DOOR STILL OPEN TO VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENT.

Colonist, Volume LVII, Issue 13978, 7 January 1916, Page 5

DOOR STILL OPEN TO VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENT.

STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN SIMON

A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN

(Received Jan. 6, 8.35 p.m.)

London, Jan. 6

Mr. Asquith said he still hoped the Bill would be a dead letter. Let these men come forward of their own free will. The group system was re-opened meantime. The Government must make provision to keep their promise, and must not allow it to be said that they dallied or delayed in the performance of an obligation of honour.

Sir John Simon, who followed, said he did not,rise to make a personal explanation. Ho had made his choice* which was the more difficult and painful because he owed to Mr. Asquith all the help and encouragement which could be given a younger man,, and every opportunity he had enjoyed in party life. But it seemed to him that this Bill should be resisted. The Bill was specially recommended1 because it was a fulfilment of a pledge. It must be distasteful to Mr Asquith that many who effusively assured him of their perfect confidence that he would keep his word were the very men and newspapers who for years past had-made it their trade to accuse him without "reason of breaking faith. A sensitive, scrupulous,- honourable man exposed to such gratuitous assurances from such quarters might well be too ready to perform what he thought to bt, the

GABLE NEWS.

[Pbess 'Association—Cofybight.]

letter of his bond before the conditions he attached had' been fulfilled. The issue was a great statesman's faith, but no honest Englishman doubted that the real issue was whether to introduce a fundamental change in society.

Sir John Simon continued that Lord Derby's report did not show bankruptcy of voluntary effort, but attachment to a national institution whereby alone the nation could remain united. He hoped the Bill would not reach the Statute Book, but if it did he would not associate himself with anyone violently resisting the law. He regarded compulsion not as a mere matter of expediency, but as a vital principle in the national \Hq. Mr. Asquith on November 2nd indicated that compulsion could only be brought in with something like general consent: He believed that men were still remaining in the Cabinet v, ith views identical with his own. The condition attached to Mr. Asquith's pledge was that the facts should be most fully learned, and legislation could come afterwards. That condition had not been fulfilled. There were many strange features about Lord Derby's

report, but the strangest was the manner in which a negligible minority was attached to the wrong figure. The right figure was the number spareable for military service. Who dared to say that figure was more than a negligible minority? He doubted whether there was a substantial number of shirkers, for whom he had no sympathy. The Bill reversed the promised programme. They were now legislating first and investigating afterwards. Some regarded voluntaryism as a priceless heritage, and if they were going to sell their birthright they should make sure that the mess of pottage would provide a square meal. The Bill brought in compulsion in the dark, arousing bitter divisions without an assurance that benefit was likely to result. Would the principle of compulsion stop with the Bill? Lord Derby had eaid that he felt somewhat in the. position of o receiver put in to wind up a bankrupt concern;

Sir John Simon denied that the young men of England refused to pay their debt. He appealed to the House not to pay Prussian militarism the compliment of imitation. Their first task should bo to thoroughly investigate the facts. ■ . ■

Mr. Hodge (Labour) said ho thought the voluntary system had failed*. Mr. Asqnith's pledge to married men did not bind the Labour party, whose attitude would be largely dictated by the decision of the conference to-morrow. If the decision was adverse he hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. There must be no industrial conscription.

Mr. Hobhouse said he did not oppose the Bill, but he wanted an assurance that it would be a temporary measure and not be made permanent.

Sir William Byles opposed the Bill because he had an invincible objection to compulsion in any form.

Mr. Boscawen said it was impossible otherwise to maintain the strength of the Army.: He could not understand a patriotic Englishman opposing the Bill.

Mr. J. Thomas (Labour) resented the suggestion that opponents of the Bill were unpatriotic. A deep-rooted suspicion prevailed among the workers that conscription was being forced upon the Government not with a new of winning the war but in response to the demand" of a certain> section, of the newspapers. Conscription always retarded the progress of the workers. An executive representing 300,000 railwaymen resolved to-day to go to any length to .see that conscription should not become law. Labour believed that conscription was always the result of a huge conspiracy. There had not been a systematic oanvass, and' therefore he urged that Lord Derby's scheme be reopened. He implored the Government to realise the dangers ahead.

General Seely said he had always believed that a voluntary army fought better. It was undesirable to have a considerable proportion of unwilling men, but the number of unwilling men would be small. Therefore that objeo-' tion was untenable. They ought to, support Lord Kitchener and the Government. General Seely repudiated the vile suggestion of a deep laid capitalistic plot.

Mr. Redmond drew attention to the sacrifices Irishmen had made and continued to make. The Nationalists did' not support the Bill, although they had previously supported ©very war proposal. Ireland thoroughly identified herself with the Empire, and was determined as far as her poor resources allowed to make the fullest sacrifices to hasten a successful issue. All the Irish members opposed the Bill, but if Mr. Asquith was able to show that voluntaryism had broken down and compulsion was the only means possible of raising the necessary men, no-Trody would allow his personal anti-conscrip-tion predilections to standjn the way.

Lord Lonsdale said, the exclusion of Ireland was degrading and humiliating to that country, which had become a shirkers'refuge;

Mr/ J. Dillon said Ireland had more than done her duty. Irishmen did not need conscription, to make them fight; Ireland was rightly excluded. He opposed the Bill because it had not been shown to be necessary. The real reason for it was that Mr. Asquith had been tripped into making the pledge.

Mr. Bonar Law said that*ivithout Mr. Asquith's pledge Lord Derby's scheme

CABLE NEWS.

[Bbess Association- -Cop ybight. ]

would have been an absolute failure. Any plain' man looking at the figures could-see without a shadow of doubt that the condition mentioned in Mr. Asquith's pledge had now arisen.

Mr. Bonar Law said that if the House decided that there was no national necessity for the pledge Mr. Asquith would resign.

The debate was adjourned