BRITAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 April 1916, Page 5

BRITAIN.

PARLIAMENT AND THE WAR. COMPULSION BILL. TO BE WITHDRAWN. SENSATION IN THE HOfJSL. London, April 27. A sensation was caused in the House of Commons when Mr. Walter Long introduced the Service Bill, embodying the Cabinet compromise. Owing to the hostility of compulsionists and voluntary - ists Mr. Asquith later announced that the Bill would be withdrawn.

Received April 28, 5.5 p.m. London, April 27. Mr. Long, when introducing the Bill embodying the Cabinet compromise, said ifc was a measure of military necessity, urged upon the Government by its military advisers. The question of married men would be dealt with in a ..later measure. The Bill would be read a third time next week, and then a recess would be taken. Sir E. Carson said that he favored edjnpu'lsion, but it was most unfair id •introduce compulsion by this Bill. It was impossible to conceive anything more unfair, illogical, and unreasonable, and if the Bill were persisted in he would divide the House. What right had the Government to single out these men .vhen they dared not bring in a genuine Bill. Mr. Stephen Walsh was loudly cheered on demanding the instant introduction of general compulsion.

THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. BILL UNFAVORABLY RECEIVED. TO BE RECONSIDERED BYCABINET. Received April 28, 8.35 p.m. London, April 27. In the House of Commons, Mr. Stephen Walsh said he believed the country would support the Government if it decided on all-round compulsion.

Mr. H. 13. Duke deprecated the Bill. It was true that it was introduced at 3 time of stress, and it did not embody the whole military policy of the Government as the House knew it, but in its present form it would meet its obvious fate. Mr. W. M. iPrijigle declared tliat the Bill was a miserable makeshift and hud not any friends. Mr. Asquith was not present during the whole debate, and was hurriedly recalled. He admitted that the Bill' had not been received encouragingly in any quarter, but this was not owing to its proposals, but to the time and manner of its introduction. Be recognised the force of the criticisms, and a Bill might lie reintroduced later, but the Government did not wish to force on a measure which the House was not prepared to accept. Mr. Ellis Griffiths 'hoped that the Cabinet crisis would not be reopened w'hen the Bill was withdrawn.

Mr. Asquith replied that he was able ' to. reassure the House on that point. I Mr. Thomas, as a railway man, opposed the Bill, and said he would oppose any stronger measure. Several members appealed to Mr, Abquith to give an indication of the Government's intentions. Mr. Asquith replied that it was impossible to say on the spur of the moment, hut he would promise that the attention of the Cabinet would be given to the Commons' objections. He would announce the decision next week. Strong speeches followed. The compnlsionists denounced the Government's dilatoriness, and the voluntaryists denounced prospective general compulsion. Upon Mr. Long's motion the Bill was then withdrawn. WALTON HOSPITAL,London, April 27. General Birdwood, accompanied by Sir Thomas Mackenzie, inspected the Wal•ton Hospital and was greatly pleased at the arrangements. A CHILLY RECEPTION. FRESH PROPOSALS TO BE MADE. Received April 28, 9.55 p.m. London, April 28.

Little or no surprise was evinced in the lobbies at the withdrawal of the Service Bill, the reception of which was chilly. It is understood that the War Council will review the situation tomorrow and submit fresh proposals.

MR. HUGHES AT HOME. (RECEIVES FREEDOM OP GLASGOW. RUCTIONS AT LABOR CONGRESS. Received April 28, 8.5 p.m. London, April 27. Mr. Hughes was presented with the freedom of the City of Glasgow, enclosed in a gold casket, in the presence of a brilliant gathering, including many of the most prominent figures in Scotland.

Sir Thomas Mackenzie, who accompanied Mr. Hughes, was welcomed by old friends. An invitation to Mr. Hughes to attend the Trades Union Congress resulted in remarkable scenes. A noisy section declared that the Labor Party repudiated Mr. Hughes, who was the propagandist for protection, and demanded that Mr. Hughes should not be admitted. The chairman threatened to leave the chair to avoid Scottish unionists ■falling into disgrace, but the Congress decided not to hear the dissentient delegates, a dozen of whom then abruptly left. 1 On his arrival, Mr. Hughes was welcomed. He described la£x momou Jo