Evening Post. SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1916. COMPULSORY SERVICE BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 6, 8 January 1916, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1916. COMPULSORY SERVICE BILL

The majority of almost four to one by which the House of Commons has carried' the first reading of the British Government's Military Service Bill is gladdening the hearts of the friends of the Empire to-day. They had previously rejoiced at the magnificent response which Lord Derby's recruiting campaign had evoked. J.t was a wonderful thing that, after fifteen months of such successful volunteering that the British Army had come to be reckoned in millions instead of thousands, nearly 3,000,000 more men should have come forward in answer to their country's call. The Times declares that this result would be impossible in any other country in the world, and certainly the world' had never seen anything like it before. But, unfortunately for those who, like ourselves, hoped to see Britain carry the war to a triumphant conclusion without departure from the voluntary principle, Lord Derby's three million recruits had not signed on unconditionally, The married men had been told, in the plainest possible terms, both by Lord Derby and by Mr Asquith himself, that the unmarried men without dependents would be called up first, and the object of the Military Service Bill is to make good this pledge.' In his speech on ..the introduction of the Bill Mr. Asquith took some pains to justify the giving of the pledge "Not only Lord Derby," he said, "but the employers of labour and the voluntary, canvassers, gave ;him overwhelming evidence that his pledge was&necessary, and showed that married men who were willing and anxious to serve were holding back in large numbers before they committed themselves, needing the assurance that the singles would do their duty. ; If no assurance had been given, there would have been serious danger of the whole campaign breaking down, and where should we have been then?" On the 2nd November, when the pledge was first given, it was generally approved. So far from being a conscriptionist dodge, it has served as a powerful stimulus to the success of the Derby rally. But the practical qtiestion now is not whether the undertaking was wisely given, but whether, having been given, it can be ignored, or explained away . . * ■

Sir John Simon, who has given conclusive proof of, Bis sincerity by his re r cignation, endeavours to whittle away the pledge with a subtlety' which to the lay mind is more ingenious than convincing He declares' that the number of single men who have not attested is negligible, because the true criterion is not their absolute number but the proportion of them that could be spared for military service But why should the unmarried defaulters be alone discounted in this fashion? The discount should clearly be applied all round. Lord Derby admits that of the 651,000 unmarried men who did not attest less than 200,000 are actually available, but who can say that, if the number is 190,000 or even 100,000, it can be treated as negligible? The married men who signed on the understanding that the others would be called first would have practically the same grievance in the one case as in the other. There are really only two alternatives. It would be possible, as Mr Asquith says, to release ■the married men, numbering 400,000. This would be possible, but it would also 'be possible to lose the war, and this would be a good way to set about it. To dispense with 400,000 men would, indeed, in the Premier's words, "create a huge gap in the scheme which provided the million men voted the other day." And whither should we turn to fill this huge gap, either now or within any practicable interval? The other alternative is that which the Government, with the approval of an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, and probably of a still larger majority of the people, both of Great Britain and of the Empire, has decided to take. Single men of military age who have no ground for exemption are to be treated as though, they had attested and enlisted. The grounds of exemption, which include conscientious objection, are wide. The Bill provides the mildest measure of compulsion possible if the compulsory principle is to be adopted at all It must be passed, or the British forces must begin to dwindle at the very time when the numerical superiority of the Allies was expected to assert itself decisively against the waning resources of Germany Germany's one hope is centred on the opposition of the Labour Party. The danger cannot be ignored, but Labour is not unanimous in opposing the Bill, and wo believe that it will disappoint the Ka-iucr, aa it did at Uiy beginning oi the .war..