"Let No Class Escape"

For three days last week it looked as if Britain's Labor Party might split wide open on the issue of conscription of man power v. conscription of wealth. The question--one that is always gingerly juggled on the floor of the House of Commons--came up in debate on a new conscription bill, extending the military age from 41 to 51, from 19 to 18 1/2. Led by fiery Jack Griffiths, Labor dissidents sought to pin a shirttail to the bill, calling for Government seizure and operation of vital war industries.

Failure of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his Ministers to apply the conscriptive powers of the bill to the country's 11,000,000 married women brought howls of resentment from the Labor benches. Said Jack Griffiths: "Let us mobilize fairly and equitably and let no class escape. . . . No soft jobs for the privileged and no hard grinds for the poor. . . . We cannot organize production efficiently merely by organizing man power."

The Government's reply to Labor's rumblings was entrusted to the Lord President of the Council's committee (headed by crusty Sir John Anderson) which coordinates the work of the import and export executive. Sir John, placating the Laborites with the assurance that the Government "will not be timid or halfhearted" about conscripting any property likely to help the war effort* offered a rather undiplomatic explanation of what he meant. Bumbled he: "All property is not equally valuable for the purpose of the war effort. For example, Old Masters, or stocks of wines and cigars."

Forced by the threat of three of its own Ministers to resign from the Cabinet (Minister of Labor Ernest Bevin, Home Secretary Herbert Morrison, Lord Privy Seal Clement Attlee), Labor cooled off. The wealth conscription amendment was rejected, 336-to-40.

* British income taxes already take 50% of the workers' pay (after allowances) and up to almost 95% of big incomes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.