CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Prolong Period of Naval, Military, or Air Force Service.) (Hansard, 14 April 1919)

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. The Amendments proposed by their Lordships appear to me to be based on a misconception of the Bill and also of the facts. This particular Amendment is designed, in the first place, to include soldiers of the Regular Army within its scope; but that is only the first stage, because there is a consequential proviso proposed to be inserted at the end of Subsection (2) in these terms: Provided that, before an Order is made under this Section applicable to soldiers of the Regular or Territorial Forces of the Crown who had enlisted prior to the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days, during which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those fourteen days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order. The House of Lords appears to be anxious to have a guarantee for the prewar soldiers and Territorials in the Bill. They are on the same basis, and they cannot be held, but tire desire seems to be that there should be no change unless the Order relating to them lies for fourteen days on the Table of the House. There seems to be an idea that we wish to make a discrimination in favour of the Regular Army. That is a delusion. These men are excluded from the Bill. Some are serving for twelve years, some for twenty-one years. They are not required. We have a stronger hold upon them, but there is no analogy between them and the others, and it is not neces- 2684 sary to bring them within this Bill. So far as the Territorials are concerned, we are most anxious to let them go as soon as ever we can. The other House appears to be anxious that all this should be in the Bill. That is all very well, but if you put all these details in a Schedule that would set out what they ask and would not meet the case. The Government has stated its intentions, both in Debate and in other ways, and they should be held to the terms of the Order, and the House can see for itself the terms of the Order. There is no class of man more entitled to release than the pre-war Territorials. I am working in every way to secure their release at the earliest possible moment, and I think I am bound to guarantee that the first charge upon our energies shall be the release of these men. We have got 65,000 men. They are not now coming in at the rate of 1,000 a day. There has been a lamentable falling off, but still, we have these 65,000 men, and I hope that the Territorials will be released at the end of the present year, that at least nine out of ten will be then brought home as soon as the torrid conditions of the Bed Sea will enable us to bring them. Therefore, I hope that this misconception of the difficulties of the problem by the Lords will not be allowed to influence the action of the House. There is no real difference between us at all in the policy. It is only a question whether this aspect of policy should be written in upon the Statute Book, and written in in such a way which, if the argument were pressed, I could show would involve us in all sorts of administrative inconveniences and expose us to the general criticism that hard cases do not make good law.

§ Sir D. MACLEAN
There was a time when any Motion from the Government Bench by any Government to disagree with the House of Lords would have met with my hearty assent, but in these days, when a large amount of the expression of the desires and aspirations of democracy arc left to another place, I feel that one wants a little information before he assents to this proposal. So far as I am concerned the explanation given by the Secretary of State for War satisfies me, and I have nothing more to add.

§ Mr. KILEY
I followed with a good deal of interest the speech of the Secretary of State for War in expressing the desire to release at the earliest possible moment those Territorials who have played so im- 2685 portant a part in the service of the country. But there are some other Territorials to whom the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. Those are the men who have done their duty in the firing line but who are no longer fit for active service in the field and who have been drafted into labour battalions. There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not show sympathy to those men by endeavouring to obtain their very early release. They have been wounded or have lost their health while serving their country, and now, being no longer fit for that, they have been posted to labour units, many of them to units in this country. I shall be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he proposes to deal with those men without delay.

§ Captain LOSEBY
I regard this Amendment that has come from the House of Lords as being not quite so mistaken as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I regard it as an Amendment which is necessarily harassing to the high authorities at the War Office, which, at the present moment, is carrying out an extraordinarily difficult task with extraordinary confidence. I will read the Amendment, as perhaps hon. Members have not had the same opportunity as myself of getting it. It says Provided that, before an Order is made under this Section applicable to soldiers of the Regular or Territorial Forces of the Crown who had enlisted prior to the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen. The right hon. Gentleman has assured the House that he would bring back to civil life at the earliest possible moment any soldiers who had enlisted prior to 1916. We are all perfectly aware—it is right to openly acknowledge and face the fact—that it has been necessary to detain certain troops, more particularly Territorial troops, who had enlisted even prior to 1914. It is right that we should frankly take this opportunity of expressing our absolute and complete confidence in the right hon. Gentleman who has opposed this Amendment, on the ground that he has been and is doing all that human man can do on behalf of these men. I want this Amendment to be a vote of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the facts and frankly facing them, because I am particularly pledged to oppose the Government on soldiers' questions if I can swell out anything in the nature of a grievance. I can find none in this case. What would be the effect of 2686 the Amendment? I may be wrong, but from the military point of view, it appears to be this. Suppose you force this Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman, he would still possibly not be able to bring these troops back for physical reasons, and you would have men retained in the Army who would not be under control. The Military Service Act, previous to this, would automatically operate, so that these men might be still in the Army, and you would have no control over them.

§ Colonel MILDMAY
I am glad that I have heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I have been rather uneasy on the point. It was difficult to understand why Regular soldiers should be specifically mentioned. I am sorry that the representative of the Government in the House of Lords did not make the very plain and satisfactory defence which the right hon. Gentleman has made. A great number of these men—I think that the 1st Wessex Division is primarily concerned—went to India in September, 1914. It was appealed to by Lord Kitchener to do so. It received a promise from Lord Kitchener that it would have priority in demobilisation. The Government the other day was obliged to admit that it was impossible to fulfil the terms of that promise. The men were not unreasonable. They bowed before necessities of the situation and they, I think, are willing to believe that the War Office is prepared to do its utmost to demobilise at the earliest possible moment those who were serving before January, 1916.