THORNY ISSUE

Evening Star, Issue 26067, 3 April 1947, Page 7

THORNY ISSUE

Conscription in Britain Break With Socialist Tradition 'AT Heavy Vote Against Government (N.Z.P.A. Special Correspondent.) [(Ree. 11.30 a.m.) LONDON, April 2. There was a touch of history in the making in the recent House of Commons debate on conscription, which has held the chief attention of the nation during the past two days. It was the final breaking of a Socialist tradition of opposition to compulsory national service which, from the birth of the Labour Party until 1931, has been bitterly rejected. This traditional feeling was one of the main planks ©f the split in the Labour Party when it came to voting on the National Service Bill. Those who voted against the Government comprised many Pacifists, but in addition there were others who believe Britain cannot afford to maintain her armed forces at the expense of her industry, and also those who disapprove of Mr Bavin and the present British Foreign policy. So strong was the feeling among this group that it recorded the biggest Labour vote against the Government in this Parliament, while there were also many Labour abstentions.

Beginning of Real Crack

It was particularly disappointing to the Government, especially after Mr Attlee’s appeal on Monday at a private party meeting. It was then hoped that not more than half of the 77 members who backed the rejection mo* tion would vote against the Bill. Opinions differ on the effect the vote will have on the Government and the Labour Party. Mr T. Scollan, Labour member for Renfrew West, declared: “ This is the beginning of a real crack in the parliamentary Labour Party,” Adding that he was facing facts, he said: " It is no use hiding your head in the sand and saying this thing will blow over to-morrow. It won’t.” Op the other hand, the ‘ Daily Telegraph,’ in a leader, while saying the vote against the Government was not a trivial affair, says that to believe it portends a serious permanent fissure in the Socialist Party would be a mistake. “ The truth is,” says the paper,

“ the party leaders have been in this respect sobered by a responsibility which does not appear so evident to the rank and file.” The chief interest in the debate itself was perhaps taken in the speeches by the Minister of Labour, Mr G. A. Isaacs, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Churohill, and the Minister of Defence, Mr A. V. Alexander. Mr Isaacs defended the Bill with great and almost unexpected vigour, and promised that recruits would not be known as conscripts, but’ as national servicemen. “ There is no Intention on our part,” he said, “ to engage in a fight with anyone, but someone may want to have a fight with us, and for that reason we have to be prepared to defend our country and the principles in which we believe.” He added that it might be possible to shorten the period of service, and pointed out that powers were given in the Bill to that end.

Mr Churchill in Form

Mr' Churchill enjoyed himself in a highly-diverting address, and the ‘ Manchester Guardian’s ’ parliamen- , tary correspondent commented that it v 'provided the brightest entertainment Itjie House had ];ad siQce his last speech. “ On 'this occasion,” he began With a’roguish wave of hit hands • towards the Treasury bench, " we support His Majesty’s Govern- . ment.” It became a refrain, and, says the correspondent, he repeated it time and again with the beautiful dissimulation of bringing assistance to a Government hard pressed by “ feckless and crack pate ” elements behind it. Mr Churchill was not satisfied with the Government’s Defence White Paper. No more barren, dismal, flatulent, or platitudinous document was ever presented.' He saw no reason why the Navy should not specify the number of ships and fleets it had in commission. He advocated the establishment of an All-Party Committee to sit in secret on the use of. man power in the forces with full powers to call for persons and papers. He added that he believed that many scores of millions of pounds could be saved in the estimates. Mr Churchill also chided Mr Alexander for his recent aggressive attack on pre-war Conservative policy. “ You should not do things so nakedly,” he said, and quoted the Latin tag “ ars

est celare artem.” With his Harrovian background in mind he added: “ Which, for the' benefit of Etonians on the Socialist side, I will explain means that the art is to conceal art.” Mr Alexander, winding up for the .Government, turned down Mr Churfchiirs proposals for a committee, but he said that 44 per cent, of the Nav* waß ashore, 40 per cent, afloat and 15 per cent, engaged in up-to-date services not known 15 years ago. By 1054 (the last year of the Bill’s span) the number of men in uniform under training would not exceed 300,000 and the number of trained men in the reserve for the five and a-half year period would then be 1,700,000. Mr Alexander refused a suggestion by Mr K. Zilliacus (Lab.) to instruct the chiefs of staff to frame annual estimates on, the assumption that Britain would not be involved in a war for 10 years and would not be engaged, in war with the United States or Russia. He added that lie was unwilling to d0,.50 until “I see more clearly what is the outcome of the present negotiations and the development of F.N.0.” At the end of the debate embarrassed Government members . found themselves voting with the Conservatives. “It the Opposition had not done so there would have been a desperately slender majority for the Bill,” comments ‘ Tne Times.’ “ The existence of the Government itself might have been imperilled.” '