MILITARY SERVICE BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIX, Issue XLIX, 13 January 1916, Page 5

MILITARY SERVICE BILL

A UNANIMOUS CABINET

SECOND' READING DEBATE.

LONDON, Jan \%. t In the House of Commons, Mr Asquith, in Teply to a question, said the Cabinet -were, "unanimous. The men provided hy the Bill were indispensable to the Army. The question of the minimum number of male porkers for industrial work, overseas trade, and other vital interests of the Empire was ongaging the most serious attention. Mr Anderson ("Labour), moved the rejection of the Compulsion Bill. : Mr Will Thome protested, amid cheers-, that -Mr Anderson did not represent the Labour Party. • Mr Anderson denied that there was anything like general consent'in the House or the country in favour of the measure. There was no evidence that the slackers weremore than a negligible quantity. If the Bill was passed it would be impossible to defend the principle of taking an unmarrie-d man of forty years in preference £o a married man of twenty. Therefore we were starting towards universal conscription, which he believed foreboded industrial, compulsion. The Bill was the result of ideas which had been germinating in Mr Lloyd George's mind for some-.time, and he presented an ultimatum to Mr Asquith' on his return from Glasgow. Mr Asquith said Mr. Lloyd (George had not made any communication to him of any sort. Mr Anderson : It is reported 'in the "Daily Mail." Mr Asquith: , I cannot contradict every lyin ff report. Mr Anderson added that the Bill meant the subjection of the -workers to the capitalists. If Mr Asquith proceeded with the Bill he would be looking for trouble and he would get it. Mr Redmond intimated that the Nationalists would not further oppose the BilL JMr Redmond said he had not changed his views concerning the measure, and only national necessity could justify its introduction. Since the division he and his colleagues had found that it was purely an English Bill, and as there was a 10 t& 1 majority m its favour the Nationalists felt that they would incur grave responsibility by continuing their opposition . Sir Edward Carson recognised MiRedmond's sincerity, but regretted that he had not gone a step further and allowed Ireland to be included in the Bill, which had ibeen delayed.to the last moment. The Dardanelles undertaking had been admirably conceived, but it failed owing to shortness of men. Not a single argument had been advanced as to how to carry out the war without men. As an alternative the argument was used that we would injure this or ■.that industry- by taking more men. What did all that matter so long as wo won the war? The opponents of the Bill were doing an ill service to the country by referring to tlie extension of compulsion. The Bill was the most anaemic he ever knew. The question of industrial compulsion required examination as to whether it would do more harm than good. If it would shorten the war, why shirk it? He would not shrink from conscription of property if needful. He was profoundly disappointed at the coalition Government .excluding Ireland, which had not done half as ■well as Britain in the matter of recruiting. i Mr Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ire- ; land, estimated that the*e were 400,000 j unattested unmarried men of military ftge in Ireland, of whom a. quarter of ia'million were engaged in agriculture ; 25,000 in munitions and shipyard work; and 10,000 'in railway and seafaring occupations. Altogether tho necessary deductions left a reservoir of 80,000.

MFMBERS OF PARLIAMENT NOT j EXEMPT. i (Rec. Jan. 13. 8.5 a.m.) j LONDON, Jan. 12. «' •In the House of Commons, Mr Asquith, in reply to a question, said that members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons of military, age could not claim exemption from the Conypnlsion 'Bill.