Ordnance. The honourable
member no doubt quite honestly believed that the lack of munitions was
due to neglect on the part of the War Office since the beginning of
the war. It is clear that he was totally unqualified to express an
opinion on the subject, and that he was ignorant of the manufacturing
aspects of the problem. He had heard stories of mistakes made here and
there, such as was inevitable at a time of tremendous stress. He
probably had not the slightest conception that the primary cause of
the shell shortage was the neglect of the Government of pre-war days
(which had recognized his party services by conferring on him the
dignity of a Privy-Councillorship) to give support to the
establishments for manufacturing armaments that existed in the
country. It is not with his performance on this occasion that one
feels a disposition to quarrel, but with that of the newly created
Minister of Munitions.

Mr. Lloyd George could not plead ignorance of the facts. He had been
installed for a month or so. He must have known that it had been
totally impossible to produce, within ten months of the outbreak of
the war, the munitions that were required for an army in the field
three or four times greater than had ever been thought of prior to
mobilization.[7] He had actually given some pertinent information with
regard to manufacturing difficulties when he was introducing the bill,
which clearly demonstrated that he had grasped the general principles
governing the problem of munitions output. But what was his attitude?
Instead of following the honourable and chivalrous course, the course
sanctioned by long-established precedent and practice on the part of
Ministers of the Crown, of protecting, or trying to protect, the
public servant who had been assailed, he contented himself with
pointing out that the public servant ought to be given an opportunity
of stating his side of the question--which was manifestly impossible
in time of war--and that the onslaught was unexpected! There is not a
man in the United Kingdom better able to protect himself, or anybody
else, in speech and in argument in face of sudden attack than Mr.
Lloyd George. Had he been willing to do so he could have disposed of
Sir H. Dalziel, who in reality had no case, with the utmost ease.

[Footnote 7: On the 1st July we had 23 divisions
(exclusive of Indian divisions) in the field, and
one on the water. The