INOCULATION OF TROOPS. (Hansard, 30 September 1915)

Mr. CHANCELLOR
I wish to raise one or two points which I regard as important. The two points are, first the credibility of information given to this House through the mouth of Ministers, and the other is the treatment of certain of our soldiers who have volunteered to serve their country in the ranks of the Army. I should not have raised this point now but for the nature of the reply given to me last week in answer to a question which, after having written to the right hon. Gentleman and asked for his investigation into certain facts and, failing to get a reply, I found it necessary to put publicly in the House. The facts were that at a certain hospital in Manchester two soldiers have been punished, one of them for refusing to parade for inoculation and the other confined to barracks for twenty-one days, not for refusing to parade, but for refusing to be vaccinated. They were Territorials, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Territorials are not obliged to undergo that very objectionable medical practice. I put the facts in relation to one of these matters into the question I asked the Under-Secretary of State for War— whether he is aware that, on 25th August, Private Gillies, Territorial, was awarded twenty-one days' confinement for refusing to be vaccinated: whether this punishment for the exercise of a legal right is authorized; if not, whether the officer commanding the Second Western General Hospital, Manchester, who awarded it, has been reprimanded; and what steps will be taken to recompense this soldier for the wrong he has suffered, and to protect other soldiers from similar conduct at the hands of their officers? The right hon. Gentleman replied:— Private Gillies' offence for which he was awarded twenty-one days' confinement to barracks was not refusing to be vaccinated, but refusing to obey a military order to parade and inciting other men to refuse to parade or to be vaccinated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st September, 1915, col. 302.] What are the facts? I have a copy of the order here. The publication of that answer caused some correspondence. First of all, my informant, who was not the private referred to, was written to by me and asked how 1151 he dared to give me information which was not reliable. I was very indignant at having put into a question anything not absolutely reliable. Subsequently I got from Private Gillies a letter indicating the kind of treatment to which soldiers who stand out for rights which have been assured to them by the right hon. Gentleman are liable. The Order says: No. 494, Private Gillies, was awarded 21 days C.B. (confinement to barracks) for disobedience of an order, section 18, par. (3), Army Act—for refusing to be vaccinated. I turn to the Section of the Army Act and I read this:— Every soldier who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,. … (3) is willfully guilty of any misconduct, or wilfully disobeys, whether in hospital or otherwise, any orders, by means of which misconduct or disobedience he produces or aggravates disease or infirmity, or delays its cure. Here was a perfectly healthy man, simply refusing to obey an order which his officer had no right to give him, to be artificially diseased by vaccination. He was jeopardising nobody's life; he was doing that which he had a perfect right to do—a right which had been guaranteed to him by assurance after assurance by the Government, by the Prime Minister, by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and by the law of the land. The order definitely states what I put in my question, that it was for refusing to be vaccinated. The right hon. Gentleman can have a copy of the order if he likes. If that be the fact, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, furnished to him, no doubt, by the officials, but for which he has to be responsible, was untrue. The letter which I received from this private expresses considerable indignation at having had put upon him a crime of which he had never been guilty. He says:— I must clear my character. I ask the hon. Member again to ask on what date I refused to parade, and the names of the men I incited to refuse to parade or to be vaccinated. There were only three parades … and at every one, when it came my turn, I asked the non-commissioned officer to report to the medical officer that I wished to be exempt. … Then he gives me a list of ten men who were on duty at the time who will substantiate his statement. If these are the facts you have one or two rather important matters that I think ought to be ventilated here. First of all, you have an officer abusing his position by using forms of the law to break the law by inflicting punishment that he had no right to inflict. Then you have the facts misstated here, and therefore misleading to the House. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that. It is not the first, 1152 or the second, or the tenth time that I have had cause to make a similar complaint. For many months I have been making these complaints, trying to get at the facts, and finding some one trying to prevent me getting at them; and in addition inflicting a wrong upon an individual soldier, who is slandered in this House, and a crime put upon him which will be a mark upon his character so long as he remains in the Army. That is a great injustice. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into it, and put it right, unless this Order which I have in my hand misstates the facts of the case.
I said I wanted to raise the question of the credibility of the answers we get in reply to questions in this House. During the past few months, when I have been endeavouring to take the part of soldiers who were only exercising their legitimate rights, and when I have tried to get at the facts by questions, where they have mostly been wronged, such as questions of inoculation and vaccination, I have found it extremely difficult to get at the facts. Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to deal with questions of this sort runs the risk of being called a crank—a risk which must be taken by every man who takes up a special question, and desires to get at the facts of the case. In such circumstances we are entitled, as Members of Parliament, to ask that the officials behind the Minister shall not use their ingenuity for the purpose of preventing us getting at the facts, and that we shall have straightforward answers in reply to straightforward questions. In illustration of this point I put a question months ago. During the intervening period the same thing has occurred. My question in November was about Corporal Nichols. I asked if it was a fact that death had been certified to be due to inoculation. The right hon. Gentleman, on the strength of a telegram that had been sent, informed me that death was due to pneumonia, practically denying the fact that I had in my mind having seen the death certificate a few minutes before I put the question. As a result I assured the right hon. Gentleman that his information was incorrect. He made further inquiries. Inquiries have been set on foot, and Sir Wm. Ostler, the eminent bacteriologist, was asked to investigate the matter. Sir William's report some time later said that the death of this man, certified by the doctor who attended him as having been killed by this process, was not due in any sense to that fact. He said that Corporal 1153 Nichols had been sent, within twenty-four hours of inoculation, on an eight mile march. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thought the doctor was perfectly informed, and he told me, in replying to my question, that I was not. I have here extracts from letters which I myself have seen written by the widow of this man, stating that the inoculation took place on a Saturday, that the man did not go on a march until the following Tuesday, and that before he went on the march he was certified as fit for the undertaking that day. What I ask is that the Department dealing with these matters should endeavour when these questions are raised in the House to see, at least, that we do have facts, and are not misled by misstatements. I have given two illustrations of what I believe to be absolute misstatements of fact, contrary to statements I have put in questions to the House with a view of getting facts of public importance before the community. I do not want to say anything about the question of the merits of inoculation, but I do say that when legal rights have been conferred on our soldiers who are fighting for the liberties of their country, it is grossly wrong either for officers to bully soldiers into surrendering those rights, or for officers to inflict illegal penalties, as I contend this order proves were inflicted in this case.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for having given me notice that he was about to raise these questions, and I wish at the outset to say that I know that he would be the first to be indignant, as he himself has stated, at receiving information from anyone which he ultimately found was unreliable. I should like to associate myself, if I may, with a similar point of view, that I indeed should be equally indignant if I were to receive information which I found to be unreliable. I will deal with the two points raised by my hon. Friend in the order in which he has raised them. When the question was put to me with regard to Private Gillies I naturally wrote down to the command to ascertain what the position actually was, and the information came to me from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. The General Officer replied:— Private Gillies refused to parade or to be vaccinated, and incited other men to refuse. He was accordingly brought before his Commanding Officer and awarded the punishment as has been said. 1154 In the light of that information, derived from the General Officer Commanding the District, what could I do? I could not tell my hon. Friend that Private Gillies had been guilty of any other offence. That was the offence for which he was tried and convicted, and I am sure my hon. Friend, if he will put himself in my position, will see that I could inform the House of no other cause.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
I have not accused my right hon. Friend at all. He is the victim of others. He is the mere mouthpiece or channel for other people's information.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I realise that my hon. Friend has other information, but what I want to tell him is this: when you are dealing with a great machine like the Army, it is impossible for me to go behind the hierarchy of the Army. I must, of course, go to the General Officer Commanding and ask him what is the actual offence of which this private soldier has been guilty, for which he has been awarded this punishment, and must inform my hon. Friend and the House of the report which I received from the General Officer Commanding in that district, and I have done so. Of course, another point arises by the information now conveyed by my hon. Friend: that is, that the General Officer Commanding is wrong. That is his contention.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
The private asserts that he actually attended the three parades which you say he did not attend.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Of course, that is a direct conflict of the statements as between the private soldier and the General Officer. That is a very difficult thing to investigate. I do not say it is impossible to investigate, but if my hon. Friend knows the Army at all, he will realise it is extremely difficult to substantiate a case where the authorities are, as I say, convinced of the truth of the statements they have made. If the hon. Member will hand to me the names of the witnesses, I will undertake to make a further inquiry. I do not think my hon. Friend dwelt upon the other case of Private Robinson, and therefore I do not need to labour that. The next case is that of the unfortunate man, Lance-Corporal Nicholls, who died. Inasmuch as it was stated that this unfortunate man died from the effects of inoculation, I have a report from the Director 1155 of the Medical Service saying that there was a case of pneumonia following on inoculation. There were other cases, including that of Lance-Corporal Nicholls. So far as I can ascertain, in all these cases there was exposure afterwards. In the case of Nicholls it was the eight miles' march that did the damage, and not the inoculation. I think we must recognise that. In the first inoculation the resistance is considerably lower, and I am glad to hear that there are now orders not to allow men with fever to do any work.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
Was the statement made that this march took place within twenty-four hours? If so it is not true. It was three days.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I am not able to say, and I cannot now go through the whole of the reports which I have received. It was suggested that this corporal did undertake the eight-mile march, and whether it was three days, twenty-four hours, or even a week, really does not seriously affect the situation.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
My whole point is that we do not get true information. Very often we are misled by the information given to us from the Treasury Bench, not owing to the right hon. Gentleman, but to his informants, who want to make out a case.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I regret my hon. Friend should make that accusation. I do not think responsible people concerned with the health of the Army would have recourse to such subterfuges as he suggests. I think that is a misconception. He is good enough to acquit me of any such action, and I certainly should not make myself a party to anything of that kind. I honestly believe that the authorities it is my duty to consult do, within such knowledge as they possess, convey that knowledge accurately and properly to me in the way in which it should be conveyed. They do not make any embroidery upon the facts in the manner which my hon. Friend seems to think. He speaks about being misled in this House, and says that he does not get the facts. I can assure him that we do all in our power to get the facts and to bring them to the knowledge of the House. It is quite true, when a soldier or a man is inoculated against his will, that it may 1156 produce a fever which is temporary, and during that period it is quite undesirable that he should undergo any serious and severe work such as an eight-mile march. It is almost a criminal thing to ask him to undergo it, and it may be some commanding officers do not sufficiently realise that a soldier who has been so recently inoculated is liable to these after-effects of severe exercise, and that they ought not to ask him to undergo it. It is largely due, I think, in the case of Nicholls, to an imperfect appreciation of the fact that he had been recently inoculated that his death occurred, and to say that his death was due to inoculation I really think is a mistake. If you tell a man to take precautions against a particular form of disease which require vaccination or inoculation, it is imperative to treat him in the manner in which he should be treated in the few days afterwards, and to give him rest and all the care which he requires during that period. My hon. Friend, of course, does not admit, in the first place, that if you inoculate the Army you make it less liable to this dreadful disease of enteric fever. I should have thought the facts were sufficiently palpable. Any man who has historic knowledge of previous campaigns must admit that in the past in any of the campaigns that can be cited sickness and illness, principally enteric fever, have devastated the Armies.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
They never had any sanitation.

§ Mr. TENNANT
They had not sanitation I am quite free to admit. I do not wish at all to be uncompromising about this subject, but I do think that a free mind brought to bear upon the conditions, of this particular campaign and of past campaigns, cannot help admitting that this campaign has been extraordinarily free from those terrible diseases, and that must in large measure, not altogether, be put down to the advance of science and particularly to inoculation.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
That is not because they have been inoculated—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member has made several speeches, and he is not entitled to interrupt.

§ Mr. TENNANT
When I say that, I think it establishes the verdict of the Army as well as the opinion of the vast 1157 majority of my countrymen. I would ask my hon. Friend to be a little elastic in his views upon this subject. I dare say he thinks I am singularly inelastic in mine. I can assure him that I respect his views, although I cannot bring myself to share them, because I think the evidence is very strong against them. But I do respect his views, and I do desire, so far as in me lies, to bring to the Army that degree of pure voluntaryism which ought to exist, and which, as he says, we have enunciated from time to time. I do desire to recognise his case. It cannot be said that it is purely voluntary for a man to be inoculated under some degree of pressure. That is not consistent with voluntaryism.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
That is the point.

§ Mr. TENNANT
What is my answer to that? It is that the bulk of the evidence, certainly in the Army, goes to show that inoculation is a preventive against enteric fever, and that a man who refuses to be inoculated is a danger, not only to himself, but to his companions. My hon. Friend may laugh, but that is a view which is held very strongly. The view is that men who do not undergo inoculation are a danger to their fellows. If you believe that, how can you blame an officer who uses all the powers at his disposal to have his whole battalion inoculated? I say of the Secretary of State, whom I represent in this House, and of myself, how can we have constant supervision over each commanding officer, and each battalion in an Army of the size we have to-day? Clearly we cannot have it, and that being so I can only say that where undue pressure is used, pressure which means absolute compulsion, we regret it. We do not excuse it, but we understand it, because we understand that the man who is in command of a great fighting force like a battalion of British Infantry wishes to keep that battalion in every sense ready to undertake all the hardships, perils, discomforts, and dangers of war. Nothing would damage it so much as the terrible devastations of disease, and one cannot say that a man is doing what is wholly undesirable when he takes measures—which perhaps individuals may not think proper—to see that the whole of his men are inoculated against this terrible enemy which may be so devastating to the men under his command. I do not know that I can say more. I should not like to sit down without my 1158 hon. Friends thinking and believing that while we believe that inoculation is a really desirable thing we do not wish to screen or in any way condone action which ought not to have been taken.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised? Is this man to suffer this injustice if on investigation the right hon. Gentleman finds that the facts are as I stated, and will any disciplinary measures be taken against the officer who inflicted the illegal punishment?

§ Mr. TENNANT
I believe my hon. Friend is dealing with the case of Gillies.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
Yes.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Of course, I am not going to defend any illegality. I do not for a moment do that. My hon. Friend may be assured of that. But I say that the man did refuse to parade, and to parade is not to be inoculated.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
rose—

§ Mr. TENNANT
Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish. It is perfectly possible for a man who holds what he calls conscientious convictions against inoculation to go upon parade which is called for inoculation and then to say, "No. I decline to be inoculated." But he declined to go upon parade.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to make continuous speeches. He made his statements in his speech, and he must take the answer he receives. Of course, upon another occasion, if he is not satisfied, he can raise the question again.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I am sorry my hon. Friend thinks I am quite wrong. I am only stating what the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has informed me.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
Here is the Order.

§ Mr. TENNANT
(reading): Private Gillies was awarded twenty-one days' confinement to barracks for disobedience of an order, Section 18, para. (3), Army Act, for refusing to be vaccinated. 1159 I agree, if that is so, that it is a different statement from the one which has been furnished to the Secretary of State. There is no statement here that he incited others to refuse. I am informed that he did incite others to refuse.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
He denies that.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I said in my earlier remarks that I would cause an inquiry to be made into these facts, and with that I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.