not show that the scheme, if disappointing, was a failure; 100,000
men scattered all over the country had been enrolled. Very few,
it is true, had been moved, but all, if the Government so decided,
could be moved, for Sect. 6 (2) of the Munitions of War Act, 1915
made it an offence for an employer to attempt to dissuade a
volunteer from moving. Unless, therefore, an employer in the
early stages of the war radically reduced his private work, and
in the later stages pressed dilution to its fullest extent, he was
liable at any time to lose some of his best workers. In this in-
direct way the scheme had a far-reaching effect.
During the latter part of Sept. 1915 efforts were made to improve its working by a change in the method of administration. Under the scheme as originally launched the work had been done from London. An attempt was made in Nov. to carry out the work through the employment exchanges. The lists of men avail- able for transfer (amounting to 10,000) were forwarded to the appropriate exchanges, who were given elaborate and precise instructions as to procedure. But the new system had no better results than the old. In Nov. and Dec. 1915 only 753 were placed, although, in addition to the 10,000 men whose names had been sent from the Ministry, 6,515 more men had enrolled.
At this point the problem was complicated by reason of the fact that undertakings were running out and that reenrolment was becoming necessary. Invitations to reenrol were issued, and the response indicated that there was much dissatisfaction among the volunteers. None the less, enrolments proceeded speedily at the rate of about 2,250 a month. At the same time placings went on steadily, rising from 237 in Jan. 1916 to 337 in May, with the result that in June 1916 12,234 war munition volunteers had been placed in employment.
Again, one is face to face with the criticism that the scheme failed, and again it is necessary to point out that the failure was only partial. If numbers alone are examined it may be Criticisms ur g e( j that the result was trifling, but numbers alone Scheme. are by no means the final criterion. These men in effect constituted a mobile corps who could be thrown in at the point of greatest pressure at the most critical moments. They were a sort of Guards Brigade, who could be hurried to the weak spot when most needed. For example, in the autumn of 1916 more than a quarter of the skilled men employed at Dudley, Lancaster, Leeds, Renfrew and Templeborough were munitions workers.' And again and again in the later years of the war, when every month, almost every week, involved sudden changes in the munitions programme, the availability of these men was of the highest possible service. It happened more than once, notably when the poison-gas factories formed almost a turning-point in the munitions programme, that the fitters, without whom the factories could not operate, were supplied from volunteers.
The work proceeded steadily, with the result that by Nov. 1918 212,000 war munitions volunteers had been enrolled and 81,180 transferred. This of course shows a notable improve- ment in 1917 and 1918. One of the reasons for the improve- ment, no doubt, was, for example, that enrolment was one of the conditions of the Trade-card Agreement.
As recruiting became increasingly intensive it was made clear that not only must a man, to obtain exemption, be shifted, but he must in addition be on indispensable work. By enroll- ing as a war munitions volunteer a skilled man automatically fulfilled the latter condition. Quite apart, therefore, from the patriotic impulse which moved men to seek work of na- tional importance, enrolment, as affording a protection in itself, became increasingly attractive. It may, therefore, be fairly said that on the whole, over the period from its incep- tion to the Armistice, the war munitions volunteer scheme both directly and indirectly was of vital national service.
Closely allied to, and indeed at the time indistinguishable from, the war munitions volunteer scheme was the scheme of the other mobile corps, incorporated in 1916 by the Ministry of Munitions, of the army reserve munitions workers, under which, by the end of the war, 58,200 men had been placed in employ- ment. Under this scheme men were drafted into the army, but not detailed for service on placing themselves at the disposal of
the authorities for use where they were required. The difference between them and the war munitions volunteers was more techni- cal than actual, though in their case they were always liable to be called to the colours for general service.
Before leaving the war munitions volunteer scheme, brief reference should be made to the other pools of mobile labour which it was sought to form later in the war on the precedent of the war munitions volunteers. There were three schemes inaugurated under the first auspices of the old Ministry of National Service, the second and third under the reconstituted Ministry. The first was known as the National Service volunteer scheme. Under this scheme the sur- prising total of 400,000 volunteers were enrolled. As, however, invitations to enroll were issued to persons with little regard to their experience and ability, and to the work upon which they were engaged, it is not to be wondered at if the scheme produced no results. Indeed, by the time that this scheme was launched early in 1917, it is not an exaggeration to say that the field of labour avail- able for vital national service had been searched not with a rake but with a fine-tooth comb. The only hope for any effective addition to the labour supply was by a carefully selected list of occupations adapted to persons of little experience in manual labour and of small or reduced physical powers. The second scheme of war work volunteers, initiated by the reconstituted Ministry of National Service, was on a smaller basis, and under this 32,700 persons were enrolled and placed on work of national importance, thus releasing younger men for the army.
There was finally the much more modest, though by no means ineffective, scheme of war agricultural volunteers, under which 3,255 persons were placed in agriculture. In addition to this, 17,000 women were enrolled in the Women's Land Army, and 1,816 in the Scottish Women's Land Army.
(2) Preventing Wastage. When the supply of labour was far below the demand, it was of the greatest importance that the fullest possible use should be made of it. There were two vital points in this respect the first to get it where it was wanted, the second to keep it there. The war munitions volunteer and allied schemes were the means adopted to achieve the first purpose. The Defence of the Realm Acts and the Munitions of War Acts were used for the second purpose.
The question which presented itself to the Government early in 1915 was: What check could be put on the freedom of the workman, on the one hand, to go to work not profitable in the national interest, and upon the freedom of the employer to attract him there? There were four courses open. The first was to close down commercial work so that the employer would be compelled to release his workmen for work of national importance. The second was to impose penalties on employers engaged on com- mercial work for attracting labour from munitions work. The third was to apply the penalty for moving to the workmen. The fourth, which was the simplest, and which was shown to be repugnant to the British character, was universal compulsion whether for war-work or fighting.
Whichever remedy was to be adopted, the fact that some remedy must be found grew plainer every day. Not only was it clear that a great volume of labour urgently needed for munitions work was still retained for commercial Compel/- production, but what added to the difficulty was the taftour. bidding among contractors engaged on munitions work for one another's labour. Not only were rates of wages undergo- ing the most surprising variations, but every kind of device to add to workmen's earnings was adopted. Excessive overtime at double rates was freely advertised, immemorial practice as to trav- elling allowances was overturned, systems of piece rates designed to produce the highest rather than the lowest earnings were de- vised, and indeed in the shipyards there were allegations that a number of rivets were added to a workman's total to swell his takings. Nor was the competition confined to private employers. The Government factories were bidding not only against private employers but against one another. The result was naturally, by making workmen restless, to reduce production all around.
All the four expedients mentioned above were canvassed by the Government. The fourth, universal conscription, by rea- son of its simplicity and its boldness, was the most attractive. Scheme after scheme to enforce it was considered only to be rejected when the result on labour opinion was weighed, but as late as June 3 1915, in a speech at Manchester, Mr. Lloyd George
