that no more men could be spared from industry; the motion being seconded by Mr. H. B. Lees Smith. The defence of the Bill was then taken up by Mr. Lloyd George. He pointed out that it was a very serious thing for members to oppose the advice of the Military Authorities, who believed that the men who could be supplied by this Bill alone would make the difference between defeat and victory. He would, he said, rather be driven out of the Liberal Party and indeed out of public life than have on his conscience such opposition as that. It was of the essence of a system of compulsion that men should not be taken for the Army who could be better employed in shipbuilding or any other industry; and compulsion was the best guarantee against such instances of bad organisation. He affirmed that there was a vast majority both in the House and in the country in favour of the Bill, for no country had saved itself from great military peril without resort to compulsory service. The majority of the speeches, which followed, accepted and supported the Bill, but Sir John Simon repeated his former objections to compulsion, although agreeing that there was no limit to the sacrifices which we ought to make to win the war. The Bill was defended in particular by Mr. Henderson who in the course of his speech gave figures with regard to the men obtained under the previous Military Service Act. The critics of that Act had represented that it could not possibly bring in the 650,000 men which the Government anticipated. As a matter of fact, Mr. Henderson stated, it had brought in 750,000, of whom the Army would receive 300,000 and had already received 187,000. Throughout the debate it was noticeable that far less excitement prevailed among members than had been the case during the passage of the previous Act earlier in the year. After a comparatively short debate the second reading was carried by 328 votes against 36, giving a majority of 292. The minority was composed of 26 Liberals, 9 Labour Members, and one Independent Nationalist (Mr. Ginnell).

The Committee stage of the Military Service Bill was taken on May 9. Sir John Lonsdale moved an amendment, the effect of which would have been to bring Ireland within the scope of the measure. This suggestion, however, was opposed by Mr. Asquith, who said that compulsion in regard to Ireland was not a matter of agreement, and its introduction at present would involve delay in the passage of a measure which was urgently demanded by the Army. Sir Edward Carson affirmed that the real reason for the exclusion of Ireland was the advice of Mr. Redmond. If Mr. Redmond, knowing his countrymen as he did, declared that it would be impossible to carry out compulsion in Ireland the matter must remain there. He thought that Irishmen must feel it as something of a disgrace to Ireland, and he blamed the Government for failing to suppress the anti-recruiting campaign in that country.

Sir Edward Carson was followed by Mr. Redmond himself,

who declared that it would not only be wrong and unwise, but even insane to attempt to enforce compulsion in Ireland in existing circumstances. He expressed his conviction that if Irishmen had had both power and responsibility in the government - of Ireland during the last two years, the recent occurrences in that country would not have happened. He had done his best for recruiting and he claimed that Ireland had done well in the war. Ultimately, the amendment was withdrawn without a division.

But the part of the Military Service Bill which gave greater difficulty than any other was that which concerned Conscientious Objectors. On May 11 a prolonged discussion took place on this subject, and Mr. Harvey moved a new clause to secure that the condition attaching to the exemption of Conscientious Objectors should be the performance of some work of national importance that did not involve service under any Military Authority. Lord Hugh Cecil and a number of other members urged that no penalty should attach to Conscientious Objection. Mr. Long, who confessed that he almost despaired of finding a solution of the difficulty, invited practical suggestions as to how Conscientious Objectors should be dealt with. The proposed new clause, however, was withdrawn.

In the course of its passage through Committee few alterations of any importance were made. Amendments were introduced for limiting the prolongation of the service of Territorials, whose time for discharge occurred before the end of the war, to men under 41; for the restoration of men already discharged to their former rank on re-enlistment; for the re-examination under certain conditions of men medically rejected since August 14, 1915; for the exemption from military service of any person who had been a prisoner of war, and a few other minor points.

On the report stage on May 15, the question of Conscientious Objection was again prominent. Sir Frederick Banbury urged that no one should be considered as a Conscientious Objector who had not on June 1, 1914, belonged to a religious body one of whose tenets was hostility to combatant military service, but this suggestion was subsequently withdrawn. Mr. Edmund Harvey moved a new clause with the general object of saving the Conscientious Objector from penalties; and Mr. Long undertook to introduce into the Bill words pointing out that Tribunals might give certificates of exemption from all forms of military service. On one of Mr. Harvey's amendments a division took place, and it was found that the champions of the Conscientious Objector numbered fifty-two in the Lobby.

The question of the exemption of the sole head of a business was discussed on the same day. It appeared to be felt that special favour should be shown to persons who came under this category; but Mr. Long took the line that there were legal dangers in statutory definition, and he thought that the sole heads of businesses would be much better off if they relied upon the

general terms of the Bill. He undertook to issue a circular to the Tribunals calling attention to the special claims of such men, and suggesting to them that these cases required serious consideration. After some further discussion the amendment moved by Mr. King on this subject was defeated by a majority of 123.

A long debate took place on May 16 on the proposal to review medical certificates of exemption already granted; and as a result of this debate the Government promised:

1. That men would not be recalled for re-examination who had already been so thoroughly examined that their exemptions were recorded in the official documents retained by the Military Authorities, and

2. That the Adjutant-General would be urged to fix a date by which the Army Council must give notice to the medically rejected that they had to present themselves for medical examination afresh.

An amendment for the purpose of raising the minimum age of conscripts from 18 to 19 was rejected by a large majority, but words were incorporated in the Bill to insure that no soldier under 19 should be sent out of the country except in case of military necessity.

The Labour Party showed considerable opposition to the clause which reduced to two weeks the two months' grace from military compulsion allowed by the original Act to munition workers out of employment. An amendment was proposed that the earlier period should be restored in the present Bill with safeguards to insure that the privilege should be limited to men engaged in work of national importance. Mr. Long agreed to accept this amendment and was in consequence somewhat warmly attacked by Sir Frederick Banbury who charged him and the Government with having, at the dictation of the Labour Party, gone back upon their undertaking to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the amendment was carried without a division, and the report stage being then concluded the House divided on the motion for the third reading, which was carried by 250 votes against 35, the minority consisting of 26 Liberals and 9 Labour Members.

The Military Service Bill having thus passed safely through the House of Commons found an easy passage through the House of Lords. In the course of the second reading debate on May 18, Lord Lansdowne announced that a scheme was under consideration for dealing with Conscientious Objectors. He referred to the difficulties of the Tribunals, which he said were doing their work increasingly well. He thought that it would be a mistake in the effort to avoid injustice to open the door too wide to possible exemptions. During the Committee stage on May 22, Lord Reay moved an amendment with the object of reducing the period of grace to be allowed to men in certified occupations or in munition works from two months to two

weeks. The amendment reserved the full period of two months for those who could prove the bona-fide nature of their occupations, by showing that they were similarly engaged before August, 1915; and was aimed only at the men who had gone into such occupations in order to avoid military service. This amendment was agreed to, and on May 23 the third reading was carried. When the Lords' amendments were considered in the House of Commons on May 24 no change of any importance was made. There was considerable discussion about industrial compulsion; and the Labour Party forced a division on the Lords' amendments limiting the period of grace for men who had lost their certificates of exemption; but the Government, and eventually the House, accepted the amendment, and Mr. Long disarmed much of the opposition by announcing that in order to prevent industrial compulsion the Labour Party had been asked to join a small Committee to advise the Army Council on these problems. The Bill received the Royal assent on May 25. During its passage through Parliament there had been singularly little opposition shown in the country. On April 29 the Scottish Trade Union Congress at Glasgow had declared by 66 votes to 46 its strong opposition to Compulsory Military Service, and had called on the Labour Party to press the Government to repeal the Military Service Act. Once again, in the middle of May, a body called the Anti-Conscription Council held a meeting to protest against the administration of the Military Service Act, and a strong body of police was required to prevent the meeting from being broken up. But these signs of opposition were noticeable chiefly on account of their weakness and the extraordinary lack of public support which they obtained. In the whole history of the country few Bills of such vital importance had ever passed through Parliament with less opposition, or with more universal assent.

The Order in Council prohibiting the publication of Cabinet secrets was discussed early in May by both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords Lord Parmoor asserted that when Cabinet secrets were disclosed the Minister was no less responsible than the journalist. Lord Burnham likewise defended the Press, stating that the first thing the Government ought to do was to impose a more rigorous rule of silence on themselves. Lord Buckmaster, defending the Order, said that it did not follow when a Cabinet secret was disclosed that it was necessarily due to the indiscretion of a Cabinet Minister. The Minister might not have the faintest idea that he was giving away matters which he ought to conceal.

In the House of Commons the debate was raised on a resolution moved by Sir Henry Dalziel calling for an immediate and material modification in the Order. He asked whether the regulations imposing penalties applied to members of the Cabinet as well as to the newspapers which published Cabinet secrets. If Cabinet secrecy was betrayed it could only be by

members of the Cabinet. He asked whether it was intended to prosecute Lord Curzon and Mr. Lloyd George who had lately disclosed Cabinet proceedings. The regulation, however, was defended by Mr. Salter and Mr. Gordon Hewart on the ground that it was designed to deal with a national scandal and danger. They both contended that the regulation restrained Cabinet ministers as well as journalists, and they agreed that it was a misapprehension to represent it as an attack on the liberty of the Press. The Government reply was made by Mr. Herbert Samuel. He said that the inviolate secrecy of Cabinet meetings was as essential to the Government as the publicity of Parliament; and the time was overdue when the reporting of Cabinet meetings must be stopped. The newspapers would not be prevented from publishing decisions of the Government, and no action would be taken against newspapers for mere criticism. Newspapers had honourably observed the confidence which had been reposed in them, but it was not for the honourable but the unscrupulous newspapers that this regulation had been made. Finally, the resolution of Sir Henry Dalziel was negatived without a division.

We have now to deal with by far the most important and most disagreeable incident which occurred in English history in the course of the year. As early as March 4 The Times had published an article drawing attention to the growth of the Sinn-Fein movement in Ireland and commenting on the neglect of the Government to take strong measures for suppressing the disaffection which appeared to be brewing in that country. At length on the Tuesday after Easter the Secretary of the Admiralty announced that during the night of April 20 an attempt had been made to land arms and ammunition in Ireland by a vessel disguised as a neutral merchant ship, but in reality a German auxiliary, in conjunction with a German submarine. The auxiliary was sunk and a number of prisoners were made, among whom was Sir Roger Casement, who had already acquired an unenviable notoriety since the outbreak of the war owing to his endeavour to seduce Irish prisoners in Germany from their loyalty to the British Crown. The attempt to land arms in Ireland was evidently a preconcerted signal for a general rising, and on April 24 serious disturbances broke out in Dublin. A large body of men identified with the Sinn-Feiners, mostly armed, occupied Stephen's Green, and took forcible possession of the Post Office, where they cut the telegraphic and telephonic wires. Houses were also occupied in Stephen's Green, Sackville Street, Abbey Street, and along the quays. In the course of the day soldiers arrived from the Curragh, and fighting immediately began. The rebels made a half-hearted attack on Dublin Castle which, however, was not pressed through. They held up troops their way from barracks, and fired on them from the windows of houses; but by the following day they had been driven out of Stephen's Green with a number of casualties, although they were

on