they consider they are fighting a war of defence; a definite aggressive expedition to conquer a continent 12,000 miles away would appear a very different proposition; they MIGHT be drawn into it, but!
Conscription "for the war." And what after the war? The clash of ideas will come in each country; broadly speaking, those who favour the reduction and gradual abolition of armaments, together with a policy of international co-operation, will be ranged on the one side; those who advocate retaining the strongest possible armies and navies and the maintenance of the old international system, with all its unsatisfactory features, on the other.
The "thin end of the wedge" method is a favourite one with advocates of conscription, and it is easier to secure the continuance of a measure than to introduce it. Many of those who now desire the passing of an act to make men compulsorily liable for service at home or abroad for the period of the war only doubtless do so without any mental reservations. But it is well to recall something of the past history of the conscription movement in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and to remember that radical changes of attitude in politics are not infrequent. A striking instance of the latter is furnished by the change of front of the present Minister of Defence, Senator Pearce; less than a score of years ago he was a strong anti-militarist, speaking against any form of militarism; to-day he has power to detain any one in Australia in custody, without the semblance of a trial, and without even giving reasons.
The full history of the conscription movement in the British Empire has not been written, perhaps never will be. But enough is known to put lovers of democracy on their guard. The democratic element in Great Britain has, in the main, opposed conscription, while some of its chief supporters are members of the aristocracy and military officers. There is, too, a close unofficial connection between the National Service League and the great armament firms.[1] The League was formed in 1902, with the Duke of Wellington as president; he was supported by the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Fife, Lord Meath, Earl Wemyss, and Lord Newton. In later years Lord Roberts became president. The latter advocated four to six months' training as the irreducible minimum, and stated that "once the principle of compulsion is accepted, there will be no difficulty in adjusting the details.…to reduce theory into practice." Lord Dudley, ex-Governor-General of Australia, is reported as saying, in reference to compulsory military training in Australia, that "it was tactful and politic not to make the term of service too arduous at first, and to let it grow."[2]
Mr. W. M. Hughes, M.H.R., in 1907 introduced a motion in the House to the effect that "all able-bodied adult males should be trained to the use of arms, and instructed in such military or naval drill as may be necessary for the purpose."[3] In doing so, he stated that it was the fourth occasion upon which he had submitted a similar motion. Mr. Hughes is, or was, one of the secre-
- ↑ "The War Traders," by G. H. Perris, Chancery Lane Press, Rolls Passage, London, E.C. 1/-.
- ↑ London "Daily Chronicle," September 18, 1911.
- ↑ "Hansard," p. 1282.
7
