HC Deb 24 October 1916 vol 86 cc1075-94

Wherepon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd of February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. G. TERRELL

I desire to say that I do not propose to move the Motion which stands in my name to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot!"] I understand that the Government will give a day to the discussion of the whole question of man-power, and are also going to inquire into, and, if possible, extend the time of appealing to men of forty-one, and grant them further time before requiring them to join up.

Mr. SNOWDEN

There are other Members of the House besides the hon. Member opposite who are interested in this question, and I am afraid we cannot agree to this summary dismissal of this matter. Like many other Members of this House, I have had quite a number of letters from voluntarily attested men who have been called up under the Army Notice of 12th October, and yesterday I got into communication with the War Office and asked them what reply I should give to these men. I was told that I must wait for a reply to the question which was going to be given to-day, and that I should find that to be a perfectly satisfactory answer. The question was put and the answer was given, and I venture to say that there is not one Member of this House who heard the reply who can make anything at all of that answer. The men in the country who are affected by this are anxious to know what their position is, and they have a right to know whether they ought to respond to this notice or not. They want a definite "Yes" or "No" to that. I want a reply to that question, and I want also from the Secretary of State for War an explanation of the reason why this notice was issued calling up attested men who have passed the age of forty-one, because that is a direct violation of very definite pledges that have been given in. this House. So far back as last February a question was put to the then Under-Secretary of State for War. A man who lives in Rochdale submitted his own case, and in reply he received this letter, dated 29th February:

"In reply to your letter of the 23rd February, addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for War, I am directed to say that as you have attained the age of forty-one, you automatically pass into the Army Reserve.

Yours faithfully,

JESSE HERBERT."

who was writing on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for War. This man, who had attested on 8th December, attained the age of forty-one on 9th January last. When the first Military Service Bill was before this House, I addressed, on behalf of the attested men, a question on this point to the representative of the War Office, and I would like to read the terms of my question and the terms of the reply given by the Under Secretary: Mr. Snowden asked if an attested man who has not been called up who has reached the age of forty-one before the Military Service Act, 1916, was passed, will be released from his attestation and be exempt from military service, in view of the promise of the Government that attested men would not be placed in a worse position than unattested men who come under the Military Service Act, 1916? Mr. Tennant: A man who reaches the age of forty-one before he is actually called up for service, whether he is a voluntarily attested man or a man deemed to be attested under the Military Service Act, is not called up, but is passed to the Reserve, and would not be subject to be called up for military service unless the age of military service is, in future, extended. Instructions on this point were issued some time ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, Col. 1341, Vol. LXXX.]

8.0 P.M.

There is nothing equivocal in that reply. It is clear and definite, and there are thousands of men in the country who have accepted that reply in good faith. They have passed the age of forty-one and have considered themselves exempt from military service. Many of them have made business and other arrangements which will involve very considerable sacrifice if the Government are not prepared to stand by his pledge. When the second Military Service Bill was before this House, I asked on the 17th May, this question: If under the new Military Service Bill men who have reached the age of forty-one before they are actually called up for service will be exempt so long as the age is not extended? The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant) replied: The new Military Service Bill does not apply to men who have attained their forty-first birthday before they would otherwise require to present themselves for service with the Colours. Questions of a similar character were put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey), and the Under-Secretary for War in reply, said: If an attested man reaches his forty-first birthday before the date at which he is required to serve with the Colours he will be left in the Reserve. That was in confirmation of the reply given three or four months before. Then quite unexpectedly, like a bombshell, came this Army notice of the 12th of this month. This is not a matter in which delay can be tolerated. These men are required to come to the Colours, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to relieve these men from anxiety. I cannot possibly imagine that the right bon. Gentleman can give any but one reply, That he will carry out the promise given by the representative of the War Office. I am quite sure that he will not run away on the plea that he is not bound by promises given by Ministers who are no longer at the War Office, and I think he will frankly state that he was not aware that such a pledge has been given, that the Army Order referred to has been issued under a mistake, and that there is no intention on the part of the War Office to call up attested men who have passed the age of forty-one.

Sir EDWARD CARSON

This question is an important one, but at the same time the whole question of man-power is one which requires immediate consideration, and I am glad to hear that the Govern- ment has agreed to give a day for the discussion of that question. I suggest that you cannot discuss this subject piecemeal. The men have to be got. Everybody knows that there are great difficulties at the present time, and, so far as I am concerned, I think it is far better that any remarks I have to make on this subject should be reserved until we get to the day which has been promised, and then we can discuss the whole matter.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George)

There is a good deal to be said for the course which has been suggested, but I would like to point out that it is scarcely possible to deal with one part of the problem of man-power without putting the whole case before the House. This is not the only difficulty, and our difficulties are not those of hon. Members who represent certain constituencies and who are naturally affected by considerations of this kind. The difficulty is one which the whole country experiences in mobilising its resources for the purpose of the conflict which involves life and death to so many. My hon. friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said very properly that I should not repudiate pledges given on behalf of the War Office. I repudiate no pledges, but those pledges when they were given applied to existing conditions, and the pledge was that the full powers of the Military Service Acts would not be exercised under existing conditions. As the hon. Member knows, under the Military Service Acts persons who are not forty-one of a certain date were liable to be called up, but under the conditions which then existed it was not thought to be necessary to call up men who were forty-one at the date when notice was served upon them. That was under existing conditions, but those conditions are different now.

Mr. PRINGLE

There was an express statement made on this point by Colonel Henderson, the Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Where?

Mr. PRINGLE

I have not the reference with me, but he was speaking on behalf of the War Office, and he said that until it was decided to raise the age, these men would not be called up.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The position is this, that when that pledge was given it was considered unnecessary under the then conditions to summon men who were forty-one at the date of the notice. The conditions, of course, in a great war must naturally change. No one can forecast how long the War will last, and no one can quite forecast the drain upon our resources. To say that any pledge had been given that under no circumstances would the full power of the Military Service Acts be exercised, that is a pledge which no one could give. I do not mind saying that if such a pledge had been given I think the first consideration is the exigencies of the War. The pledge was given in reference to conditions which existed then, but which no longer exist It was especially stated that the pledge had reference to the then existing conditions. If we did not use this power, let the House realise for a moment what it would mean. It would mean that we should lose the equivalent of at least two army corps, and I cannot take the responsibility of doing that when we need every man, especially in relation to a pledge given distinctly in relation to existing conditions.

Mr. PRINGLE

Does that number include all the medically unfit?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It does not include the medically unfit. If you include everybody it would be equivalent to nearly our army corps. Just see what that means. We are dependent upon these reserves for the manning of our new Artillery, and unless we get them I do not know where we can find the men for that purpose. Does my hon. Friend mean that it was a pledge that you would not raise the age to forty-two or forty-three? You must take a rational interpretation of the pledge, and it is a perfectly rational interpretation to say that if we consider it is sufficient for the moment to extend the limit of age by a single year, why should we be compelled to raise it by two or three years when we do not need it? For the moment we think it is sufficient to raise the age limit to the limit of the Act, and then we are told that unless you raise it beyond that, although you do not require it, you are breaking a pledge. We are keeping our pledge in the spirit and in the letter. We need these men, and the pledge which we feel bound to carry out in this respect is that there should be no distinction between the attested and the unattested men. We have pledged ourselves not to place the attested men in a worse position than the unat- tested men, and that pledge we propose to carry out to the very letter. We propose that the Act of Parliament shall be carried out to its very limits. It is necessary to get the men. We are raising the age up to the very limits of the Act and that we propose to do. We do not think it is necessary to raise the age beyond that, and therefore we are carrying out the pledge given on three separate occasions by my hon. Friend.

We need the men, and Parliament has given us the power to get the men. We shall carry out the pledge given to the attested men to be put into the same position as the unattested men, and that is all we propose to do. I do not think we should ask Parliament to raise the age limit beyond what we want, merely in order to carry out what appears to be a very futile and foolish interpretation of a pledge. We should not summon these men to the Colours unless Parliament had given us power to do so. We propose to carry out the pledge by raising the age limit to the age of the Act, and notice will be given to that effect in a day or two, and if there is any confusion in the mind of anyone, it will be cleared up by the Order to be issued on that subject. I am very glad that the hon Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Terrell) has decided that the best way to raise this question is by raising the whole subject of man-power. It is a very serious question, upon the solution of which victory in this War depends. The Prime Minister has given a pledge that a date will be given for the discussion of the whole subject of man-power. I cannot, without consulting the Prime Minister, name the date, but I hope the House of Commons will regard that promise as satisfactory. With regard to the other two points raised, I have already promised the hon. Member that we will inquire into them.

Mr. SHERWELL

I cannot help thinking that this matter is of far greater importance than the Secretary for War has suggested. If those of us who associate ourselves with the view taken on this subject by the hon Member for Blackburn have any weakness, it is not that we are straining a definite pledge in any extraordinary way, but simply that we have been assuming that plain statements made from the Treasury Bench in plain language were intended to be construed in the sense and with the meaning which usually attaches to the words used. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentle- man. the Minister for War that it would be unreasonable for us to ask the Government to propose legislation in excess of the needs of the War Office, but surely it is important that a Government conducting a war of this kind, which touches aspects of the national life and national interests in a perfectly unprecedented way should smooth their own course as far as possible by attracting the maximum amount of sympathy rather than alienating any part of the sympathy of the nation by a sense of injustice. It is very unfortunate, in connection with the legislation and the arrangements of the War Office in this War, that this is not an isolated instance of a distinct breach of a pledge or undertaking. We all of us—those who followed closely the discussions of the Military Service Bill—remember the positive assurance given by the Prime Minister as to the exemption of the only son of a widow. Experience has shown that not the slightest value or weight has, in practice, attached to that very positive and distinct pledge. We even had the Chairman of the House of Commons Appeal Tribunal the other day declining to hear a single word of explanation or of statement from two applicants, one of whom was the only son of a widow, solely on the ground that those applicants were tinder thirty years of age. He dismissed all question of the merits of the application on the sole ground that he could not consent to a man under thirty, whatever his circumstances, receiving two minutes' attention at the hands of that tribunal. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he carefully studies the history of this particular pledge, that he will find that it was much more positive and much more explicit than he at present imagines it to have been. I do suggest to him, and to the Government generally, that they are not helping the successful conduct of the War and that they are not creating a favourable atmosphere for any further appeals that they may make to the nation—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What pledge does the hon. Member say has been broken?

Mr. SHERWELL

I will give the right hon. Gentleman an answer at once. The explicit assurance was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) earlier this evening.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What is the pledge that has been broken?

Mr. SHERWELL

The pledge broken is that a man would not be called up after he had attained the age of forty-one.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Shall I read the reply?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, I am not asking the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) makes an accusation against the Government in this respect of having broken a pledge.

Mr. SNOWDEN

There is the reply, Mr. Sherwell. (Handing a document to the hon. Member.)

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

He does not even know the pledge he accuses us of breaking!

Mr. SHERWELL

I will, in common with the right hon. Gentleman, read out the distinct words.

Mr. L. WILLIAMS

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Gentleman charges me with having said that I do not care whether it is broken or not. I beg his pardon. I said that it was a pledge given in reference to existing conditions.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The right hon. Gentleman cannot find those words "existing conditions" in the pledge given on 7th March, and he himself said that if there had been a pledge given under present conditions, he would have no hesitation in breaking it—a Prussian doctrine!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I said that a pledge given in reference to present conditions had no applicability when those conditions changed, and that is obvious to any man of common sense.

Sir E. CARSON

Let us lose the War!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

These are the words: If the man attains his forty-first birthday before he receives the individual notice calling him up for service, he would not be taken for service under existing conditions. Those are the very words— He would, however, be liable to be called up if it should happen that the standard of age for military service were raised in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1916, Col. 645, Vol. LXXXII.] We raise it up to the limit of the Act, and is it to be said that we are breaking our pledge because we do not raise it by two years when we do not want to do so?

Mr. SHERWELL

Since the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I will read to the House what I regard as a distinct and positive pledge. It is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take a different interpretation, but I will submit the words once more to the House. This is what the late Under-Secretary of State for War stated on 7th March this year: A man who reaches the age of forty-one before he is actually called up for service, whether he is a voluntarily attested man or a man deemed to be attested under the Military Service Act, is not called up, but is passed to the Reserve, and would not be subject to be called up for military service unless the age of military service is in future extended. Instructions on this point were issued some time ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, Col. 1341, Vol. LXXX.] I submit that is in the most explicit terms. Then, with reference to something said by an hon. Friend a moment or two ago, Lieut.-Colonel Henderson, who was Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby, wrote on 16th February: No man who attested under Lord Derby's scheme will be in any less favourable position than those who become attested under the Military Service Act. When a man reaches his forty-first birthday, he automatically becomes ineligible for military service. I submit that those words justify everything that I have said to-night concerning the danger of the assumption of a breach of pledge on the part of the Government. No one wants to cripple the effectiveness of the War Office in the conduct of this War, but I do submit to the right hon. Gentlemen that the Government are not placing themselves in a favourable position in the face of the country, nor in a position which is calculated to bring them the maximum strength, unless they do disabuse the country's mind of the impression that a pledge given from that Front Bench is not to be observed owing to what they deem a change of circumstances. If the circumstances change in the estimation of the Government, then let the Government come down to the House and frankly say that the circumstances have changed and ask for what they require. That is the straightforward course, and I submit that it is the course which will pay best in the long run in the conduct of this campaign.

Mr. PRINGLE

I am surprised that the Secretary of State for War should have resorted to the subterfuge that he has in relation to this pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The words in the answer quoted from Mr. Tennant were: Unless the age of military service is in future extended. What does that mean? The age in the Act of Parliament at the present time. This was a relaxation from the age standard in the Act of Parliament, and the relaxation was to continue until the age was in future extended. Those are the words. The present age is forty-one. A concession was made. I am not entering into the question whether it was wise to make the concession. I certainly doubt whether it was wise, but, haying made the concession, and having made it on these terms accompanied by a pledge, I think it was the duty of the Government to stick to it. After all, their credit in the country is worth something.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Is it?

Mr. PRINGLE

It is worth something to improve its credit.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Hear, hear!

Mr. PRINGLE

I know hon. Members opposite do not think much of their credit in the country at the present time, but these things are not improving their credit and their prestige in the country. After all, we had this same thing occur in connection with the pledge about the widow's only son. We know how it suited tender consciences on this side of the House to be told that the only son of a widow was not to be taken. I had a letter this morning from a widowed mother who has her own mother also living. Both of these women are unable to work for themselves, and are at the present time dependent upon an only son.

An HON. MEMBER

What has that to do with it?

Mr. PRINGLE

It is an illustration of their method of dealing with pledges. It is not creditable to the right hon. Gentleman that this should have gone on. This man is called up. Then we were told that the man who was the head of a single-man business, whose business depended entirely upon himself, was not to be called up. That pledge is also forgotten. Why, practically every pledge that was made in the course of the passing of the Military Service Act has been absolutely thrown aside. I do not mind you getting your Military Service Act if you will be honest about it. I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member to Dublin University would have preferred the Government to be honest in this matter. That is the difference between the Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir E. CARSON

The only thing I am concerned about is to get on with the War.

Mr. PRINGLE

The right hon. Gentleman professes to be honest with the country in getting on with the War. I quite agree with him to that extent; but I do not, I admit, agree with him on many points. I admire the honesty and frankness with which he puts his policy before the country. That is the difference between him and the Government. The Government cannot be straight with the country. They put forward their measures as small steps, and half-measures, as if they were not going to affect anybody. And the country may think that compulsory military service will not make an body a penny the worse. There is the widow's son; the man who is at the head of a single-man business, and the man who reaches forty-one before he gets notice. All these people were calmed, soothed, and conciliated until the Government got their Act. Having got their Act, and these people's fears having all been quietened and soothed, you turn round and say, "I have given a pledge which was only to act under existing circumstances." Existing circumstances! I thought the right hon. Gentleman would not have fallen to a method of defending himself so poor as that. After all, he is courageous. He has not been afraid to put forward a policy. Why then does he not say, this is absolutely necessary and we are quite prepared to go on as we promised to do.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Just what I say.

Mr. PRINGLE

No you did not. The point is that these men were to be free until the age was raised.

Mr. J. HOPE

Will you vote for it being raised?

Mr. PRINGLE

I shall be prepared to deal with that question when it arises.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Supposing we required 100,000 men and we could get them by raising the limit up to the limit of the Act, we could not do so the hon. Gentleman says, unless we brought in an Act of Parliament which would enable us to get 300,000 men. We do not want that.

Mr. PRINGLE

I say that is what you promised to do. After all, I do not think it is a bad thing if you are going on with this policy to be able to lay your hands on 300,000 men whenever you want them. It is extremely important, for everybody knows that 100,000 men are not going to look at the problem at the present time. It is hypocrisy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that 100,000 men is the essential thing. It is nothing like the demands of the War Office, and he knows that perfectly well. He knows that before very many months are over it will be necessary to come to Parliament for further measures.

Mr. R. McNEILL

Will you oppose them?

Mr. PRINGLE

Yes, I will, but I will be honest in opposing them as my hon. Friend opposite will be in supporting them. Why not do the honest thing both before Parliament and the country? What I object to is to get measures by promises which are not fulfilled and which were never intended to be fulfilled. I would also like, if you are going to get further legislation, to get rid of the whole mockery of tribunals. They are a fraud upon the country. Everybody knows now that any tribunal is not allowed to have a mind of its own. If the members go against the military representative and the Advisory Committee they are appealed against. Why get these men to waste their time in judging cases? Why not say definitely that everything is now in the hands of the local military representatives to be done by them? That is another example of your fraudulent methods. If you are going to have compulsion, let us have honest compulsion. Do not let us have compulsion tainted with fraud.

Mr. McNEILL

In one respect I am. bound to say that I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I do myself think that if a good deal of this legislation had been more thoroughgoing in the first instance, and a good many of the qualifications had not been put in, it would have been better. But I think the hon. Member is one of the very last to use that argument. The Government bring in a Bill of urgent importance for carrying on the War, a Bill for military service or something of the kind, and the hon. Member and his Friends exert all their influence and all the power, take out as much time as possible, and put every possible difficulty in the way of the Government carrying out that legislation. That has been done time after time. In deference to the persistence of the hon. Member and his Friends, those qualifications have been put in. Then hon. Members come down to the House and say, "Why in the world are you doing these things; no honest person wants them; sweep them away," while all the time the hon. Member and his Friends were responsible for these qualifications going in at all. So far as this particular measure is concerned, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Terrell) brought the matter up at Question Time, and has taken this opportunity of telling the Government that this matter is one which is exciting a good deal of attention in the country, and of procuring from the right hon. Gentleman opposite a promise that the whole matter shall be discussed at a later date. But I am sorry and surprised that the hon. Member who has just sat down has allied himself, for the present at all events, with the hon. Member for Blackburn, who started this discussion. I will do the hon. Member the justice to say that I believe he really wants to win the War.

Mr. PRINGLE

I allied myself this afternoon with the hon. Member for Chippenham.

Mr. MCNEILL

The hon. Member wants "to win the War?

Mr. PRINGLE

Yes.

Mr. McNEILL

I do not know that I could say the same of the hon. Member for Blackburn. If that hon. Member does wish to win the War, then his methods are peculiar to himself. With regard to the alleged pledge, I have listened to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and I absolutely and entirely accept his interpretation. I go further. I say that, supposing that upon the letter of the speeches which have been made that the interpretation was not tenable, fair, or above board, what did the hon. Member for Blackburn mean? Supposing that pledge had been given by a past Member of the Government; that the Government were not going to call men who might be required, does the hon. Member for Blackburn mean to say that the country would tolerate any right hon. Gentleman who refrained from getting the men necessary to win the War on account of something said by his predecessor?

Mr. SNOWDEN

No; what the country would expect would be that the Government would come before it in a straightforward way and not by subterfuge.

Mr. McNEILL

With all respect to the hon. Member, may I say that it is humbug to speak of subterfuge! What the hon. Member wants is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to raise the age to forty-two instead of forty-one. Is that what he means? If he does not mean that, does he mean anything? Supposing the Government were to bring in a Bill to-morrow to raise the age to forty-two, would the hon. Member support it?

Mr. SNOWDEN

Certainly not.

Mr. McNEILL

The hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. He makes attacks upon the Government because they do not do what he calls the honest way, and then he says, in answer to a question, that if they did the honest way he would oppose it.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I find it very difficult to appreciate the meaning which is attached to the word "pledge" by many of my hon. Friends in this discussion. A pledge seems to be regarded as a kind of bargain in which some Members of this House offer certain concessions, and in return for those being granted, as a result of an honourable bargain, the Government undertake to do certain things. There is a very great distinction between a declaration of intention and a pledge which is one side of a bargain. It may be suggested that this pledge was given as a condition of getting the Bill through.

Mr. PRINGLE

It never was.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I cannot conceive of a Government giving a pledge somewhat of this nature: "If you will give us certain power in a Bill we will give you a pledge that we will not exercise it." The so-called pledge seems to be a simple and plain declaration of intention, and it seems that the Government have changed their intention in regard to this matter. Every declaration of intention must be given under existing circumstances. Every declaration of intention must obviously be given under existing circumstances. If we are to say that in. a War of this kind the Government, having declared its intention, is never to change it, then we absolutely tie its hands and make it imposible for it to wage war successfully. So far as I am concerned, there is only one question in regard to this matter; that is: "Are these men needed?" If they are needed they ought to be taken. Of course, it is very deplorable that we should have to take men of forty-one. It is deplorable that we should have to take men of forty or men of thirty-five.

Sir W. BYLES

Or take them at all.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Quite so! So far as I am concerned, the one question which governs the whole matter is: Are these men necessary? From that point of view I can see no other alternative than that the Government ought to be supported.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I have been trying in the course of this Debate to come to some conclusion as to what its object really is. I can understand the Motion for the Adjournment upon which the whole question of the man-power of the country was to be considered, but I have listened to a Debate which I can only liken to the prewar proceedings in this House. I have often heard Debates in this House the avowed and obviously the only object of which was to damage the Government in power at that moment. I can see no object whatever in the attack which has been made to-night except an attempt to damage the Government in power for the time being. What is the position? There are certain people above the age of forty-one. Nobody wants to call them to the Colours if it can possibly be avoided. There have been those who are championing their cause. It is not only those who have spoken who have an intense desire to save men of forty-one, if they can be saved, from joining the Colours, but is the object of this to prevent men who are forty-one years of age from going to the Colours in any circumstances? No! That is not the object. The only object is to prevent them going unless men of older age are also required to go.

I could quite understand it if the object of this attack was really to save the men of forty-one, and to make it quite certain that in no circumstances would they be called up. On the showing of hon. Members themselves, what does it mean? That if the Government chose to come down and ask for powers to raise the age to forty-two or forty-three, then men of forty-one are bound to go. The Government knows perfectly well that if they came down here and said that they were satisfied that for the winning of this War men of forty-two or forty-three should be called up, they would get a majority of this House for the Bill, and the men of forty-one would have to go to the War. Not only would they get a majority in this House, but I believe that in the present state of public opinion they would get an overwhelming majority in the country who would say, "Let us be satisfied that these men are wanted and they shall be forthcoming." If that is so, what is the good of getting up here and ostensibly trying to prevent men of forty-one being called to the Colours, and making that an occasion for an attack upon the Government for a breach of faith—an attack in which the breaking of pledges by our enemies is compared to the Government's detriment? Is that kind of thing likely to do any good? Personally, I deplore the fact that those who wanted to deal with this subject could not have waited until we are given the day which has been promised, when the whole question can be considered upon its merits. I am satisfied—my opinion may be worth nothing—that sometimes some of us are more inclined to accept the opinion of the country as being reflected by a particular narrow opinion of those with whom we come in contact politically. So far as the country is concerned, at this moment, men of forty-one will have to go, men of forty-two will have to go, and men of forty-three will have to go if the Government come down here and satisfy the majority of this House and the country that that is necessary. The attack made to-day upon the Government, ostensibly in the interest of the men of forty-one, is not going to do the man of forty-one any good. It can only have the effect of weakening and damaging the Government, which appears to me to be the real object of the attack.

Mr. HOGGE

There is one point I want to put before the Debate closes, and I am rather sorry that the Secretary of State for War has gone before it is possible to get an answer. There was a phrase which he used in his speech which suggested to me that a further question ought to be put. The right hon. Gentleman said that we required these men of forty-one in order to man our new artillery. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is not here. I see his private Parliamentary secretary is here, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman could be brought to answer this question, because it does open up an avenue of thought which ought to make the House pause, if it is true. If it is true that men of forty-one are going to be used for the purpose of manning the new artillery, they are going to be put upon one of the most strenuous tasks open to anyone in the British Army.

Sir F. CAWLEY

What about the Infantry?

Mr. HOGGE

I am in this position, that I always take off my hat to the British Infantry, because if there is any man who has done more nobly than any other it is the Infantryman in the trenches. If you put a man of forty-one into the Artillery, apart from the practical fact that it may be a safer position in the field than in the trenches, it does lay these men open to very great fatigue and hard strain. I have reached this point with regard to the raising of men for the Army. I am not so much concerned now with the age of a man as with the fitness of a man, and I would rather see the Government taking fit men up to forty-five than taking unfit men at forty-one, especially as my hon. Friend suggests that they are for the Artillery, where they have to ride horses, to sit on the gun-carriages, learn to fire the gun, and so on. It is sometimes forgotten that one of the penalties of being forced to raise men in this way is that the community is being saddled with an ever-increasing burden of pensions. It is current opinion at present, strongly held, that the Medical Board, apart altogether from the question of age and eligibility, are passing into the Army men who break down very quickly. In fact, we have the contradiction of men being admitted into the Army fit for the purpose of fighting, and a few months later, having broken down in health, being denied a pension because the disability is not supposed to have been due to service. That is going to be the case more than ever with men who have reached the age of forty-one. I notice, for instance, that the Secretary of State for War stated that if he included all the men there would have been four Army Corps instead of two, and that suggested to me that the Secretary of State for War was cognisant of the fact that out of every two men who were eligible one was medically unfit. I should like an assurance that in taking these men of forty-one, my right hon. Friend will put personal pressure upon medical boards not to take a man of forty-one who is married if he is not absolutely physically fit, because if he is taken, within a few weeks or months he is going to be a burden upon the community, and I am sure he does not want that, but I should like, in view of the phrase he used about Artillery, to have it made plain.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Of course, I did not suggest that they would all go into the Artillery, but we certainly expect to get assistance from them in manning the Artillery. We should not take unfit men, especially for a task of that kind on which so much of the success of the Army depends. I can also assure my hon. Friend that unfit men will not be taken for general service. There are other services in the Army which are equally essential to the working of the organisation where men who are not fit for general service could be utilised. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying it is better to get a fit man of forty-five than an unfit man of forty-one, and that, you may depend upon it, the heads of the Army will take that into account.

Sir W. BYLES

I was unfortunate in not hearing the speech of the War Minister, but I think he delivered it before the time which was given to us when this Debate would begin. The only point I am concerned about is that the pledge given by the Government should be kept. I have a correspondent in my Constituency who says: Attested men are not in as favourable a position as unattested men or conscripts. The Prime Minister stated that in no case would this be allowed. Lieutenant-Colonel Henderson, Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby, wrote on 16th February: I have to inform you that no man who attests under Lord Derby's scheme will be in a less favourable position than those who become attested under the Military Service Act. Now, I understand, they are in a worse position. This man who has attested is called up before other men who are unattested, and he complains that younger men are left when he is being called, and that that is contrary to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I understood at Question Time that that inequality was to be removed, and I suppose is removed from this point, and that henceforth attested men will be in no worse position than unattested men. If that is so, I am content.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

I have been flooded with questions from my Constituents, as I dare say many other hon. Members have been, in the matter of the age of forty-one, and I have my own opinion still about the answer given by the Gov- ernment, but the moment that the Minister for War says he wants men I have nothing more to say, whether there was a pledge given or whether there was not. I should have preferred my right hon. Friend saying that the late Under-Secretary for War had rather given the show away, though it would have been hardly respectful to a colleague, but I still remain under the opinion that the Government gave a promise at that time. The necessities of war ride paramount over everything, and whether a promise was given or not, it is perfectly right now to take them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Nine o'clock.