§ LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, I want to ask the Government three Questions of which I have given the noble Marquess on the Front Bench private notice—namely (1) What will be the position of affairs, having regard to what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on November 2, if enough single men without reasonable excuse do not enlist? (2) What number of single men do the Government conceive to be requisite and necessary for the prosecution of the war? (3) What shortage in numbers of single men without reasonable excuse would create a position of the kind indicated by the Prime Minister in his speech in the House of Commons on November 2?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I will endeavour to answer the Questions of which my noble friend has given me private notice. He asks, in the first place, what will be the position of affairs, having regard to what the Prime Minister said about recruiting in the House of Commons on November 2, if enough single men without reasonable 402 excuse do not enlist. I desire to recall the attention of the House to what was actually said by the Prime Minister on November 2. The Prime Minister on that occasion expressed his confidence in the success of the recruiting appeal made by Lord Derby, and said that if, when every just allowance had been made for other necessary work, there should still be found a substantial number of men of military age not required for other purposes, who, without excuse, held back from the service of their country, he (the Prime Minister) believed that the very same conditions which made compulsion impossible now—namely, the absence of general consent—would force the country to the view that they must consent to supplement by some form of legal obligation the failure of the Voluntary system. And he proceeded to say—
As far as I myself ant concerned, I should be prepared to recommend them to take that course.The Prime Minister went on to refer to a doubt which he was led to believe prevailed among married men who are now being asked to enlist whether, having enlisted, or promised to enlist, they may not be called upon to serve while younger and unmarried men are holding back, and not doing their duty. The Prime Minister said—Let them at once disabuse themselves of that idea. So far as I am concerned I should certainly say that the obligation of the married man to enlist ought not to be enforced or held to be binding upon him unless and until—I hope by voluntary effort, and, if not, by some other means—the unmarried teen art, dealt with.That was the original statement, and if any doubt could have been entertained as to the significance of those words I think it ought to have been removed by the statement published by Lord Derby on the 13th of this month, a statement which was authorised by the Prime Minister and which contained these words—Lord Derby is further authorised to state definitely that if young men medically fit and not indispensable to any business of national importance or to any business conducted for the general good of the community do not come forward voluntarily before November 30, the Government will, after that date, take the necessary steps to redeem the pledge made on November 2.I am told that from the words which I have read it has been inferred that no one married man is to be liable to be called up until every unmarried man has been first called up, and further that 403 if any unmarried men, no matter how small the number, were to hold back, His Majesty's Government would thereby be bound to have recourse to compulsion. That seems to me an entirely forced interpretation of the language held first by the Prime Minister and afterwards by Lord Derby on the Prime Minister's authority, and we, at any rate, none of us, interpret the words in that sense. Indeed, it would be absurd to suppose that the success or failure of Lord Derby's appeal could be determined merely by the fact of, say, half-a-dozen or a score of unmarried men failing to come forward and engage. What was, I think, present to all our minds was that we should expect Lord Derby not only to get the necessary number of men, but that he should get the necessary kind of men, and that he would not hate succeeded in getting the necessary kind of men if it should be found that the recruits taken were largely drawn from the married class, and that there was a general shirking on the part of unmarried men.My noble friend next asks me what number of single men the Government consider to be requisite and necessary for the prosecution of the war, and, further, what shortage in numbers of single men without reasonable excuse would create a position of the kind indicated by the Prime Minister. I am not prepared to tell my noble friend what number of single men are necessary for the prosecution of the war or what shortage of single men would justify us in resorting to compulsion. We do not make our calculation exactly in that way. It is quite true—I am sure my noble friend is aware of it—that, thanks to the information derived from the National Register, we are able to form a fairly trustworthy estimate of the number of unmarried men of military age who are to be found in the different occupations. But although we have that information, it seems to me that we should be very ill-advised if we were to name a minimum figure or a minimum percentage and say that unless that precise number of unmarried men were forthcoming we should assume that there had been a failure of Lord Derby's appeal. There is a reason for that which I will give and which I think will appeal to my noble friend. He makes it quite clear that he is speaking of unmarried men who have no reasonable excuse.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEYes.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAs my noble friend knows, there are certain classes of men in civil employment who are recognised as being required for various services in which it is conceived that they are essential to the public interest. But it is not always quite easy to determine whether a given man falls or does not fall within those categories. We may even have to get those questions decided by tribunals which are now being set up all over the country. I mention that because it shows that to put forward anything like a precise estimate, while we remain in ignorance of the result of these proceedings, would be imprudent. What will happen, I believe, will be this. As soon as the time limit which has been allowed to Lord Derby for his recruiting appeal has been exhausted, Lord Derby will make a report to His Majesty's Government; he will give them the fullest information not only as to the numbers of men but as to the classes of men whom he has succeeded in enlisting, and with those figures and with Lord Derby's advice before us we should be able, taking a broad, common-sense view, to say whether the experiment has been a failure or a success.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very clear way in which he has answered my Questions. I suppose it would be pushing him too far to ask whether, having regard to the present position of your military affairs, you have in mind a precise number of single men whom you must get before you come to the married men—not the precise number you can get, but the precise number you must have. I do not wish to press that if it is inconvenient, but that is what I wanted to get at.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI would much prefer, if my noble friend desires further information, that he should put a Question on the Paper.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, there was one thing which the noble Marquess said which did not carry conviction to my mind. As I understood him he said, as a reason for not being able to state now at what point the Government would bring in compulsion, that they could not tell how many unmarried men they were 405 going to get until these tribunals had pronounced whether certain men were free to leave their work or not. I would point out that these tribunals do not begin to act until the man has enlisted. If therefore he does not enlist he does not come under a tribunal at all, unless there is compulsion. The tribunals do not come into play until the man has enlisted. How, then, could the proceedings before the tribunal enable the Government to form their estimate?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe decision of these tribunals may affect very considerably the total number of men who will prove to be eligible for service in the Army. My point was that to attempt to give an exact or precise figure, which was what my noble friend asked me for, would be an unwise attempt at prophecy so long as there remained those unknown factors.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSIs that quite so? Supposing the Government decide that they want 1,000,000 unmarried men and they get that number. It is only when they have got their 1,000,000 that the tribunals come in. The tribunals may decide that you cannot have 200,000 of them; therefore you would have only 800,000; what then? But supposing you want 1,000,000 and you get only 500,000; the question of the tribunals does not come in at all. I still do not follow the noble Marquess's argument.