are now told that it is necessary to pass this Bill at once. The object which I have, therefore, in moving this Instruction is that the Government should give us some indication of the real position in which they stand, that they would enlarge upon the statement that was made at the end of last Thursday's Debate by the President of the Board of Education, and that unless they have real and adequate reasons for immediately pressing through all parts of this Bill, they should proceed to the other matters which will enter into the measure, and allow us a little time before we pass the measure.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is putting the onus of proof on the wrong shoulders. The House has already passed the Second Reading of the Bill. It is for the hon. Member to show that it is better to divide it into two portions, and proceed with one and postpone the other portion.

§ Mr. KING
That is just what I would like to do. I put it in the other way, which I am sure will appeal to the Government. Three weeks ago there was a great Cabinet crisis, so great that it was announced solemnly to the public through this House. The reason of the Cabinet crisis was that a difference had arisen among our Ministers upon the question of immediately, or at a later date, compulsorily enlisting married men. I contend that no facts have been given to the 469 House with regard to the actual figures of men that are available and that have been obtained in relation to previous estimates to show that any change of policy such as we have in this Bill should be brought about. Therefore, the statements and the figures which the Government already adduced hold good, and it would therefore be in the interests of all, in the interests of their own constituency, which I personally much desire to see established, in the interests also of a great number of people who are anxious upon this subject, and more anxious than they would otherwise be because of the haste which is now being shown to bring into the Army all married men up to forty, and in the interests of all sections of the community that we should divide this Bill into two and proceed at once with other parts of the Bill, leaving the conscripting of married men to be dealt with at a more leisurely pace. If this Instruction is carried I propose to move in Committee to postpone Clause 1. I believe that the first appeals will be adequately carried through, and every difficult question arising under Clause 1, and the compulsory enlistment of married men, might be proceeded with without undue haste and in such a way as to carry the mass of the people along with it.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to second the Motion.
My reason for doing this, I think, is an adequate one, and ought to appeal to the House. The compulsory enlistment of married men involves certain obligations which the Government propose to meet. We have had no communication to the House as to how those shall be met, except in reply to questions. We have been told by Ministers on the Front Bench that there will be no legislation. We have been informed that there will be tribunals set up—presided over by revising barristers—which will deal with certain claims. It seems to me that if we do require to secure the married men—and that the House has already settled in principle—the House certainly ought to know specifically how those men are going to be dealt with before we deal with them in this Bill. The Government ought to put before the House information—to which I consider the House is entitled—as to how these men will be dealt with—whether they will be dealt with by the tribunals which will select them for the Army, or by special tribunals. Matters of 470 that kind are matters upon which the House, I think, is entitled to express its view, before we pass this Bill. I do not for a moment want to hinder the Bill going through the House. I take the view, as an anti-conscriptionist, that we have been beaten on the principle underlying the measure, but we are still entitled to improve the Bill as far as we can, but not to delay it. In regard to married men, I think we are entitled to know, before we proceed to the discussion, what is going to be done for the married men, and how you are going to do it. We ought not to be asked to leave it to the Government as so much else has been left to the Government. The House will remember that so called pledges were given from that Front Bench about other matters under the Military Service Act, and when those pledges were raised before the tribunals, the tribunals said they had nothing to do with what Ministers said in the House of Commons. I want to avoid that by having in black and white what these men are entitled to by the will and wish of Parliament, and that they shall not be chivied about between the speeches of any Minister on what they consider their rights. Therefore, in seconding this Motion, I submit that the House is entitled, and I hope that hon. Members will agree with me, to definitely know how the Government are going to meet these obligations before we proceed to call the men.

§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)
I very much hope that the House will not press this Motion on the Committee. The contention of the Mover is that he wants more information as to the men required. I think every information has been given, the figures have been stated, and this Bill is the outcome of the recommendation of our military advisers in the form of the Army Council, who have made their requirements clear. These have been published, and I really do not think that at this stage more information on that aspect of the case is required. But, if it is required, and if there is more information to be given, there is nothing to prevent its being given when we come to the various Clauses of the Bill. I think any postponement for the purpose is wholly unnecessary. On other grounds my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hogge) wants more information with regard to the method of dealing with the claims of married men. My hon. Friend says he has been told, or statements have been made by somebody or 471 other outside the House, that they pay no attention to the statements of Ministers in this House, and that they want something in writing. I am interested to hear that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Many of those who now cheer it were among those Members who urged me to include in my Regulations extracts from speeches made by Ministers in this House. Apparently they do not take the same view of this point at different times. Everything has been definitely stated. The Prime Minister made a great speech in the Secret Session, and that part of the speech which dealt with our proposals with regard to the liabilities of married men was published in the authorised report of that speech in the papers next day. No legislation is required, no time has been lost, the conditions have been published, the tribunals are in course of establishment, and I am here to say that they will be sitting and performing their duty before you are taking the men under this Bill, if it is passed into law. I do not think there is any justification for postponement. Generally speaking, this Bill is required and urgently needed, and may I point out that the course which the House is asked to adopt, that of dividing the Bill into two parts, is directly to ignore the action of this House. Very seldom has the House so clearly declared its opinion as it has done in this case. We made a proposal to the House, which hon. Gentlemen urged, namely, to deal with the question in two parts, but the House unanimously rejected the proposal, and, as soon as this alternative proposal was made to deal with this question in one, the House, by an overwhelming majority, accepted the principle of this Bill. Recognising that we are at War, realising that this Bill is urgently needed, as the result of two decisions of the House of Commons, I earnestly appeal to the House of Commons not to delay by discussing this aspect of the case, but to get into Committee and through Committee as rapidly as we can.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think the next Instruction in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Colonel Craig) [to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland] is required, as notice has been given of proposals to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, which can be discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill.