Commons Sitting of 29 February 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Colonial Bank Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Aberdeen Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Corporation Water," presented by Mr. M'KINNON WOOD; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Sir John Barlow, Mr. Boland, Sir Daniel Goddard, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Holmes, Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Lonsdale, Mr. Parker, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Samuel Roberts nominated members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. George Faber, Mr. Fell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. O'Grady, Captain William Redmond, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson nominated members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]
COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns from the Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute IV. for University College, Galway [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 1, 1916).
Copy presented of Declaration withdrawing the British reservations in respect of Articles 23, 27 and 28 of the Red Cross Convention, 1906. Berne, 7th July, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Borough of Accrington;
Urban district of Chadderton
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 3rd February, 1916, under the Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain shops in the burgh of Coatbridge [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC RETRENCHMENT.
Copy presented of Final Report of the Committee on Retrenchment in the Public Expenditure [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845 to 5th January, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 29.]
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE.
Copy presented of Summary of Returns supplied by County Local Education Authorities of children excused from school for employment in Agriculture on 31st January, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 876 (Leeward Islands, Report for 1914-15) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D. I. P. 358 to 360, inclusive, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 77) Warrant, 1916, dated 4th February, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Toble.

MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, as amended by the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Secretary of State, as far as relates to offences and the enforcement of orders, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals, made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, as amended by the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Secretary for Scotland as far as relates to offences and the enforcement of orders, and by the Minister of Muntions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Copy presented of Public Trustee Rules, 1916, dated 25th February, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 24th February; Mr. Secretary Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 29th February, 1916, continuing the operation of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1915, with certain modifications [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, INDUSTRIAL> AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, BUILDING SOCIETIES, TRADE UNIONS, Etc.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Reports of the Chief Registrar for the year 1915 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 30.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION (OFFENSIVE CARTOONS AND ARTICLES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the friendly feeling towards this country which has existed in America is being to some extent modified and changed by offensive cartoons and leading articles published in this country and widely republished in the United States, reflecting upon American diplomacy and the personalities of the American administration; whether he is aware that a number of unrestrained people in this country are partly succeeding where German propagandists completely failed; and whether steps are being taken to counteract this influence and to maintain cordial relations with the United States?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Unless articles, cartoons, and cinematograph pictures are in contravention of the

    853
    law they cannot be prevented, but it is very desirable, especially at this time, that they should not be such as to give offence to countries whose relations with the Allies are friendly.

    BRITISH SHIPS FOR ITALY.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a number of British ships have been requisitioned at British Admiralty rates to carry corn supplies and other commodities to Italy for the Italian Government, he will say how many German ships which sought refuge in Italian ports at the outbreak of war have not yet been seized by the Italian Government?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the names of the German steamers hitherto interned in Italian ports and now requisitioned by the Italian Government, the respective dates of the requisitioning, the employment on which they are engaged, and the date upon which the first steamer so requisitioned sailed upon a voyage from the Italian port in which she had been lying?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I will deal at the same time with Question 93. The Board of Trade is informed that of the thirty-seven German steamers in Italian ports thirty-four are being used by the Italian Government, and three are for various reasons unusable. Nine out of the thirty-four are in the trade between Italy and the United Kingdom, and sixteen in trade between Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada. I have no information as to the dates of requisition or sailing.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer as to the date on which the first of these steamers was used?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have answered that. I have no information as to the dates of requisition or sailing.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it was before or after the recent Debate in the House?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have twice told the hon. Gentleman that I have no information.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why cannot you find out?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Put it down again.

    MORATORIUM FOR SOLDIERS.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can state shortly the form of moratorium now in force in France protecting men serving in the French Army against actions for rent and other civil liabilities?
    Sir E. GREY: It would be difficult, if not impossible, to give an adequate summary of the terms of the French decree within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question. I shall be happy, if the hon. Member so desires, to send him a copy of the decree itself for his information, and it can be placed in the Library of the House if desired.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Might it not be circulated to Members in view of the importance of the question?
    Sir E. GREY: There is very great pressure upon this Department. It is very undesirable to put on them work which is not absolutely necessary. They have an unusual amount of work which is very urgent. I think that if I place a copy in the Library of the House it is possible for everybody to see it.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the married men who attested under Lord Derby's scheme will shortly be called up, he will consider the necessity of giving them a moratorium against rent and other necessary liabilities?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Government are carefully considering the matter, but it is not possible to make any announcement at present.
    Mr. ROCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when any announcement can be made seeing that this seriously affects large numbers of people?
    Mr. LONG: I would rather not be pressed to make any announcement now. I can only repeat that the matter is

    855
    engaging our most earnest attention, and I hope that an announcement can be made very shortly.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the moratorium will apply to married men only and not to single men who are under the same conditions?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that a question of detail of that kind cannot be answered now when I am dealing with the general question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is there a change of policy since the Prime Minister made his statement last week?
    Mr. LONG: No.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: He replied in the negative.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      ENLISTMENT AGE.
      Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will extend the age for enlistment to forty-five years, seeing that enemy countries have already called up men of that age or even beyond?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Power is reserved to extend the age limit when and to the extent which may be necessary. This is, of course, a matter within the discretion of the Government and its military advisers. For the present it is not considered necessary to extend the age limit.

      MEDICALLY UNFIT.
      Mr. RENDALLasked whether a recruit rejected as being unfit for military service and given a cross flag card, as issued by the Bristol Citizens' Recruiting Committee and medically signed, is excluded from the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: The essential point is not the form of the certificate but whether it is properly filled in and signed by the recruiting officer or other authorised person. I am not quite clear as to what my hon. Friend means by the words "medically signed."
      Captain AMERYasked whether a single man of military age who at any previous time may have belonged to the
      856
      Territorial Force and was discharged or left the force on grounds of ill-health is excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. Such a man is excepted by the provision in Schedule I., paragraph 5.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state how many out of 12,000 men discharged on medical grounds from the Army up to the end of the year 1915 and awarded no pension were disabled through causes not attributed to misconduct; how many of them had been kept with the Colours for a period of at least four months before being found to be unfit for service; and whether any of them were cases of frost-bite?
      Mr. TENNANT: To prepare these figures would throw a great deal of labour on a Department already seriously overstrained. With reference to the last part of the question, I know of no case of trench-foot where a pension has been refused.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement publicly issued by Major T. Lucas, J.P., chief recruiting officer for Monmouthshire and Glamorgan, that a man was free from liability to be called up if he possessed the blue certificate of unfitness but could without a doubt be brought up compulsorily if he only possessed the white certificate of unfitness; and, having regard to the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, whether any official statement has been issued to the recruiting officers informing them of the legal position?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. My attention has not hitherto been called to Major Lucas's statement. The form of certificate is not material. What, however, is essential, is that the form must be properly filled in and signed by the recruiting officer or other authorised person. I think the recruiting officers are fully aware of this.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (DISCHARGES).
      Captain AMERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a single man of military age who has at some previous date been discharged from the Territorial Force on the completion of his period of service, or is now so discharged, is excepted from the provisions of the Military Service. Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

      TRAINING CENTRES (SALISBURY AND RIPON).
      Mr. ASHLEYasked whether a general officer and a separate staff are still being employed for the training centres of Salisbury and Ripon; if not, what is the annual saving to public funds by their suppression; and who is performing the duties formerly entrusted to them?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Under the new arrangements for the command of the Home Forces it is intended to dispense with these separate training-centre commands, but the new arrangements are not yet sufficiently settled to enable me to give figures for the saving. The duties will fall to the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of the commands in which the camps are situated.

      RE-ENLISTMENT (BOUNTIES).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked why, when the Army is proposing to pay a bounty of £15 to any time-expired soldier who re-enlists for the duration of the War, the same bounty is not payable to those who have already voluntarily re-enlisted?
      Mr. FORSTER: The bounty is not given to men re-enlisting, but is to induce men still in the Service not to take their discharge when time-expired.
      Mr. FELL: Is there a distinction drawn in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, there is a, great distinction.

      ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the position under the Military Service Act, 1916, of men who have been medically examined and accepted for commmissions in the Royal Flying Corps but who are still on the waiting list?
      Mr. TENNANT: Selected candidates for the Royal Flying Corps who have been assigned to a group will be put into a later group if their training as pilots cannot be commenced before their group is called up.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the length of the waiting list for commissions in the Royal Flying Corps; and whether the corps still wants trained pilots?
      Mr. TENNANT: There are 835 officers and 521 civilians on the waiting list of the Royal Flying Corps. The establishment is not yet complete.

      REGISTERED PLUMBERS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the employés of registered plumbers are starred; whether he is aware that many such are engaged on sanitary work rendered necessary by medical officers of health condemning insanitary arrangements contributing to the destruction of public health; whether in case of diphtheria and typhoid such work is urgent; and whether such considerations must be taken into account by tribunals when employers are asking for exemptions for employés.
      Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of reserving plumbers from recruiting is under consideration, and the Reserved Occupations Committee are receiving a deputation from the Master Plumbers' Association to-morrow.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will it be borne in mind that this work is considered urgent by municipal authorities, and will care be taken to see that the public health is put first?

      DERBY SCHEME (VACCINATION).
      Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many men who had strong objections to vaccination consented to undergo the operation rather than not be allowed to attest under the Derby scheme; and whether he can see his way to take steps to enable such men to have their attestation forms revised or to be informed that vaccination is now voluntary, in view of the recent decision of the War Office that men enlisted for the duration of the War can be accepted if otherwise eligible, even though they decline to be vaccinated, and thus place those who readily responded to the call in the same position as men who attested later on?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is certainly expedient that all men should be vaccinated or revaccinated, and if a man has signed an undertaking to be vaccinated it is presumed that he will adhere to his undertaking. If, however, he has not signed such an undertaking, no pressure is to be brought to bear on him to undergo vaccination if he has conscientious objections thereto.

      APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. RADFORDasked whether the appeal tribunals and the central appeal tribunal under the Military Service Act, 1916, have yet been set up; and, if not, when they will be?
      Mr. LONG: Twenty-five appeal tribunals have already been appointed by His Majesty, and the remainder will, I hope, very shortly be constituted, together with the central tribunal.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the constitution and situation of these tribunals that are being set up?
      Mr. LONG: They represent counties or parts of counties.

      EXEMPTIONS.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked by what procedure men rejected as unfit for service since 14th August, 1915, who have been induced, owing to a misapprehension, to submit themselves to re-examination and have been accepted, can claim to be excepted from service in terms of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: The point raised by my hon. Friend was dealt with by me on several occasions last week, and has also been the subject of an announcement in the Press. I may add that I have caused lists of individual complaints to be referred to General Officers Commanding the several commands accompanied by the following letter:—
      "War Office,
      London, S.W.,
      1916.
      Sir,—I am directed to forward the attached list giving names and particulars of men who state that they have been rejected for the Army since 14th August, 1915, and have been subjected to a second medical examination under a misapprehension.
      I am therefore to request that each individual case may at once be inquired into, and if it is found that any of these men have been misled through action taken on behalf of the recruiting authorities, their attestations if they so desire must at once be cancelled, and their former rejection allowed to stand.
      In cases where men are under the impression that their second medical examination was irregular, and subsequent inquiries prove that they are under a misapprehension, it should be explained to them by the recruiting officer that the second examination undertaken at their own request for the purpose of securing an armlet, disclosed their eligibility for certain classes of military service for which recruits had not previously been specially enlisted,
      I am to add that where it is found that injustice has been done to any man which is due to the recruiting authorities, steps should at once be taken to remedy the individual injustice, and to prevent the recurrence of any such irregularities.
      A report on the action taken in each individual case should be forwarded to this Office forthwith. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant,—Director of Recruiting."
      Sir J. SIMON: On what date was that letter sent?
      Mr. TENNANT: It was sent out on Sunday.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the question whether these men have been misled or not be decided by the officials who, they allege, misled them?
      Mr. TENNANT: Oh, no! If my hon. Friend had listened to the letter which I have read out he would have seen that it is directed to the commandants. There is no idea of addressing it to recruiting officers.

      AGE LIMIT.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the age limit for active service has been reduced from forty-five years of age to forty-three; and has a soldier who is above the age, who has served his twenty-one years in the Cavalry before 1914, when he rejoined, a right to claim to come home for Home defence?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and also to the second part.

      TERRITORIAL UNITS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men now being called up under the Derby scheme are not receiving the promised option of choosing Territorial regiments whereas others are now being drafted into Territorial units; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. TENNANT: As my hon. Friend was informed on the 27th January, as far as possible the wishes of men who have voluntarily attested under the Group system to serve in particular branches of the Army are respected, but no absolute pledge can be given that all wishes can be complied with. It must depend on the requirements of the various branches, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that the Territorial Force shall receive its full share of recruits under the Group System.

      OPPOSITION TO COMPULSORY SERVICE.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that opposition to compulsory military service is being justified in the country on the ground that a Member of this House was asked to

      861
      organise such opposition by a Member of the Cabinet as at present constituted, as both that Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet (including the Prime Minister) were having a very difficult time, and that unless it was shown that people outside were not in favour of it compulsion was certain; and whether he is able to give a direct negative to the above statement both on behalf of himself and his colleagues in the Cabinet?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): The Prime Minister has no knowledge of anything of the kind.
      Major NEWMAN: Does that amount in effect to saying that the statement is without foundation?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister knows nothing at all about the matter.
      An HON. MEMBER: Do his colleagues?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Has the Prime Minister made any inquiries?

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the wife of a man who has married since the 2nd November and who is now called up for service under the Military Service Act, 1916, will be entitled to receive separation allowance in the usual way?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

      TEACHERS ATTESTED (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many teachers have attested since war broke out; what is now the ratio of male teachers to pupils as compared with 1913; and whether he proposes to put any limit to such enlistments?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The total number of teachers who since the outbreak of the War have been called to the Colours on mobilisation, have enlisted for immediate service, or have been attested under the Group system, is 2,275 out of a total of 3,736 of military age. The ratio of male teachers to pupils was 1 to 156 in 1913 and 1 to 201 in 1915, but owing to an increase in the number of female teachers, the average number of pupils per teacher has remained at the pre-war figure of 41. With regard to the last part of the question, an arrangement
      862
      has already been arrived at with the War Office under which the educational requirements of each locality will be considered before teachers in the remaining Groups are called up for service.

      STARRED WORKMEN.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to the action of Messrs. Richardson, Westgarth, and Company, of West Hartlepool, in giving the first intimation of their intention to dispense with the services of a starred workman named F. N. Myers, a single man of military age employed by them as an engineer's patternmaker, to the recruiting officer, Major Martin, of West Hartlepool, and not to the workman himself, thereby depriving the workman in question of the opportunity of accepting one of a number of offers of employment on munition work, at which work he could most usefully serve in the present crisis; whether he is aware that Messrs. Richardson and Westgarth induced their starred workmen to attest under the Derby Group system on the assurance that as starred workmen they would mot be likely to be called up for service; and whether he will take steps to give the workman mentioned in this question and other workmen who have been treated in the same manner by the same firm an opportunity of working on munitions elsewhere than at Messrs Richardson and Westgarth's?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am informed that Myers' name was not, as suggested in the question, supplied to the recruiting officer by the firm. A summons to the Colours was addressed to him by the recruiting officer, and Myers applied for and received a release from his foreman. The firm state that they are not aware of any inducement having been held out to their employés to attest, or of any special assurances having been given to them. I have drawn their attention to the fact that they have no power to release a starred munition worker for military service without the consent of the Ministry of Munitions. I have also called the attention of the War Office to the irregular action of the recruiting officer in summoning a man starred for munition work to the Colours without reference to the Ministry of Munitions. If my hon. Friend will give me further details of other cases

      863
      he has in mind I will consider whether any further action in regard to them is possible.

      BADGES AND CERTIFICATES.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions if his Department is issuing new badges or certificates to workmen in controlled establishments to be valid as certificates of exemption under the Military Service Act, or will war badges previously held be valid as such certificates; and is it necessary for the holders of badges at the time the Act came into operation to get new badges or certificates or to apply to the local tribunals for exemption?
      Dr. ADDISON: A certificate rightfully held with a war service badge on 1st March will be valid as a certificate of exemption under the Act, and new certificates are not being issued in such cases. It is not necessary for a man who holds such a certificate on that date to get a new badge or certificate, or to apply to a local tribunal for exemption. This, however, does not apply to the holder of a war munitions volunteer badge. I am sending my hon. Friend a memorandum issued by the Ministry on this subject.

      ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether cases of exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916, are considered by the advisory committee or by the military representative only before they are referred to the tribunals; to what official of the advisory committee should applications for exemption be addressed; and through what channel will their decision be conveyed to the applicant?
      Mr. TENNANT: Applications for exemption under the Military Service Act are to be sent in every case to the local tribunal and not to the advisory committee. The applications must be made on the official form which provides for the particulars to be entered in duplicate. The duplicate part of the application is forwarded by the local tribunal to the military representative and is considered by him in consultation with the advisory committee. The advisory committee and the military representative acting in consultation can decide that the claim is one which should not be opposed by the
      864
      military authorities, but the actual decision in all cases rests with the local tribunal and not with the advisory committee, and the decision is communicated to the applicant by the local tribunal.
      Mr. LOUGH: Has the advisory committee, then, no separate jurisdiction whatever?
      Mr. TENNANT: The advisory committee gives valuable assistance to the military authorities, and between them they advise the local tribunal what is the military aspect of the question.

      THEOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL STUDENTS.
      Mr. ROBINSONasked whether the Army Council instruction, dated 28th January, whereby students preparing for the Roman Catholic priesthood are on no account at any time to be accepted for service in the Army, will be extended to other theological students?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked if students in Catholic theological colleges have been given exemption from the Military Service Act, 1916, as a class; and, if so, will this exemption be given to medical students who are training for a profession of the highest importance to the community?
      Mr. TENNANT: Instructions are now-being prepared under which theological students of all religious denominations will be treated alike. As regards the latter part of Question No. 115, no alteration has been made in the decisions already announced in reference to medical students. The Regulations have been framed upon the same lines as those for theological students. If there be any distinction, perhaps the treatment of the medical student is the more generous.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received protests from various important labour bodies in Liverpool which were ignored altogether by the city council in the appointment of the local tribunal under the Military Service Act, 1916; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that organised labour in such an important district as Liverpool is given its rightful representation on the tribunals?
      Mr. LONG: I have received representations from some labour bodies in Liverpool, and am in communication with the city council on the subject.
      Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that some difficulty is being experienced by persons appearing on behalf of appellants before the tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916; that a case of this kind occurred at Plymouth on Tuesday, the 22nd instant; and, in view of this, whether he will draw the attention of tribunals to Clause 18 of his circular, which provides for another person being eligible to appear on behalf of an appellant?
      Mr. LONG: On present information I do not think it is necessary to take action in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. I am making inquiries in the case to which he refers.
      Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he definitely promised that a representative should appear for men if it was thought desirable; in this case it was a trade union secretary that was refused?
      Mr. LONG: I am making inquiries in the case. I am not unaware of the fact to which the hon. Member calls attention. Instructions were given to the tribunals, who ought to act upon them.

      WIDOWS' SONS.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in many cases hardship is being done by the refusal of the local tribunals to grant exemption from military service to the only son of a widowed mother; and whether, in view of the assurances given by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and by himself during the passage of the Military Service Act, 1916, he will strengthen the instructions given to the local tribunals in this matter?
      Mr. LONG: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of correspondence which has passed between the central tribunal and myself on the subject. The correspondence has been communicated to the local tribunals.

    HOME BATTALIONS.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will consider, in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief at the front, the possibility of allowing men who have survived a year in the firing line to be exchanged into their Home
    866
    service battalion, seeing that at present a man has no chance of getting home unless he falls sick or is wounded?
    Mr. TENNANT: While I recognise the desirability of providing rest for men who have gone through so much hardship and borne a heavy strain for a prolonged period, I fear the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would withdraw from the Armies all the most experienced men and also officers, for such a rule could not apply only to men. To deprive the Army of so much valuable experience would not, I submit, conduce to the attainment of victory. I may add, however, that all such men as he mentions, other than those in prison or who have been for a long time sick, have been granted leave. The statement made in the last part of the question is calculated to cause misapprehension, and is not, I think, one to which extended publicity should be given.
    Captain CLIVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the services of these men would not be equally valuable in helping to train new recruits at home?
    Mr. TENNANT: We have adopted that policy where it is possible with men who have been wounded, and who are here, sent from the front, but I submit that to deprive the Army of so much real experience and fighting power as suggested, would not be desirable.

    STABLE DORMITORIES (ROYAL FLYING CORPS).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether members of the Flying Corps stationed on a certain well-known racecourse have to sleep in the stable dormitories generally used by the stable boys, which in present circumstances are unhealthy and have produced illnesses arising from cold; if so, whether the War Office has received complaints of this; and what steps it has taken to remedy the conditions?
    Mr. TENNANT: The quarters in question are in the Royal Hotel and consist of the dormitories used by jockeys or grooms in peace time. The rooms, which have been specially inspected, are considered quite healthy, and, except for a slight outbreak of measles, there has been no unusual illness. The only complaint received by the War Office has proceeded, not from the soldiers of the Royal

    867
    Flying Corps affected, but from a lady residing in the neighbourhood. When this complaint was received the quarters were specially inspected, and the conclusion I have stated was reached.

    SERBIAN AND SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
    Mr. KINGasked the total casualties for the Serbian and Salonika Expedition to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. TENNANT: The military casualties in the Salonika Force up to 20th February were: Officers 37, other ranks 1,439.

    ARTILLERY CAPTAINS (PROMOTION).
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say under what circumstances captains of Artillery who have been in charge of six-gun batteries for many months, and who have been doing the duty of majors in presiding at courts-martial, are retained in their existing rank and pay, whereas officers of the same period at Woolwich who have retired and rejoined are promoted to the ranks of major and colonel in priority; and why battery commanders, who are captains, are not allowed to occupy the post of staff captains, an increase of pay of £200 per annum over their present pay?
    Mr. TENNANT: The command of a six-gun battery is normally held by a major and that of a four-gun battery by a major or captain. A large increase of Regular majors was made in order to provide sufficient majors for six-gun batteries and for a reasonable proportion of four-gun batteries, but it is not always possible to have a major in every six-gun battery without disturbing the personnel of other batteries in a way which would not conduce to the efficiency of the Artillery as a whole. The temporary rank of major has only been given where this rank has been considered necessary for efficiency and disciplinary purposes. Certain officers have been given the rank of lieutenant-colonel to command divisional ammunition columns where special qualifications of organisation are more necessary than gunnery experience and because Regular Artillery lieutenant-colonels cannot be spared for this duty.
    868
    As regards the last part of the question, I fear that possible financial benefit to individuals must be regarded as secondary to the general efficiency of the batteries.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of his statement, in November last, that it would be true to say that captains ought to be promoted to be majors within a reasonable time, and that five months have elapsed since he gave that answer and not one of these captains has been promoted to be major?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will have that looked into. I was not aware of the fact.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING (IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether there is now not a single cadet company for the training of officers in Ireland; if so, who is responsible for this state of affairs; and what opportunity at present exists for training young Irish men anxious to serve as officers during the period of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Facilities exist for preliminary training in Ireland in the various contingents of the Officers' Training Corps. It is the case that there is no cadet unit for training candidates for commissions in Ireland.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary whether he was aware that young Irishmen were induced to join the Cadet Company of the 7th Battalion Leinster Regiment, recently known as the Cadet Company of the 5th (Reserve) Leinsters, for training as officers, and that during the last few days this Cadet Company has been disbanded and the young men in question were told by their commanding officer that they must become ordinary privates in the Leinster or other regiments; whether information has reached him that such a breach of faith on the part of the War Dffice will prove detrimental to recruiting in Ireland; and whether he will state the name of the officer responsible for the disbandment of the cadet company?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the members of the Cadet Company of the 7th Battalion Leinster Regiment have always been enlisted as ordinary privates and without any guarantee of commissions being given. The battalion has now proceeded abroad and those left behind have

    869
    been given the option of serving with the 10th Commercial Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers or the Farmers' Platoon, 5th Leinster Regiment, and with other companies of the 5th Leinsters. The status of those who were in the Cadet Company has not been altered; they are still eligible to be granted commissions if recommended as being suitable after passing through the necessary course of training. I do not think there is anything in what has occurred which should, if rightly understood, prove detrimental to recruiting in Ireland.

    LINES OF COMMUNICATION (MANUAL LABOUR).
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked whether numbers of soldiers who are being employed on the lines of communication in manual labour could be replaced by native labour, and thus increase the number of our combatant soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the disadvantages of using non-Europeans on the lines of communication are considerable, and that this course is unnecessary. Men employed in manual labour on the lines of communication are found in existing circumstances from men unfit for combatant service, and it will shortly be possible, I hope, to employ conscientious objectors in setting free any men fit for combatant service who may at present be employed on non-combatant duties.

    WAR OFFICE (UNIFORMS).
    Sir J. WALTONasked if an order has been recently issued to officers employed at the War Office to appear in breeches, gaiters, and spurs; and, if so, who is responsible for the order; and is it regarded as being conducive to more efficient clerical office work?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; no such order has been issued. As regards the last part of the question, I should not like to advance a categorical opinion as to what form of military dress is the more conducive to efficient clerical office work. My observation tells me that the present rules allow considerable and sufficient latitude.
    Sir J. WALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry, as if so he will find that there is foundation for my question?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; I have gone into this matter already. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied that my inquiries have elicited a proper answer, I will certainly engage to inquire again.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the allowance to the widowed mother of No. 6,339, Sergeant P. Lawson, 1st battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, reported killed on the 12th March, 1914, was stopped on the 26th April, and consequently she now finds herself without adequate means of support; and whether he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into this case, with a view to a pension being granted without further delay?
    Mr. TENNANT: A pension of 5s. a week has been approved in this case.

    BRITISH ALUMINIUM WORKS (WAGES).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any men of the Royal Highlanders (Black Watch) or other regiments have been asked to work in the British Aluminium Works at Kinlochleven; if so, will he state the wages paid, and whether any of the men have refused to work there because all they have been offered is 1d. per hour in addition to their military pay?
    Mr. TENNANT: Soldiers detailed under military orders receive in addition to their pay the appropriate emolument laid down in Regulations. I am not aware of any men refusing to do the work to which they have been detailed.

    AERODROMES (SEARCHLIGHTS).
    Major HUNTasked whether, in view of the danger and difficulty experienced by aeroplane pilots at night in finding the flares at present used at aerodromes, a recognisable form of searchlight could be provided for aerodromes as well as the flares, so as to relieve pilots of the danger of being unable to find the only places where a landing can be made in safety at night?
    Mr. TENNANT: In dealing with this matter the authorities responsible have, of course, been guided by the reports received from those directly concerned, i.e., the pilots. These indicate a preference for open flares over searchlights or any other form of lighting apparatus. The hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that the views of the pilots in this matter are more important than those of other persons who do not leave the ground. I may, however, inform him that continual experiments are being made to ascertain the best method of lighting aeroplane landing grounds at night.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the usual practice to grant a few days' leave to soldiers going on active service before they start for the front; whether he is aware that in some cases recently this leave has not been given, owing to the fact that the orders were received too late to allow the necessary time; and whether he can see his way to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my lion. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow on the 27th January.

    BLINDNESS (SOLDIERS DISCHARGED).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether he can give the total number of men discharged to date on account of blindness, and their nationalities?
    Mr. TENNANT: The total number of non commissioned officers and men discharged from the Army for blindness is 156, of whom 122 are English, 16 Irish, 15 Scotch, and 3 Welsh. There are also 9 British officers who have lost their sight at the front, of whom 6 are English, 2 Irish, and I Welsh. I am indebted for these figures to Mr. C. Arthur Pearson, the chairman of the Blinded Soldiers' and Sailors' Care Committee, who, as the House I am sure appreciates, has done admirable work on behalf of the blinded soldiers and sailors.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: These are cases of total blindness and not of one eye only?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    GENERALS (EGYPT).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether there are 117 generals now in Egypt?
    Mr. TENNANT: If there were a large force of troops in Egypt, on which point it would not be proper for me to make any announcement, it is quite conceivable that the presence of 117 generals might be necessary.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS ("COLD-LIGHT SYSTEM").
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has been able to obtain a report on the cold-light system which has recently been used with success in France for the detection of hostile aircraft and on the form of shell with which a Zeppelin airship was destroyed during the last few days?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no information that the so-called "cold-light system" has been used with success in France for the detection of hostile aircraft, though the possibilities of this so-called cold light have, of course, been carefully considered. The details of designs and forms of shell and other munitions are not suitable for discussion in public, but I may inform the hon. and gallant Member that the English and French military authorities are in close touch and constant communication on these points, so that the experience of either nation may be available for the other.

    ARMY FROZEN MEAT.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked what is the total amount paid to Messrs. Perfect and Company for superintending the receipt and dispatch of Army frozen meat, and inspecting same, from the commencement of the War to 31st December, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total amount paid to Messrs. Perfect and Company for all services rendered to the 30th December last is in round figures £28,000.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS.

    HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION (LONDON).
    Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the number of wounded soldiers in military and civil hospitals, respectively, in London

    873
    on the 12th February, 1916; and also the number of vacant beds in the military hospitals on the same date?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the date mentioned there were in military hospitals in London 2,437 wounded soldiers, in auxiliary hospitals 1,267, and in civil hospitals 578. In the military hospitals on the same date there were 5,346 vacant beds.

    BASE HOSPITALS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what reduction has been made in the number of civilian medical officers in the Territorial base hospitals in England; whether any reduction has been made in medical officers in the base hospitals in France; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. TENNANT: Civilian medical officers are employed to a very small extent in Territorial Force general hospitals. These institutions are staffed by officers of the Territorial Force. The number of Territorial Force officers mobilised varies with the number of patients in the wards. The number of medical officers in the base hospitals in France cannot be reduced. The military authorities consider that the number now so employed has reached an irreducible minimum.

    ARMY MEDICAL SERVICES.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a certain number of medical officers are attached to each division at the front whose services are limited exclusively to that division, or whether, when a single division is engaged in a struggle of such protracted length that its medical officers and staff are exhausted, medical officers from a neighbouring division which has not been engaged can be drafted over into the exhausted division for its relief and the saving of the wounded?
    Mr. TENNANT: What my hon. Friend suggests not only can be done but is done. It is the duty of the higher military authorities to distribute the medical officers under their command so as to meet the various exigencies which may arise. The water-tight compartment arrangement is obviously undesirable.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only recently it happened that some medical officers were employed for fifty-two hours at a stretch, while the medical officers of another division were completely unemployed?
    Mr. TENNANT: Obviously I can have no knowledge of that fact. If the dates and places are brought to my notice, I shall have inquiry made.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when a Cavalry corps reached the trenches there was only one medical officer to attend to all casualties?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a contingency that might happen.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: And were not a number of lives lost owing to this shortage?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will give the names of those whom he has described as unofficial members of the Advisory Board for Army Medical Services; whether Sir A. Bowlby and Sir J. Rose Bradford sit on that board as civilian representatives while they are at the same time holding military posts; and, if so, by whom are civilian interests represented on that advisory board?
    Mr. TENNANT: The unofficial members are Professor Kenwood, Sir John Rose Bradford, Professor Leonard Hill, Sir Anthony Bowlby, and Sir Charles Cameron. Sir Anthony Bowlby and Sir John Rose Bradford represent surgical and medical knowledge respectively. They were not put on the board as representative of what my hon. Friend calls civilian interests. The board is an Advisory Board for Army Medical Services.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department has under consideration any scheme of so arranging hospitals and hospital work at the front; and whether by the provision of movable hospitals, or by a closely connected series of hospitals within a short distance of the firing line, that operations on the severely wounded might be undertaken with the least possible delay?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not quite understand the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the hospitals referred to in the second paragraph I may say that use has been made of this description of hospital for many months.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not the fact that wherever it has been possible to operate quickly, by using the movable hospitals, the mortality has been reduced by an enormous extent?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like notice of that question.

    PETROL.
    EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that over large areas in the North of England the sale of petrol to the public ceased on or about 8th February and has not since been resumed; that petrol required by officers of His Majesty's Forces in the prosecution of their military duties can only be obtained on presentation of a certificate granted by the military authorities and only at specified depots; that these depots are often at such a distance as to render such certificates of no use; and, under these circumstances, will he make representations to the companies possessing a practical monopoly of the supply of petrol with a view to securing a more equable distribution of such stocks as are available for public consumption?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): The question of the supply and distribution of petrol has been engaging the attention of the Ministry of Munitions and the Board of Trade. Arrangements are being made to ensure an improvement in the supply and distribution of petrol for military purposes.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to raise the price of petrol by the intervention of the State, as in the case of coal, for industrial purposes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not in a position to answer.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask whether the use of petrol by the public has been shut down, and whether that also applies to the petrol used by Ministers?

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.

      STATE RECOGNITION.
      Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any further information on the question of granting further recognition to the Volunteer Corps associated to the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps?
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to state the decision of the Government on the question of giving recognition to the Volunteer Training Corps?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government have decided to deal with the National Volunteers in Great Britain by putting into force the Act of 1863, under which they will be properly constituted and recognised as a military force solely for Home defence; will receive military rank and status; and be placed in exactly the same position in which the old Volunteer force was at that time and subsequently. They will be under the supervision of the Lords Lieutenant of counties, who will make such provision for their maintenance as may seem necessary and desirable.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Will steps be taken immediately to carry this into effect?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; I understand that is being done.

    ARMLETS FOR DISCHARGED WOUNDED.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to arrange that a medal, badge, ribbon, or armlet be issued to all the men from the front who, owing to loss of limb, severe wounds, or illness, have been discharged from the Army as medically unfit and no longer allowed to wear the King's uniform or, if not, whether those men who have sacrificed so much for their country will be allowed, if they wish, to wear the King's uniform for the duration of the War?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All men who have been discharged from the Army since the beginning of the War on medical grounds are entitled to receive a khaki armlet if they apply to the Officer in Charge of Records concerned.

    IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the advisory committee appointed by the Government to investigate the cases of British subjects imprisoned by the Home Secretary, without trial or any charge being made against them, have any power to insist on release if they consider innocence is established?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The committee have no occasion to insist on the release of the interned persons to whom reference is made. Their recommendations have invariably been acted upon.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, without any curb, he can imprison British subjects without any charge and for any length of time?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That does not arise out of the question, but the circumstances are not such as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask what course there is for these prisoners?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question is irrelevant.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the advisory committee which deals with the cases of British subjects imprisoned by administrative order of the Home Secretary was appointed by the Government and can be dismissed by the Government?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The Committee was appointed by the Government, and could no doubt be dissolved by them, but the Defence of the Realm Regulation which deals with this matter provides that any representations which may be made by a person affected shall be duly considered by an Advisory Committee which shall be presided over by a person who holds or who has held high judicial office. If there were no such Committee there could therefore be no internment orders. I would add that there is no question of dissolving a Committee which has carried out its difficult work with such scrupulous regard both to the safety of the country and the rights of individuals.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is this Committee any curb on the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I hope I do not require any curb. Cases are referred to them for advice, and in all the cases referred to them their advice is always acted upon.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why should there not be an application to the judge in public?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a matter for debate.

    GALLIPOLI (MEDAL).
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Prime Minister whether a separate medal will be issued to those who took part in the Gallipoli operations; and whether, having in view the stimulating effect of such honours and the length of the War, he will consider the conferring of medals now for Gallipoli and such other operations as are concluded?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for East Wilts on the 21st February.

    SALARIES OF MEMBERS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to depriving Members of this House who have volunteered and been accepted for active service of their pay or salary, it is intended, in view of the fact that the sittings of the House are now often limited to three days each week, to deduct from the salaries of civilian Members one-third of their salaries, invest the same in the national War Loan, and hand over the scrip representing such investment to Members entitled to it who may be still alive and Members of the House at the termination of hostilities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be better to leave such matters as these to the individual choice of Members of the House.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether Cabinet Ministers have decided to take one-fourth of their salaries in Exchequer Bonds; and whether he will recommend all other members of the Government to take a similar course?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the matter has been left to the individual choice of the member of the Government concerned. I am given to understand that they have all agreed to act in the same way as the members of the Cabinet.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is it considered desirable that ordinary Members of the House of Commons should follow the same example and agree to accept one-fourth of their salaries in Exchequer Bonds?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Exchequer Bonds can be sold next day?

    WAR COUNCIL.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, in view, of the fact that the Navy is the senior fighting Service, will he say why His Majesty's Government have not appointed a single naval officer to represent the Navy on the War Council?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The, Navy is represented on the War Committee by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who has at every meeting been accompanied by one or more naval officers, including invariably either the First Sea Lord or the Chief of the War Staff.

    ALLIES (NO SEPARATE PEACE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if, before the Treaty with the Allies was concluded agreeing not to make a separate peace, our Government ascertained from all of the Allies what their objects were in the War; and what they expected in the way of guarantees, territorial concessions, and trade and economic opportunities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would not be desirable at present to publish information as to the communications that may have passed between the Allies at the time when they mutually bound themselves not to conclude a separate peace with the common enemy.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the fact that a secret Treaty—now divulged from outside sources—was concluded with Italy, and, as the price of Italy's intervention in the War, offering to give Italy large tracts of Austrian territory?
    HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it is really a secret Treaty, it would be no longer secret if the hon. Member's question were answered.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNTS).
    Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the account which, under the title of "Canada in Flanders," has been published of the doings of the Canadian Expeditionary Force; whether he is aware of the anxiety in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales to be furnished with similar accounts of the actions in which their troops have been engaged; and whether the War Office will sanction arrangements with that object?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have seen the volume in question, the value of which I fully recognise. The compilation of similar volumes for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, treating separately of the exploits of the soldiers of those four kingdoms, respectively, raises different considerations. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on the 24th February, a new series of descriptive accounts written up from official records is about to appear, but these will not deal with events on a national or, as has also been suggested, on a county basis. The time has not yet come for this, which, I think, is better left to private enterprise.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say in the case of a company whose financial year ends on 31st December, but which notwithstanding makes out a half-yearly balance sheet on 30th June not signed by the auditors of the company, whether, for the purpose of the Excess Profits Tax, the accounts will be taken on the basis of two half-years ending 30th June instead of for the financial years of the company ending 31st December: whether he is aware that many companies have taken their financial year for Income Tax purposes as the basis for this tax and made their declaration under the Act accordingly; whether instructions have now been issued that this basis is

    881
    not to be followed, but that where a company has made out half-yearly accounts for the purposes of the directors not signed by the auditors nor issued to the shareholders the two half-yearly accounts are still to be taken instead of the company's financial year; and will he say whether this will necessitate the reopening of the Income Tax assessments for three years, which in the case of collieries extend over five years, or whether assessments made for the purposes of Income Tax are not to be taken into account as a determining factor?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Under the provisions of Section 38 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, the accounting period is taken as a half-year where that is the period for which the accounts of the trade or business have been made up, the question whether in a particular case they are so made up being one for determination on the facts. Many companies have rightly adopted their financial year as taken for Income Tax purposes, where that year coincides with the period for which accounts have been made up, and no instructions have been issued beyond those necessary to carry out these statutory principles. For the purposes of Excess Profits Duty the profits of the several periods of account fall to be separately determined, but this does not involve any reopening of Income Tax assessments.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What is the meaning of this answer of my right hon. Friend. I asked a specific question whether in the case of companies that made up their balance sheets for the financial year ended 31st December all accounts will be taken for the pre-war standard for the whole year or two half-years? The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that. Is he aware that there is an amount of chaos all over the country on this matter and that every commercial company has taken the year and not the two half-years?
    Mr. McKENNA: I refer the hon. Baronet to the last part of my answer, in which I say:
    "The accounting period is taken as a half-year, where that is the period for which the accounts of the trade or business have been made up."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all the companies and auditors have taken the financial year of the company and not the two half-years and made the accounts to the Treasury on that basis?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Do I under stand my right hon. Friend to say that whether stock has been taken or not the accounting period will be taken as the half-year, because, as he knows, many companies and firms—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing the question.

    JAGER v. TOLME AND RUNGE (JUDGMENT).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Lord Justice Swinfen Eady in a case of Jager v. Tolme and Runge and others, reported in "Lloyd's List" of 5th February, 1916, in which the Lord Justice stated that at the outbreak of the War the firm of Tolme and Runge consisted of three members, two of whom were in England and the third was and had since remained, and for aught that appeared still was resident, in Hamburg, and must, therefore, be treated as adhering to the King's enemies; whether the three partners referred to are Hermann Runge, now in England, Richard Runge, his brother, now in Hamburg, and J. J. Runge, son of Hermann Runge, the manager appointed by the Government of the Royal Commission on Sugar; whether Richard Runge is still a partner in the firm of Tolme and Runge; if not, when he ceased to be a partner; and whether his share in that firm has been ascertained and paid over into the hands of the custodian under the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1914?
    Mr. MCKENNA: My attention has not been called to the judgment of which the question purports to reproduce a part, but the facts stated in the question appear to be substantially those with which I have already dealt as fully as it would seem possible that the public interest can in any way demand. I have nothing to add, except to state that so far from there being anything in the accounts of the firm in question to the credit of Mr. Richard Runge, who ceased to be a member of the firm on 4th August, 1914, he is a debtor to the firm in respect of a considerable sum. The Public Trustee has full knowledge of the position.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Royal Commission on Sugar, of which Mr. J. J. Runge is manager, still continue to make large purchases of sugar through the firm of Tolme and Runge; and whether he will state the total amount in quantity or in value of such purchases?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Mansfield on 2nd December last.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Why is it necessary to have these people of enemy origin buying for the Government? Why can we not have British subjects?
    Mr. McKENNA: The gentleman referred to in the question is a British subject.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: By birth?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, by birth, and his father is a British subject. He has done most excellent service for the Sugar Commission.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any objection to the right hon. Gentleman stating, as is asked in the last paragraph in the question, "the total amount in quantity or in value of such purchases" by this firm?
    Mr. McKENNA: The firm is not employed by the Sugar Commission. The firm would sell to us like any other firm. I do not think it would be in the public interest to give any figures.
    Mr. BUTCHERrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the number of questions he will see that he is rather monopolising too much time.

    SUGAR PURCHASES BY ROYAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that on 10th March, 1915, he promised, as soon as the House should reassemble after the Recess, namely, on 14th April, 1915, to give a Return of the sugar purchased by the Royal Commission on Sugar, with the dates of the contracts and other material facts, he is now prepared to give such Return, omitting such particulars, if any, as it may not be in the public interest to publish at present?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Return promised on the 10th of March, 1915, was given on the 11th of May following. I am prepared to give a similar Return in respect of the 1915 crop as soon as it can be conveniently prepared.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an approximate estimate of the quantity of sugar used in the manufacture of beer, and also in the manufacture of ginger ale, ginger wine, and lemonade; and will take into consideration the fact that the price of sugar prevented much jam being made last year, and curtail as much as possible the use of sugar in drink that cannot be regarded as a necessity?
    Mr. McKENNA: The quantity of sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, glucose, and saccharum, used in brewing in the year ended 31st December, 1915, was 132,192 tons. There is no information available as to the quantity of sugar used in the manufacture of ginger ale, ginger wine, and lemonade. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    TRUST FUNDS (SCOTTISH TRUSTEES).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to recent correspondence between the Bank of England and solicitors in Edinburgh acting for a body of trustees desirous of investing trust funds under their care in Government Stock; whether the Bank of England has placed an obstacle in the way of their doing so by refusing to register as holders the names of more than four of the trustees as owners of the stock; whether this is the usual practice of the Bank of England; and if so, whether it rests on Statute or merely on the discretion of the bank; whether he is aware that trustees in Scotland have been repeatedly advised that a trustee who neglects to have himself properly registered in connection with investment of trust funds exposes himself to personal liability; and whether the Government will consider the practicability of relieving trustees in Scotland from this difficulty by introducing legislation either specifically giving trustees power to fall in with the Bank of England's requirements on this point or, alternatively, specifically empowering the Bank of England to fall in with the requirements of the law of Scotland regarding it?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not seen a copy of the correspondence referred to, but my hon. Friend has written fully to me on the subject. The rule limiting the number of stockholders in a joint account to a maximum of four has been long established, and though not based on Statute has been found convenient. It is applied to all holdings and not merely to Scottish holdings. I am inclined to think that the arrangements occasionally adopted under which trustees exceeding four in number appoint four of their number to hold the stock provides a reasonably satisfactory solution of the few difficulties which arise.

    AMERICAN SECURITIES.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of American or other securities resepctively purchased or deposited with the Treasury under the scheme for this purpose up to the most recent date available?
    Mr. McKENNA: It would not be in the public interest to publish the information.

    EMEMY AIRCRAFT (SOUND SIGNALS).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that sound signals against aircraft dangers are not to be utilised within the muncipal boundaries of Edinburgh, but that they are to be used in a village immediately adjoining it; and whether these orders are used by one authority and are regarded by such authority and by his Department as suitable in the circumstances?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the municipal and county authorities are agreed that sound signals are undesirable, and that any instructions to the contrary have been withdrawn.

    PROSECUTION OF RAILWAY OFFICIALS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent criminal prosecution, lasting for several days in the Edinburgh High Court, of the officials of a
    886
    railway company; whether he is aware that the sum of money at stake was 19s. 2d. and that the costs of the trial, which engaged the attention of the Lord President of the Court of Session, six counsel, and several naval officers of high rank, are estimated at about £2,000; whether the case for the prosecution broke down on every single point; whether the whole costs now fall to be paid by the taxpayers of the country; whether he is aware that the parties prosecuted have received the thanks of the Government for their services in connection with the mobilisation of troops; and whether his Department has any power to prevent such actions in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The case was not one in which my Department was concerned, and I have no knowledge of the facts which would enable me to reply to the various points raised in the rest of the question.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this case was instituted at the dictation of the admiral in question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was an Admiralty case—Yes.

    ENLISTED STUDENTS (EXAMINATION FACILITIES).
    Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain universities are allowing examinations to men serving in the Army who were qualified to sit before the War; and will he take steps to secure similar facilities of examination to those mining students who had completed their training previous to the War on the recommendation of the colliery agent and leave of the commanding officer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I should be glad to consider any request from military candidates who may be unable to attend at the ordinary examinations for managers' certificates to be given special facilities for taking the examination, but none, so far as I am aware, have reached the Home Office up to the present. It would not be possible to excuse such candidates the examination altogether.
    Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary (1) if he will endeavour to obtain from the university authorities facilities for mining students who completed their training by 31st December, 1914, but who have been prevented by service in the Army and Navy from sitting for examination, to be granted temporary certificates for two years and be allowed to take their examinations in sections during that period; and (2) if he will, in the interest of mining, obtain facilities for students who have enlisted, and at that time had not completed their training, that they should be allowed to count their service as a part, not exceeding one year, of their mining training, and be allowed to take their examinations in sections?
    Mr. BRACE: Under the Statute, certificates to act as manager or under-manager can only be granted to persons who have had the specified practical experience and have passed satisfactorily the examination held by the Board for Mining Examinations. No change can be made in these conditions except by Act of Parliament. I could not advise the grant of certificates to act as manager or under-manager of a mine to persons who had not satisfied the responsible authority as to their competency to do so; but I am considering with the Board whether, with the consent of Parliament, some concession can be made, under conditions, as to the period of practical experience in the case of men whose time has been interrupted by a period of active service with the forces.
    Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to secure for mining students who, being wounded, are unable to write facilities whereby their examination under such circumstances may be oral in place of written?
    Mr. BRACE: I am considering with the Board for Mining Examinations what arrangements can be made for such cases.

    NEUTRAL ALIENS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary (1) if he will state the number of aliens in the United Kingdom who claim to be subjects of neutral countries; the number of cases in which such claims have been investigated; the number of cases in which such claims have been conclusively proved to be well
    888
    founded; and the number of cases in which it has not been proved that such claims have been well founded; and (2) if he will state what system is employed in order to ascertain if the claims of aliens to be subjects of neutral countries are or are not correct, and also what steps are taken in regard to such aliens if the correctness of such claims cannot be proved?
    Mr. SAMUEL: In reply to these questions, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 20th January last. I would only add that if any question arises as to the nationality of an alien the onus of proving his claim lies upon him, and when necessary the proper proceedings for enforcing this are taken. The statistics asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

    SUNDAY POST.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Post master-General if he can estimate the amount that would be saved by the abolition of Sunday post throughout the country in conformity with the practice in London; and if the economy is appreciable will he enforce it?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): I regret that I am not in a position to state the estimated saving, but it will undoubtedly be appreciable. The question is receiving my most careful consideration. I cannot as yet say what course may be taken.

    PARCELS FOR EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered, and is able to announce, the reversion to the original regulation of allowing a maximum weight of 11 lbs. in the case of single parcels addressed to the Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. PEASE: The matter has been discussed with the military authorities, and it is regretted that, in view of the increasing difficulty of providing for the transport of the mails, it is undesirable to encourage the dispatch of larger parcels by extending the present weight limit of 7 lbs. per parcel for the Expeditionary Force.

    GERMAN PROPERTY IN BRITAIN AND BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of German property in Britain and of British property in Germany?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 11th January.

    SWISS CHOCOLATE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what amount of the cocoa preparations imported into this country from Switzerland during the first six months of 1915, and amounting in value to £811,362, was chocolate, and what amount, if any, was cocoa for table purposes; and whether, in view of the urgent appeals that have been officially made for economy and the disuse of imported luxuries, and in view of the amount of German and Austrian sugar that is used to the benefit of our enemies in the manufacture of Swiss chocolate, he will state what reason, if any, exists against prohibiting or restricting the importation of Swiss chocolate into this country?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No exact information on the subject is obtainable from the Customs records, but I understand that by far the greater part of these imports consists, in fact, of chocolate. I see no sufficient reason for interfering with the importation of Swiss chocolate so long as the importation of other sugared goods is permitted, but I may say that the whole question of the desirability of prohibiting the importation of goods not of prime necessity is now being examined, and that it may be found desirable, as the result of this examination, to place some restriction on the importation of sugared goods generally.

    LABOUR PROBLEMS (RESTORATION COMMITTEES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether it is the purpose of the Government to set up Restoration Committees to prepare for some of the labour problems that will arise with the return of peace; and, if so, what will be the constitution of these committees, and what will be the scope of their work and their terms of reference?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that at this stage I can say more than that the Board of Trade have already under very careful consideration the various labour problems that are likely to arise on the termination of the War and the best methods of dealing with such problems.

    FRUIT IMPORTS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the wholesale fruit trade in Sheffield deprecating further restrictions on the importation of fruit; whether he is aware that there has already been a considerable falling-off in the importation of fruit, that certain kinds of fruit form an important part of the food of the people, and that the Government has itself suggested that the consumption of meat might be diminished by the increased consumption of fruit; and whether, in view of these facts and the uncertainty existing especially among small traders, he is in a position to make a clearer statement as to the proposed policy in respect of the importation of fruit?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade have received representations from various sources with regard to the restrictions of the importation of fruit. Representative deputations of fruit importers have also been received by my right hon. Friend on the subject, as a result of which he hopes shortly to be in a position to make a more definite statement as to the policy to be adopted. I may, however, say at once that the Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that some restriction will have to be imposed with a view to securing more tonnage space. I am not aware that any responsible Department of the Government have suggested that an increased consumption of fruit would lead to a smaller consumption of meat.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES AND TRADERS' DISPUTES.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Railway Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, and the Great Central Railway Company are subjecting certain traders to undue pressure in connection with small disputed pre-war items of account, notwithstanding that it is within the knowledge

    891
    of the companies that the traders are unable to prepare their defence to such claims by reason of depletion of staff by enlistment for military service; whether he is aware that in an application for an appointment of an arbitrator to determine certain differences that had arisen under the provisions of Section 5 of the respective Companies' Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891-2, the said companies' solicitors themselves suggested the arbitrators who they preferred should be appointed, notwithstanding that this function is by the Section itself vested in the Board of Trade; and whether he will arrange for the postponement of actions of the kind mentioned until after the War?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade, from time to time, receive applications from railway companies to appoint arbitrators in order to enable the companies to recover demurrage charges from traders who have declined to pay the amounts claimed and dispute the reasonableness of the charges. A number of such applications from the railway companies named and from other companies are now pending, and the Board are, in accordance with the usual practice, about to appoint the Railway and Canal Commission to act. It is important in present circumstances that wagons should be cleared with as little delay as possible, and there would seem to be no sufficient reason to postpone the settlement of claims for demurrage charges.

    ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (MR. PURDIE'S REPORT).
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. T. Paterson Purdie is a member of the Ship Licensing Committee, Board of Trade; whether he authorised him in that official capacity to thoroughly investigate and report upon the system in force in another Department of the Government, namely, the Transport Department of the Admiralty; and whether the Board of Trade accepts responsibility for the statements in the Report, and especially that all criticism of the Transport Department is uncalled for?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Mr. Purdie is a member of the Ship Licensing Committee. The inquiries he made as to the work of the Transport Department were made in his private capacity.
    Sir J. WALTON: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to whether the statements made by Mr. Paterson Purdie are not largely without foundation?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it the habit to give facilities to private persons to report on Government Departments?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the gentleman referred to the owner of a numerous fleet of three tramp steamers with an aggregate tonnage of 10,000 tons?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I believe he is the president of a large shipowners' federation at Glasgow, and in that capacity and on behalf of the shipping trade he made this inquiry.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it the habit of the Government to allow private individuals to make investigations and reports on Government Departments?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That depends entirely on the nature of the case. Where it is a matter of public interest and there is no special desire for secrecy, private individuals connected with a particular trade or interest are given such information as will interest the trade in question.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will other persons also be allowed to investigate in similar circumstances?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If they have as good a claim to the information it will certainly be given.

    UNLOADING VESSELS IN THAMES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of vessels which have lain in the Thames unladen for five weeks, their names, total tonnage, and total cargoes; whether for a period of two months all grain cargo ships were withdrawn from the Port of London by Government orders; and whether this action disarranged the arrangements in London for unloading wheat?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that delays have been experienced recently with grain-laden vessels, but that no vessels have lain in the Thames unladen for so long as five weeks, while to-day none are waiting in the river for dock accommodation. The Authority attributes the delays that

    893
    have occurred to irregularity in the arrival of the ships, and state that in October and the early part of November arrivals were so light that there was not sufficient work to keep their machinery and men fully employed, while about the middle of November grain vessels arrived in numbers far exceeding the available berthing accommodation, largely by reason of Government requirements.

    RAILWAY GOODS TRUCKS (INTERCHANGEABILITY.).
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether the interchange of goods trucks between the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern Railways has received the approval of the Railway Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, or was carried out at their suggestion; and whether, in the interests of port authorities and traders, anything can be done by the Board of Trade to make the goods trucks of all railway companies interchangeable on all railway systems in the country, and so prevent the waste of time and money now caused by the haul age of empty trucks?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As regards the first part of this question, the arrangement referred to has been made by the three railway companies themselves and does not require the approval of the Board of Trade. As regards the second part, the Railway Executive Committee are seeing whether they can usefully extend the existing arrangements for the common use of railway companies' wagons under which any wagon can be loaded to any station in the homeward direction.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of those persons who, though technically enemy aliens, are still of friendly race, such as Poles, Alsatians, Croats, and others, special facilities or permits are issued and are necessary for them to trade in England or for British subjects to trade with them; and whether, in the case of such persons who are relieved from internment, special provisions are required to allow them to continue their usual avocations?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No special permission is necessary to enable a person of enemy nationality who is exempted from internment to carry on his business. Due consideration will be given to all the circumstances in applying the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, to businesses belonging to such persons as are referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

    MUNITIONS.

      MESSRS. ARMSTRONG, DUMBARTONSHIRE (MEN OF MILITARY AGE).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions how many men of military age previously unskilled in munitions work have been engaged for that work since 14th August, 1915, in the works of Messrs. Armstrong at Alexandria, Dumbartonshire?
      Dr. ADDISON: I regret that I am not in a position to give the information asked for in this question.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries?
      Dr. ADDISON: There have been inquiries, but it is rather difficult to get individual returns like this, and when people are busy I hesitate to ask for them.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not very desirable that the House should have this information, seeing that numbers of single young men, in order to escape enlistment, have gone into these munition works?
      Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but we cannot single out individual firms. If a return were wanted it would have to be obtained from all firms, and that would entail an amount of labour which I should hesitate to impose on them.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is not this a special case, which has become a by-word in the whole locality?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have no knowledge of that.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that William Towle, a member of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), was formerly manager of the Midland Railway Company hotels, and that this

      895
      gentleman has two sons both of whom are managing Midland Railway Company hotels; whether the profits of the hotels of the Midland Railway Company, which are directly managed by the companies, are guaranteed by the Government on a basis of the earnings of 1913; and, if so, whether he is prepared to place all licensed property in scheduled areas on a similar footing or reduce the Midland Railway Company's hotels to the same position as that occupied by other hotels and licensed properties?
      Dr. ADDISON: I can see no point in my hon. Friend's question unless he wishes to suggest that preferential treatment is being extended to the Midland Railway Company because Mr. Towle, who was formerly manager of their hotels, is giving the Government the benefit of his services as a member of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic). I am sorry that my hon. Friend should even appear to countenance so baseless and, I may add, so unworthy a suggestion.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can state the total expenditure of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) for all purposes from its inception to the 31st January, 1916; and when a detailed financial report on its operations may be expected?
      Dr. ADDISON: An account of the expenditure of the Board to the 31st March, 1916, will be furnished to the Treasury in due course for incorporation, in such manner as the Treasury may decide, in the Appropriation Account of the Vote of Credit, 1915-16. It would serve no useful purpose to call for statements of expenditure for broken periods.

      EXCESSIVE DRINKING.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether his attention has been drawn to allegations that within recent months the practice has increased amongst those with whom excessive drinking is either a temptation or a habit of carrying on the person a flat-shaped or other easily portable and concealed flasks of spirits; whether he will consider the practicability of curtailing this habit at least temporarily, locally, and .so far as anyone ever convicted of any
      896
      offence before any Court or tribunal is concerned, by forbidding the carrying of such a flask without a licence to be granted on medical certificate only; and whether his Department has ample power to issue an order to this effect without further emergency legislation; and (2) whether he is aware that the habit exists amongst drunkards and ethers of consuming spirits along with or immediately after beer; whether this habit is regarded by his Department as the cause of much actual drunkenness; whether his Department has power under existing emergency legislation to render both the sale and the purchase of spirits for consumption in this way illegal and punishable; whether, if so, or in any case, he will consider the practicability of authorising or requesting licensing authorities in controlled areas to endeavour to come to a collective understanding with their licensees regarding it; whether representations have reached him from licensees to the effect that the present state of the law renders it difficult for them to decline to serve spirits for such a purpose unless they are prepared to prove in a Court of Law that the purchaser was under the influence of drink; and whether he has any information showing that the majority of licence-holders would gladly co-operate in such an attempt to discourage the habit in question?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that allegations to the effect stated in the questions have been made, and I am asking the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to consider my hon. Friend's suggestions.

      FOREIGN TRADE AND BLOCKADE.
      Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it has been found possible, in accordance with the intention foreshadowed in his recent statement, to obtain the services of a naval officer of flag rank to advise the Foreign Office on questions connected with foreign trade and blockade?
      Mr. LONG: The answer is in the affirmative. The Prime Minister desires me to say that he is glad to announce that Rear-Admiral Sir Dudley De Chair has consented to undertake those duties, in which his practical experience will be of great value.

      Scottish Trade Prosecutions (Butter and Linen).
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) how many prosecutions have been instituted in Scotland within the past three months for passing off margarine as Irish butter; how many of these prosecutions were successful; can he state the amount of fines imposed in each case; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the prosecution by the Board of Trade of a trader in Glasgow for. applying the false description of linen to cotton fronts; and whether, in view of the fact that a penalty of £10 was imposed, he will take into consideration the advisability of securing that equally high fines are imposed for the fraud of passing off margarine as Irish butter?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I propose to answer my hon. Friend's two questions together. I am not in a position to state the number of prosecutions and the amount of the fines throughout Scotland, and as at present advised, I do not think sufficient grounds exist for obtaining a special return. I have seen a report of the prosecution for selling cotton as linen, but I do not think it affords a basis for the conclusions which the hon. Member wishes to draw. The fines imposed must be based upon the respective Statutes in the discretion of the judge.

      National Horse-Breeding Establishments.
      Mr. ROBINSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can now state the amount of money to be paid for the land and buildings in Wilts and Ireland to be used as horse-breeding establishments; whether some of the horses are leased out for racing purposes; if so, how many, on what terms, and to whom?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The properties have been valued at £65,625. Seven two-year-old fillies have been leased to Lord Lonsdale on condition they are returned to the National Stud at the end of their three-year-old racing careers, or at an earlier date should they be found to be unfitted for further racing. All expenses incurred in connection with the training and racing of these fillies are to be defrayed by the lessee. Any prizes won by these horses will be divided equally between the lessee and the lessor after the expenses incurred by the former have been defrayed.

      United Kingdom Patent Rights.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Patent Office in declining to recognise the rights of a Scottish inventor, deceased, in patents issued to him for the United Kingdom on the ground that such patents are distinctively English estate; whether this is the usual practice; if so, whether it rests upon Statute or merely upon custom; whether the Treasury receives any share of the fees and costs thus exacted from Scottish estates; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of treating patent rights issued for the United Kingdom as national and not distinctively English estate?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: It has been the settled practice at the Patent Office for more than thirty years to ask for the resealing in the principal Probate Registry of the High Court in England, of any Scottish testamentary documents which affected a patent. A patent which is the property of a deceased inventor, domiciled in Scotland, is considered to be not only personal estate in Scotland, but also personal estate in England; inasmuch as the patent rights are effective throughout the United Kingdom. The practice rests upon Section 12 of the Confirmation and Probate Act, 1858. Resealing only is required and the only fees payable are the fees of the Probate Registry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO.1) BILL

    MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I desire briefly to call attention to one or two matters relating to the military administration of recruiting, not returning to those matters which I asked the House to consider last week, but dealing with one or two other points to which, it seems to me, it is right that the House of Commons should devote a little time and attention. I wish, first of all, to refer to the case of widows' sons. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board here because he has throughout dealt with this matter in a thoroughly sympathetic way. Everyone who knows him is certain that the assurances that he gives in this House are intended to be acted upon. It is not from any doubt as to the genuineness of the intentions of the Government that I now call attention to the matter. It is a serious and an urgent matter, and one on which a number of people in the country who are entitled to our special sympathy feel very anxious. Let me remind the House what are the declarations that have been made on the subject. When he introduced the Military Service Bill on 5th January, the Prime Minister said:
    "Where there is a single unmarried son left behind it would, of course, be a monstrous thing if the State were to call for military service from a man in that position. He is as much entitled to exemption as any man in the Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th January. 1916, col. 956, Vol. LXXVII.]
    And I remember that that statement of the Prime Minister was received with general cheers—indeed, some hon. Members called out that he was entitled to-more consideration than others. Not only so, but the Prime Minister, as we remember, quoted from an old ballad of the time of Agincourt; and later, in summing up the contents of the Bill, he said:
    "It is a Bill which exempts those who, though unmarried, are the sole support of persons dependent upon them."
    Of course, that did not mean—no sensible person pretends that it meant—that in a case where the widow was a lady of inde-
    924
    pendent means, her son, merely because he was the son of a widow, was going to be exempt. Nothing of the kind. No doubt there are cases in which the relationship of son and widow may exist in which it is perfectly right and proper that the son should volunteer, if he will, and under this Act may be compelled if he will not, but the cases that have arisen before the local tribunals are, as it seems to me, cases well within the Prime Minister's declaration. The matter does not stop there. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, dealing with this matter on the Committee stage of the Bill, said:
    "Nobody desires to take the only son of his mother who is a widow, and who looks to her son for maintenance and support, and relies upon him practically for everything in the world."
    My right hon. Friend pointed out it would be better not to state the exemption in express terms, and it was he who proposed the phrase in the Bill that there should be exemption
    "on the ground that serious hardship would ensue if a man were called up for Army service owing to his special financial, business, or domestic obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th January, 1916, cols. 345 and 346, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    Then, on the Report stage, a rather curious thing happened. My right hon. Friend desired to alter the phrase which he had recommended to us in Committee, and he sought to substitute the word "exceptional" obligations for "special" obligations, and there was some discussion on that. This change was resisted, amongst others, by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). He quoted the Prime Minister's words, that, it would be monstrous to compel widows' sons, and he asked my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) whether such persons got exemption under his Amendment. My right hon. Friend replied at once "Certainly." Some hon. Members, I think, were not very well satisfied with the position, and I myself ventured to interpose a little later in the Debate to suggest that the difference in phraseology might be unimportant if the Government expressly stated that widows' sons were intended to be exempt, and I said this, if I may be forgiven for quoting one sentence:
    "This is one of the cases where a clear declaration from the Government as to the sort of standard they were setting up would make a lot of difference. If my right hon. Friend was prepared to say that if you take the only surviving son of a widow, dependent upon her boy's earnings, and regarded that as a case that clearly ought to be exempted, we should be satisfied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1916, col. 980, Vol. LXXVIII.]

    925
    My hon. Friend at once replied, with the candour and frankness which we are always accustomed to get from him, that I had
    "accurately described the view of the Government, for that is precisely the case we intend to cover."
    On that the opposition was withdrawn, and the proposed change was made in the Bill, the matter went forward, and I think everyone was satisfied. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say just now that he had sent a communication to the central appeal tribunal on this subject. I think I understood him to say he had sent it to the local tribunals.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am making no complaint whatever of the right hon. Gentleman, or any member of the Government at all, but we are all concerned in this House to see that when representations and undertakings are made, they shall in fact be fairly carried out. Do not let me pitch my complaint too high. All I say at present is, that really those representations are not being given due effect to by these local tribunals. I take by way of illustration, and solely by way of illustration, what has happened in one of the tribunals in London, and I take five cases. Case No. 1 is that of a man, the sole support of his widowed mother, aged sixty-five, who suffers from rheumatism. He contributes 25s. a week and lives at home, but there is no other income at home, and he is refused exemption. Case No. 2 is that of a man, the principal support of a paralysed mother. The sister, a typist, contributes 10s. a week to the home, and the man contributes 25s. a week, and pays any necessary doctor's fees for attending his sick mother. He is refused exemption. The third case is that of a man who is the sole support of a widowed mother, and who partially supports two sisters. He is refused exemption. Another man is the sole support of a mother of sixtyeight, crippled with rheumatism. He allows her £l a week, and there are a few shares which bring in the princely income of £9 per annum, and presumably on that ground exemption is refused. The fifth case is that of a son who is the sole support of a very delicate mother aged
    926
    sixty-five. A sister has to stay at home and look after the mother. He is refused exemption. No one will for a moment contend that those decisions, if correctly reported—and they have been checked with a good deal of care—are in accordance with the intentions of the Government. I do not pause to ask what were the intentions of the Government when the Bill passed, and what are their intentions now. I am sure their great desire is to secure that the declarations which they make shall be fairly carried out. Let me give a single instance from another district in London which came under my personal observation. This is the case of a young man, the only son of a widow, the widow being entirely dependent upon his support, and who had his appeal refused on 20th January. The tribunal did not challenge any of the facts, but suggested, without any real warrant, that this young man's employers would make up any loss in salary. That surely was not the intention of the Government or of the House of Commons when they put those words into the Bill, and this young man writes to me to say:
    "I pointed out that nearly eighty of the staff had enlisted, while a large number had attested, and that it would be obviously impossible for the firm to bear the financial responsibility for this large number. Besides, in the event of my being killed my employers could not, of course, accept financial responsibility."
    It does seem to me that, as matters stand, these local tribunals are not giving sufficient attention to this class of case. They are to proceed on the assumption that those to whom they refuse exemption will come back alive and well. We all hope they will, but it is not right that the cases should be disposed of as though that would necessarily happen, and the pension which the bereaved mother would get, or the compensation which the man would get if he returned invalided or wounded, by no means compensates for the loss which is suffered by such a home if these refusals are persisted in. I do not say in a time of war it is a good reason for exemption to say that hardship will result if a man is not exempted. Hardship there is in all quarters, and widows' sons, like other people, have to take their share; but I do say it would be a great shame, after the express declarations that were made when this Bill was passed and the assurances offered to the House, if cases such as I have referred to

    927
    are not promptly and effectively revised. That is the first point to which I wish to draw attention.
    4.0 P.M.
    The second point is one to which, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State for War would more properly attend. It has to do with this famous yellow form W3236. I said a week ago that this form, as I was told, was being sent out indiscriminately to people whether they were within the Military Service Act or not. That seems a very improper thing to do. It is no answer to say that the individual who receives this form and is outside the Act has only got to say so. We are dealing with people many of whom do not understand their rights, and many of whom are very much alarmed at anything which looks like military or official direction; indeed, they have some reason to be alarmed, because this yellow form, which requires the person to whom it is addressed to join the Colours in the course of the next few days, contains at the bottom an extract from Section 15 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, which reminds the gentleman who receives this particular form that if he does not obey he will be dealt with as deserters are dealt with in time of War. It is no use saying that this is a matter which does not matter much, because this form has gone to hundreds and thousands of people who have no conceivable obligations under the Military Service Act. I called attention to this matter a week ago, and I do not believe that it has since been adjusted in the least degree.
    There is a second grave objection to this form. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War and the War Office know perfectly well that even if a man is liable to be compelled he is entitled to apply for an exemption, and if he does so, he cannot be required to join the Colours until his exemption is disposed of. This is perfectly well understood by the War Office, and it was intended by the House of Commons, although it is not well understood by those who get this form. There is nothing on this form to give any information of that sort. A young man may be a person who is liable to compulsion under the Military Service Act, but he may have grounds for appealing for an exemption. If so, he is not under any obligation to
    928
    join the Colours until that matter is disposed of, and yet he is given this yellow form which declares,
    "You are hereby warned that you will be required to join for service with the Colours on the 8th of March, 1916. "He is practically told, "If you do not obey the order we are now sending you will be treated as a deserter." You do not need to be a lawyer to understand these things because they are perfectly plain and simple, and if the War Office desires to act fairly and with consideration to people outside this Act, nothing would be easier than to put on this yellow form a plain notice as to this condition. If you do not put that on, in point of fact whether you mean it or not, you are bluffing a great number of people into the Army whom you have no right to force into the Army whatever.
    I should have thought that the words of the Act of Parliament were so simple that nobody could misunderstand or misrepresent them. I should have thought they were so simple that the War Office could not misunderstand or misrepresent them. What has happened? My right hon. Friend was instructed at the end of last Session to give a misleading answer to an hon. Friend of mine, and he started on a course of serious mistakes. Everybody in the country who had been rejected under the Derby scheme, and was therefore not liable to be compelled, was told by the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman that he must be re-examined, and the result is that there has been a series of statements and explanations and withdrawals in regard to this matter which has left the whole thing in a muddle. Now there is no reason whatever why there should be a muddle. This is the simplest and plainest thing to state in the world. In the absence of any statement by the War Office I was driven to write to the papers because I was getting so many letters on the subject, and I was afraid that unless something was done in the matter I should be swamped. On this matter I am sure I shall have the sympathy of my right hon. Friend. Whatever the views of my right hon. Friend were last week, I would remind him that the matters I am calling attention to are not some casual occasional slips, but they are occurring systematically all over the country, to the great annoyance and indignation of many honest people. The last state of this ridiculous muddle is this: I complained that

    929
    the War Office did not announce in every recruiting area by poster or pamphlet what the position of these people was. They never did so, and they allowed the whole thing to be muddled by questions and answers in the House of Commons. At last they thought they would issue a poster, and they issued it yesterday, and this is spite of the fact that here, in Debate, we established that it was not necessary for a man to hold any particular certificate for him to be a rejected man under the Act. The poster announces that:
    "Where a man considers he is exempt from military service on the ground that he has offered himself for enlistment and has been medically rejected from military service since the 14th of August, 1915, he must produce a rejection certificate duly completed and signed, which is recognised as good by the military authorities."
    There is not a word of truth in that, and really it is about time that the military authorities learned the contents of this Act of Parliament. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether I have been rightly informed that this poster has been withdrawn?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My attention was only called to this poster to-day, and I have not seen it before. It has not been withdrawn.
    Sir J. SIMON: Then the country awaits the favour of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope in his graciousness he will be moved to withdraw it, because it entirely contradicts what he himself said in the House of Commons. I certainly understood from the papers, and from what I have been told privately, that it was either withdrawn or about to be withdrawn by the military authorities. My right hon. Friend says he does not know yet, but when he replies, will he tell us who is responsible for that poster? The person who has got to answer for it here is my right hon. Friend. I can well understand that under the pressure of work things may be done of which the right hon. Gentleman has no personal cognisance, but it does surprise me to be told that so recently as yesterday, after all the Debates we have had and all the questions and answers on this subject, that the authorised spokesman of the War Office in this House never heard of that poster until it was stuck upon the wall. The date of it is March 2nd, the appointed day under the Military Service Act. There are posters inviting people who would otherwise be compelled to
    930
    volunteer, but only yesterday this poster was issued, and it flatly contradicts what the right hon. Gentleman told us a week ago. It flatly contradicts the Act of Parliament. It is a false poster, and I find it almost impossible to believe that a body like the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee or my right hon. Friend could possibly have authorised its issue. The result of it is that people who a week ago were told that they were not necessarily to be compelled because they had not got this certificate, are now, in fact, told by this poster that they will be compelled unless they do have such a certificate. I do not know what will happen if that doctrine is allowed to prevail. I recognise the expediency of the letter which my right hon. Friend read in answer to a question by an hon. Friend of mine. As far as that letter goes, it endeavours to correct very serious mistakes which have been and are being made. I do not in any way wish to quarrel with that, but there are two things about the letter. The first is that that letter was not sent out until last Sunday. We called attention tion to this matter a week ago, and I also called my right hon. Friend's attention to it by letter. Why was it necessary to wait until last Sunday, except perhaps on the principle of "the better the day the better the deed," before you tell the military authorities throughout the country that they are not to go on pretending to people who are outside this Act that they are in it, and threatening them with compulsion unless they come in before 2nd March?
    My second observation is that this announcement deals with those persons who have been rejected for the Army since the 14th of August, 1915, and who have been subjected to a second medical examination under a misapprehension. So far, so good, but most of the people who have been illegally dealt with during the last fortnight are people who have not been submitted to any medical examination at all. They were rejected and given certificates of rejection because they were medically unfit, and they have been told by the military authorities that that did not exempt them, and they have now been put into the Army without any further medical examination whatever. Before my right hon. Friend's letter to the different commands in the United Kingdom can be considered satisfactory it will have to deal with two or three other matters. First of all it ought to deal with the

    931
    destruction or the cancellation or repudiation of the certificate. I am going to give half a dozen examples to show that this is not an imaginary point of mine. I will give a case from Yorkshire. It is that of a young man attested on 9th December, and on the following day he was carefully and adequately examined by a military doctor, who rejected him, so that he received Army Form B 2512 a, marked "medically unfit." Nevertheless he received subsequently an order to join the Colours. He went to the recruiting officer, produced his rejection form, which the recruiting officer instantly tore up and threw into the fire, saying, "That is no good now." On the father writing to the War Office he is told that the son was not properly examined on presenting himself for attestation, and that the form was merely given him in order to enable him to obtain an armlet. On writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War he is told by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee that he should reply to the yellow form by proving to the recruiting officer that he has been rejected. How can he do that if the recruiting officer has taken his rejection form and thrown it into the fire? Here is another case from Sheffield of a man who was attested last December and not accepted because he suffered from rupture. This is what he writes:
    "Being led to understand that men not accepted were receiving armlets, I presented myself at the Sheffield Corn Exchange on 15th January and produced my medical form, which was immediately taken from me by the fellow at the door (a civilian), and although I asked for it back he only laughed and pocketed it, saying I was to leave it to him. I was then ushered into an anteroom and made to attest in the usual way, which I had already done the previous month, and was accepted, although I was in the same condition."
    Here is another case from Sheffield. He offered to attest on 26th November, and was rejected as medically unfit. He was given the Army Form B 2505 a, and on the 29th January he called at the recruiting office to inquire about the armlet, and this is what he said:
    "I was told by the clerk that all rejection papers were being called in and that all would have to attest and then have a medical examination again. My paper, which was an Army Form B 2505 a. was taken from me. I asked for another examination, seeing that was being done, and was refused, but I was told to wait until the group was called up and then go before the medical board."
    Here is another case from Leicester. This man was given the same Army Form, and he went to procure his armlet. When he produced his paper the recruiting sergeant destroyed it and told him to go and get
    932
    attested. He went, thinking that if he did not he would be classed as a conscript. Subsequently he wrote to his Member of Parliament, who sent on his letter to the War Office, and eventually reached this same recruiting officer at Leicester, who sent for the son of this man and, in the first place, wanted to know why he had gone behind his back in writing to a Member of Parliament. Here is a pretty state of things. This, you observe, is not done by some ignorant recruiting officer, the War Office knowing about it, but the letter is sent to the War Office, the War Office send it back to the recruiting sergeant, and he has the impudence to rebuke somebody who is a civilian and who never ought to have been turned into a soldier because he writes to his Member of Parliament. Here is a case from Hampshire. A man who had been given a medical certificate of rejection as being unfit showed it to the recruiting officer, and asked him if it was any good. The recruiting officer tore it up and said, "That is how much good it is." In another case, from Dewsbury, the recruiting officer tore the medical certificate of rejection up before the man's own eyes, and told him the least he said about it the better it would be for him, and he was passed fit for service.
    I could go on with endless examples to show that the first thing my right hon. Friend has got to do if he wants, at this late hour, at this eleventh hour, to do something to correct the misbehaviour of his own subordinates, is not to write letters about people who complain that they have been subjected to a second medical examination, but to write saying that people who have been given certificates of rejection and whose certificates have either been repudiated, destroyed, or cancelled are to be given fresh certificates at once. He must also write a letter about many cases in the country in which people who were promised certificates of rejection are now refused them. For instance, in Oxford you will find that they have sent this yellow Army form to men who have been rejected, and that the military authorities on production of the certificate refuse to acknowledge the validity of it, and profess that some other certificate which is not forthcoming ought to be given. Here is a case from Ipswich, where a man who was rejected was told that the certificate of rejection would be sent by post. He did not receive it, and he inquired at the recruiting office, and this is what he says:
    "I was then told nothing could be done, and that I must attest. When his authority (the recruiting

    933
    officer's authority) was challenged, he said that he had received instructions from the War Office—"
    I invite my right hon. Friend to tell me: Is that true? Is it true that this man had received instructions from the War Office?
    "contained in a certain order, that every man, irrespective of what had taken place previously, was to be grouped and attested."
    I want to know if that is true, and I have some right to know, because last week I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would produce the instructions sent to these different local authorities, and my right hon. Friend refused.
    Mr. TENNANT: I never refused.
    Sir J. SIMON: Well, my right hon. Friend said he thought that it was not necessary. I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. It is not fair to him to say that he refused. He urged me not to press that request, and I did not press it in view of what he said. Here is a case from Halstead, where a man who offered himself for enlistment was sent by warrant to the depot at Colchester. He was rejected for bad sight, and was promised that a badge and rejection paper should be sent on to him, but he never received them. On 2nd February he applied again at Colchester for his rejection paper, and he was told that he was not rejected unless he went under another examination. He was reexamined and was passed. In a case at Moseley a man, who attested and was rejected, was told that he would receive his rejection certificate by post. He has a note from the doctor, testifying to his rejection, but he has no rejection certificate, and he has received a notice calling him up for 1st March. A man at Briton Ferry, Wales, failed to pass the doctor on account of bad eyesight and tumour on the face. He holds the doctor's signature to this effect:
    "There were no forms of certificate available at the time, they having been all given out. I called twice afterwards, and they said that although they had written several times, none had come from headquarters."
    I suppose that is War Office economy.
    "Seeing that all certified unfit had to be re-examined, and not wishing to be a conscript, I naturally went up again to be examined."
    See how hard it is on this man! He saw in the papers my right hon. Friend's incorrect answer, and he did not want to be a conscript. As a matter of fact there was no danger of his being a conscript. He had offered himself, and had been rejected because he was obviously unfit.
    "I naturally went up again to be re-examined. To my surprise they passed me as a clerk, which was ridiculous, and one of the doctors was the one who rejected me in the first instance, and he did not even ask me to strip."
    934
    I complain that this matter might have been corrected long ago. Let me show by two illustrations that this is going on at this late hour. Here is a case from Leicester in which so recently as Sunday, 27th February, a man received a yellow paper, signed by a certain Lieutenant Platt, informing him that he must report himself at such-and-such barracks not later than 9.15 on 3rd March. He went to the Town Hall and inquired for Lieutenant Platt:—
    "When I had entered his room, I put the paper and ticket on the table, saying 'I think there is a mistake as I have been rejected since August.' Picking up the paper, he asked to see my rejection certificate, and when I did show it to him, he said it was no use to him and I must be examined again, which I refused to do."
    That is as recently as yesterday. I will give another illustration almost equally late in date, and equally bad. This is in the North of London, Harringay. The man has received this paper calling him to the Colours, although he has been rejected as unfit. He went to the recruiting office, Bruce Grove, Tottenham, on Saturday, the 26th inst., and this is what he says:—
    "I was told that my certificate was of no effect, and that everybody would be called upon to serve unless they could produce Army Form B 2505 a or B 2512 a, issued under Lord Derby's recruiting scheme."
    The right hon. Gentleman told us last week that was not true. Surely he ought to have seen to it between last week and now that every recruiting officer was instructed correctly on these very elementary points. The gravest feature of it is this: The whole thing from beginning to end is not really directed towards strengthening the British Army in the least. The principle on which people are going is that nobody is to be rejected, and I would invite my right hon. Friend to tell me whether I am not right that from headquarters itself orders have been given that practically nobody is to be rejected. When the Derby scheme began it was perfectly fairly and honestly explained that it was a scheme under which everybody might offer and under which people not military fit were to be rejected, and were to be in the honorary position of volunteers who none the less could not serve. That whole scheme has been turned upside down, and whether or not this is a despairing attempt to prove Lord Derby's figures or whatever the reason may be, it is a fact that during the last few weeks nobody in the country has been rejected if he has got as many as two legs or as many as two arms. In order that the House may see what a wasteful, stupid, and uneconomic system it is, let me direct their attention to this letter, the

    935
    only one I will read after the long number to which I have already referred. Here is a letter from the head of a business in Chancery Lane, and this is what he says:
    "I offered myself for direct enlistment in December, 1915, and was rejected as medically unfit, and hold the Army certificate to that effect. When the Military Service Bill was read in the House. I called at the Mansion House recruiting office to ask if I came within the scope of the Act. I was told that if I did not attest at once, I would be conscripted and would have no right of appeal. Both these statements now appear to be false. I therefore, against my will, attested. The medical officer who examined me said that I am totally unfit for military service of any kind except of a clerical nature, and placed me in Class B 4. …"
    Everybody who is utterly incapable of any other work whatever is put in Class B 4—
    "My group has now been called up, and I have to leave and close up a large business, which I own and manage, where I employ 140 people, and which supports my four sisters, two aunts, and an aged father. This means financial ruin for myself and family, and all the Army gain is a raw recruit for their clerical staff, which position could easily be filled by hundreds of women, or by one of the large number of slightly wounded men whose business is that of a clerk."
    I have testimony of that sort from all over the country, and that, forsooth, is war economy. It is about time the military authorities realised that if they want to imitate the effectiveness of Germany they have not to imitate her brutality, but her efficiency. There is nothing efficient in being incapable of understanding the plain words of a simple Act of Parliament; there is nothing efficient in being unwilling to tell the recruiting officers what their duty is; and there is nothing efficient in tearing up peoples rejection forms and swindling them into the Army. You are rolling up a great burden upon the backs of the taxpayers without being able to show any proportionate addition to your military strength.
    Mr. LONG: I think it will be convenient if I deal with the first question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech, and leave the general case which he has presented to the House to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Tennant). I hope that I may be forgiven if I say that I cannot help regretting the general tone of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am going to say why. The task placed upon these tribunals is one of tremendous difficulty. They are confronted with the primary duty of securing for the country the men who are essential to the country's position. I am dealing now with the question as it affects the
    936
    tribunals. I am not dealing with the rest of the case, with which I have nothing to do. My right hon. and learned Friend gave a limited number of cases, and he was good enough to say, what I hope the House will believe to be true, that the views which were expressed, and which it fell to my lot to express during Committee and on Report on behalf of the Government, he felt sure were our views now. There is nothing that I said, speaking for the Government, in any of those Debates from which I seek to depart now. I had had no evidence brought to my notice until I heard my right hon. and learned Friend's speech that these cases were occurring in any large number in any part of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am stating a fact. I had only heard of one or two cases. What is the remedy? There is no controversy as to what the Government meant and what the House meant when we were discussing these questions. My right hon. and learned Friend has read various passages from various speeches. He will remember, I am sure, that on the Report stage, when we got to the end of this rather difficult discussion, he put this straight question to me:
    "If my right hon. Friend is prepared to say that if you take the only surviving son of a widow dependent upon her boy's earnings and regard that as a case that clearly ought to be exempted, we should be satisfied,"
    to which I replied in the affirmative. There can be no doubt that the Act covers that case, and the regulations and instructions which have been issued, and the letter which my right hon. and learned Friend read, made it perfectly clear that case ought to be dealt with and covered. They go further than that, because, as the House knows, the governing words of the Section are "serious hardship"
    "On the ground that serious hardship would ensue, if the man were called up for Army service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position."
    The real task of the tribunal is to ascertain what is meant by the words "serious hardship." My right hon. and learned Friend said, quite frankly, that in a time of war like the present he would regard that as not being a hardship in time of peace would seem to be a very severe hardship. I do not think I am misrepresenting his words.
    Sir J. SIMON: I quite agree.
    Mr. LONG: And, therefore, the interpretation of language in cases of this

    937
    kind must be relative to the situation in which we find ourselves. The imposition of any form of compulsion must be an obvious hardship to those who resist or resent or reject it, and therefore it is impossible to avoid hardship. For these reasons we put in the words which are in the Act—the words "serious hardship." If these tribunals were the sole authority, then I admit the case of my right hon. and learned Friend would be a very grave one. But may I point out to him and to the House the obvious answer to the difficulties, if they really exist—and I am not impugning his statement for a moment—if the facts can be proved, is that not enough to make an allegation that there would be hardship, financial, domestic, or otherwise. The allegations must be established by facts before the tribunals, and if they are so established then I do not hesitate to say, so far as I am entitled to interpret the Act, the people coming under these descriptions are entitled to exemption. Is there no remedy provided by Act of Parliament? My right hon. and learned Friend has given the House some cases. I do not know whether he has had very many similar cases sent to him. This is the first I have heard of them.
    Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to interpose. It is only fair and right to say that I have not on this point had anything like as many cases as those I have read. On other points I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, and I put this in a perfectly friendly way, whether the cases be few or many they should all receive attention.
    Mr. LONG: I quite agree the number of cases is not material at all. It is just as great a hardship whether there be one case or whether there be fifty who are intended to be covered by the words of the Statute, but who, in fact, are not released. Parliament, however, has provided a remedy. There is an appeal tribunal, and I do not hesitate to say the proper course to adopt in each one of these instances is to bring the case before the appeal tribunal. I am confident that that tribunal realises fully what are their powers. I do not think there is any misconception as to the intentions of Parliament when it passed this Act of Parliament, and if any of these cases can be established, if the facts can be proved,
    938
    and if the cases are taken before the appeal tribunal, justice will be done.
    As regards the tribunals, I think there is some confusion which perhaps I may be able to remove. There is a body known as the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee discusses the cases with the military representative, and if they are agreed it has been the practice of the local tribunal under what is known as the Derby scheme to accept the decisions arrived at by the military representative and the Advisory Committee and to act upon them without further discussion. In some cases, however, the local tribunals have declined to take this course, and it has, in consequence, been thought that they were an appeal tribunal reversing the decision of the Advisory Committee. But it is nothing of the kind. The appeal tribunal is the only body which has power to act and decide. The Advisory Committee is only a committee—and as such it is accurately described—entrusted with the duty of giving advice in conjunction with the military representative to the local tribunal. The power of the local tribunal is not interfered with. Their position is not in any way altered by the setting up of the Advisory Committee. It was merely thought—and I think it was a good provision—that the Advisory Committees would be able to act in the same way as Grand Juries act in regard to cases coming before the Courts. The Grand Jury clears the list of a certain number of cases by returning what is called a "No Bill." In this case the Advisory Committee agree with the military representative that certain men ought to be given either a postponement or release. These cases go with this joint recommendation to the local tribunal which decides them.
    Mr. LOUGH: That is not the duty of a Grand Jury.
    Mr. LONG: What the Grand Jury does is to throw out the Bill, thereby declaring that there is no case to go on with. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred this is exactly what happens in this matter. When the Advisory Committee and the military representative are agreed nothing more is heard of the case. The local tribunal deals with it. There are exceptions, of course, and then the cases go to the appeal tribunal. You

    939
    have a central tribunal in London, and if there has been injustice done, clearly such cases should be taken to appeal.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Does not the Advisory Committee really try the cases?
    Mr. LONG: No. Of course, they make inquiries as they have power to do, but they are not a tribunal established by Act of Parliament. They have no power to try cases in the sense that the local tribunal has. The tribunals are charged with absolute powers. The Advisory Committee only advise the tribunals. It is owing to the fact that in some cases the Advisory Committee and the tribunals have differed that the impression has gone abroad that the local tribunal is an appeal body which has reversed the decision of the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: By whom is the Advisory Committee appointed?
    Mr. LONG: It is a body set up by the War Office. It is a body with which, as I frequently stated during the Debates on the Act, we have nothing to do in my Department. It is no part of our local government machinery. It is no part, for instance, of the machinery which we use for enlistment procedure. For that procedure we take advantage of our local authority, and we make the local authority the first tribunal. It was the first tribunal we recognised as set up by Parliament, and, with certain alterations, it became the tribunal under the Military Service Act. But the Advisory Committee was established by the War Office to help the military representative, and if the military representative were satisfied that some of the cases he had put before the Advisory Committee were deserving of relief on their recommendation these cases went forward to the tribunal, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred exemption was granted.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the military adviser invariably present at the meetings of the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. LONG: I cannot say. The Advisory Committee is a body for which the Government are not responsible. It is not recognised by the Military Service Act. It is not a local authority recognised by us. It is a committee set up by the War Office to help and advise the military representative. I believe it has acted admirably throughout the country. Certainly all the reports I have received
    940
    go to show that it has done most admirable work. I am informed it is a committee selected by the Recruiting Committees, and the Recruiting Committees are largely representative of the country in many ways. So far as I know, the Advisory Committees have done their work extremely well. They have secured the release of men in many cases which otherwise might have occupied considerable time. I only mention this in order to show the House that there is misapprehension and confusion in the minds of people as to these different tribunals. I am glad to learn that the cases recited by my right hon. and learned Friend are not supported by a great number of instances in his possession. If he will be good enough to let me have a list by which I can identify them, I will take any steps within my power to see that the Act is carried out.
    Mr. WATT: May I send the right hon. Gentleman my list as well?
    Mr. LONG: I am quite sure my hon. Friend would never dream of sending Scottish cases to an English Department. He would confer his favours on my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who, I am sure, will be prepared to deal with them. I have no power, as Minister, to interfere with the action of the tribunals. I think it must be perfecly clear to all those who took part in the Debates on the Military Service Act that I made it plain that what this tribunal has to do is to interpret and put the Act in force. There is a check upon them, and that is the Central Tribunal, to which all cases can be taken. All I can do is to endeavour to act as amicus curœ and I will do everything I can to assist to getting the matter put right. I am quite confident if injustice has been done, it has been done inadvertently. I have abundant letters which show that the tribunals have laboured hard to do their work honestly and justly, and if there has been, by inadvertence, a failure to interpret the Act rightly, I am confident they will give justice when appealed to. To secure that this shall be done, I shall be only too glad, on behalf of the Government and of my Department, to render any assistance I can.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I regret the right hon. Gentleman has intervened so early in the Debate, because there are other matters arising out of the administration of the Military Service Act by the

    941
    local tribunals which I, and I believe other Members of the House, are anxious to bring under his notice. I do not propose to deal with the matter put before the House in such a powerful way by the late Home Secretary, but I will briefly bring to the notice of the Local Government Board what appears to me to he instances in which the tribunals are not carrying out the pledges given by the Government during the passage of the Bill through this House. I am sure we all heard with satisfaction the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's determination to see that those pledges were carried out as far as possible. The first point to which I wish to call attention is the constitution of the tribunals. The President of the Local Government Board, in what I believe was his longest speech during the Committee stage on the Bill, made it quite clear that it was the desire of the Government that there should be adequate labour representation on these local tribunals. I have not a word of complaint to say in regard to the instructions given by his Department to the local tribunals. I think in those instructions every pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman in this House was covered. But I do not know what may be the right hon. Gentleman's idea of adequate labour representation on the tribunals. It is within my knowledge that there are very few of the tribunals which have been set up which have any labour representation whatever. In his instructions the right hon. Gentleman very properly suggests to the local authority responsible for the setting up of the tribunal that where there is a body generally representative of labour that body should be consulted by the local authority in regard to labour representation on its tribunal.
    I take it that by that the right hon. Gentleman meant such a body as a local trades council. May I give one instance out of a great many? It is the case of my own Constituency. I doubt if there be a constituency in the country where, in proportion to the population, there are more organised trade unionists than in the borough of Blackburn. There are nearly 30,000 trade unionists affiliated to the local trades council. The local trades council was not consulted at all by the corporation in regard to the constitution of the local tribunal. That is in a borough with a population of about 130,000. The
    942
    minimum number of members has been appointed to the tribunal—that is, five—and of those five members three are employers of labour, one a brewer, one a lawyer, and the fifth is a working man. I suppose he was appointed by the corporation to fulfil that part of the instructions which requires that there shall be adequate labour representation on the tribunal. This man in no sense represents organised labour in Blackburn. Indeed, he has very often been censured by the trades council for what he has done as a member of the local town council, and only a few months ago he handed in his resignation to the labour body in the constituency, and a resolution was passed accepting it with pleasure. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that a tribunal constituted like that fulfils his promise that there should be adequate labour representation upon the tribunal. I know a great many cases throughout the country where there is no working man representative at all. I had down on the Paper last week a question to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the constitution of the local tribunal in the rural district of Pickering, in Yorkshire. Eight members have been appointed to the tribunal, and every one of them is a farmer. It will be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that on the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment making it a statutory obligation to appoint a woman or women to the local tribunal. I have followed, as far as I could possibly do, the constitution of the tribunals all through the country, but I have never yet met with one case where a woman has been appointed to the tribunal, although I am told there are two or three such cases.
    I want to say a word with regard to the position of the military representative on these tribunals. I can best put forward the point I want to make by bringing before the House the report of a meeting of the Bristol Tribunal, which took place on the 16th February. The military representative was addressing the meeting and, as reported in the "Western Daily Press" on 19th February, he appeared to advise the committee on all questions of procedure and with regard to the interpretation of the Act. He laid before the tribunal a statement which had been prepared by the military authorities, which he referred to as a military instruction. I would ask the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War to that point,

    943
    because I want to know what are the instructions which have been given to the military representatives who appear before these tribunals? I think it was generally understood when the Bill was before the House that the position of the military representative in regard to the tribunal was not that of an advisor to the tribunal, but, if I may so put it, counsel for the prosecution.
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. I cannot help thinking that some of these references are to the late tribunals.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No, this is not.
    Mr. LONG: Well, they still exist. They are going on, as it were, side by side. The tribunal constituted by the Act is a different one, and the military representative is not a member of that tribunal. He can appear before it as the representative of the War Office in that neighbourhood, but he is not a member of the tribunal. In some cases where it has fallen to my lot to appoint military representatives I have suggested that if they accepted office on the tribunal they would, of course, resign office as military representatives.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am very glad to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, because it greatly strengthens the point I am trying to make, that these military representatives are not members of the tribunals, and that they have no right there except as the representatives of the War Office. I take it that their right as to interference is limited to putting pertinent questions which bring our relative facts which may influence the decision of the tribunal. My point here is, that this military representative at Bristol—I know the same thing is happening in different parts of the country—dominates the tribunal, directs the tribunal, and assumes rights which are altogether beyond those stated by the right hon. Gentleman just now. I hope that when the Under-Secretary for War replies he will deal with my point as to the secret military instructions which have been issued.
    My next point is one for the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow spoke at length about a certain yellow form. I want to call attention to another yellow form, issued by the Local Government Board.
    944
    It is numbered "R. 54," and this form was sent only a few days ago to a young farmer in the Skipton rural district. He wrote to the tribunal for a form of exemption, and this is what he received. It is Form "R. 54," which says
    "With reference to the above-mentioned application, I beg to inform you that new instructions have now been issued to the local tribunals and that further proceedings can only be taken upon the application if the man concerned has been voluntarily attested. If he has been so attested, the local tribunal should be informed accordingly within three days. They can then proceed to deal with the case and, subject to the right of appeal, may grant such exemption, if any, as seems to them suited to the case."
    Something else followed, winch makes confusion far worse confounded:
    "If the man has not been voluntarily attested no further proceedings will be taken on the application. If he comes under the Military Service Act and wishes to apply for a certificate of exemption, he must do so on the prescribed form which may be obtained at the office of the local tribunal or of the recruiting office. The application must be made before the 2nd March."
    What is the impression a letter like that is going to have upon a young farmer? The only impression it made on the mind of the young farmer who sent this letter to me was that he must be attested, and that until he was attested his claim for exemption under the Military Service Act could not be heard.
    I want to deal with a matter which occupied a considerable part of the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, namely, the Advisory Committees. I protest altogether against the interference of these Advisory Committees with the working of the Military Service Act, because the right hon. Gentleman himself said they have no statutory position whatever and have no right whatever to consider the case of a man who claims exemption under the Military Service Act. May I put another aspect of the question, quite different from that which was painted by the right hon. Gentleman? This is what happened a day or two ago at Camberwell. I have a letter here which says:
    "It might interest you to have the following information. Mr. So-and-so, of So-and-so, informed me that he had appeared before the Camberwell Tribunal on Monday, at 2.30. I was rather surprised and asked what the tribunal was like. He said there were three gentlemen who sat at a table in the Guardians' Office and one military officer. They asked him various questions, such as: 'What would you do if the Germans came here?'.…"
    Not a very original question—
    "'Would you take stretcher-bearing? Would you become a special constable? How much money do you earn? He said he refused all and said he wanted total exemption. I did not believe he had been before the tribunal and requested that he should bring his summons to me. He did so on

    945
    Friday last and it appears to be an ordinary postcard written as follows: 'Recruiting Offices, Guardians, Camberwell.—You are requested to attend at the above address on Monday, 14th February, at 2.30, to support your claim.—W. Bushby, Military Representative.' This. claim was sent in on Wednesday, 9th February, and he received the above summons by hand on Sunday, 13th February, before 12 noon, a plain clothes man delivering the same; be has now received (on Saturday, 19th February) an official summons signed by the clerk to the tribunal to appear before the tribunal on Tuesday next at 10.45. The same case applies to another man and both of them were under the impression that it was the tribunal they had appeared before. Is this fair that they should get a man's case before he appears? "
    It is quite evident from that that the clerk to the local tribunal, on the receipt of the claim for exemption, sends a notification to this non-statutory Advisory Committee, and that the man is summoned to appear in secret before this Advisory Committee, which, as the President of the Local Government Board says, is a War Office Committee.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The President of the Local Government Board said that it was.
    Mr. LONG: If I did so, it appears that I was wrong. I think I referred to it as one of the War Office Committees. I was wrongly informed. I did not know its precise standing, but I understood it was appointed by the War Office.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It does not alter the seriousness of the point I am now making, which is that the Advisory Committee becomes acquainted with the fact that the man has applied for exemption under the Military Service Act and that he gets a postcard summoning him to appear before this body, which has no standing whatever, which has no right to summons him and no right to question him. It is quite clear, as this letter shows, to what it comes. It is done so that the military representative, who is at the meeting of this Advisory Committee, may be primed in a man's case before the case is heard by the tribunal. We demand that a stop should be put to that.
    Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear!
    Mr. SNOWDEN: We are not asking for a favour. It is a perfectly illegal thing to do, and we demand that it should be stopped at once. We refuse to recognise the authority of the Advisory Committee in any shape or form. I have not very much more to say except in regard to the Government pledges. I think we may infer, from what the President of the Local
    946
    Government Board said to-day in regard to his ignorance of the number of such cases as those put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, that he does not read the newspapers. If he did he would know that such cases as these are not confined to units nor tens, but can be numbered in hundreds. The newspapers are full of similar cases every day.
    Mr. TENNANT: No.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: They are.
    Mr. LONG: Cases of widows' sons?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, widows' sons. The tribunals are refusing to be bound by pledges which were given in this House. Here is a case, for instance, at Lewisham, where a dairyman and shopkeeper claimed exemption, and he put forward a pledge which had been given in this House by the Prime Minister, that the case of the widow with an only son should have consideration. A member of the tribunal said, "But he did not put it in the Act." There is a further case in regard to an application made on 22nd February, where a man applied on the ground of conscientious objection, whereupon the tribunal refused to consider any such suggestion, and on the applicant's referring to the speech of the Home Secretary with reference to this point during the passing of the Military Service Bill, informed him that they had no time to read speeches and that the tribunal was not a debating society. I think we are justified in asking that the President of the Local Government Board shall remind the tribunals that the honour of Ministers and of Parliament is involved in their recognising that these pledges have been made and should be kept.
    The only other point I want to bring before the House is in regard to the conscientious objector. I have followed in a great many newspapers the proceedings of these tribunals, and so far as I have been able to learn there has been no case yet where an absolute exemption has been given on the ground of conscientious objection. When I was speaking in the Committee stage of the Bill I asked how a tribunal was going to discover whether a man had a conscience or not. There is a case here to which I particularly want to draw the attention of the Ministers. It is reported in the "Times" last Saturday. It is the ease of an application which was made by a colliery lampman at Ebbw

    947
    Vale, and here is what appears to be a fairly full report of the catechism to which he was subjected by the military representative of the tribunal:
    "A case which on Saturday came before the Ebbw Vale Tribunal and in which the claim was refused, is perhaps an exception in that respect. The applicant (a collier lampman) said his conscience would not permit him to take the oath of allegiance. The military representative: Do you object to save life?
    No, I would endeavour to save life, even at the risk of my own.
    Would you object to being a mine-sweeper?
    No, if I were allowed to sweep all mines—our own, as well as the enemies.
    Would you object to serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Yes, it would not be proper, in accordance with my convictions, to heal the wound of one man in order that he may inflict wounds on another.
    Do you consider that the 4,000,000 men now with Army are heathens, or wholly indifferent to the teachings of the Bible?
    I hold no brief for any other man's conscience."
    Then comes the usual question:
    "If you had a mother and someone attempted to kill her, what would you do?
    Stand loyal to my principles. I would place myself between the aggressor and the object of the assault.
    But suppose he had a revolver and you placed yourself between them, what would happen?
    I would not sacrifice my principles.
    You enjoy a scrap?
    I do not think that point arises. It does not embrace the taking of life.
    If someone struck you on the face, would you turn the other side to him?
    We are talking now of taking life. If a man deserves a good thrashing, that is another matter, but I object to the taking of life."
    I have not yet said what was the decision of the tribunal, but surely, if any man can have a conscientious objection to fighting, that man had, and he had the intelligence to put his case before the tribunal, and yet the tribunal refused to grant exemption; so I want to know what would satisfy a tribunal that the man had a conscientious objection. This case is reported in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning, where four brothers applied at Birkenhead yesterday for exemption on conscientious grounds. They attended a Strict Baptist chapel, the members of which held that the War was contrary to the teaching of Christ, and would have nothing to do with the taking or saving of life in connection with it. All four claims for exemption were rejected. Was it intended, when Parliament inserted the Conscientious Objection Clause, that men who had a conscientious objection should be exempted or not? Judging by the way in which the tribunals are administering the Act, that Clause is a dead letter. I want to ask the Local Government Board, therefore, if they are going to be content to see the
    948
    Regulations which they have issued set at defiance by the local authorities. The only thing the right hon. Gentleman could say this afternoon, to get over this difficulty, was that there was a Court of Appeal and a Central Court of Appeal; but he knows quite well that an applicant has not a right to go to the highest Court of Appeal unless he gets permission from the middle Court.
    Mr. LONG: No, it is not so. We are talking of two different things. I was talking to-day of cases which have arisen under the Derby scheme up to the present, which is voluntary enlistment. These cases of which complaint has been made have not arisen under the new Act, and come before the new tribunals. They are only now coming into existence. The Appeal Courts are not in existence yet. Therefore I was dealing with the original cases, some of which have been heard some time ago.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am exceedingly sorry for this misunderstanding, but the cases we have been putting before the House are cases under the Military Service Act. They are not cases of attested men. The cases of these conscientious objectors cannot go to the highest Court of Appeal unless they get the permission of the middle Court.
    Mr. LONG: But there is an Appeal Court.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, and they can go there; but we know nothing about the constitution of the Appeal Court. A question was put to the President of the Local Government Board on the matter this afternoon, but he gave no reply; and if these Appeal Courts are going to be constituted of the same class of men who compose the tribunals, precisely the same thing is going to happen in the Appeal Court. I am quite sure there is not a Member in the House who has a shadow of doubt in his mind that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to see this Act administered in the fairest way possible, and that wherever a man establishes a case under the Act he shall have his rights conceded. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might issue a circular to these tribunals and say that complaints have been made in regard to the administration of the Act, citing instances, and so on, and calling the attention of the tribunals to the instructions and regulations. If he were to do that it would have a very beneficial effect.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I want to come back to the cases of men who have had certificates of medical rejection and then have been treated in a way which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman representing the War Office will not for a moment attempt to justify. I also think they have been so treated under an entire misapprehension of the position by the recruiting authorities. But these cases are numerous, they are widespread, and they are very serious. If they had been done deliberately and intentionally they would be discreditable and disgraceful to those concerned. When a man has had a certificate of medical examination and the recruiting officer takes the form and tears it up, that is an unpardonable thing. That has been done again and again.
    Mr. TENNANTmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that that would be so. But there are other cases where the men still retain that certificate of exemption. They went to the recruiting authorities and were told that the certificates had been cancelled. I do not suggest that the recruiting authorities did not honestly think they had been cancelled, but, as a matter of fact, they had not been cancelled. These men were told they had been cancelled, and it follows from that that if they were to escape the stigma of being known as conscripts they had to attest. These men have attested since then. They were trapped and tricked into attesting, because they were told that their certificate of exemption for physical defects was cancelled, and then when they had got them attested they called them up. What are you going to do in such cases? It will be discreditable to the War Office and dishonourable to this country if these men are held to their attestation, when they have been tricked into it by being told that their certificate of physical defect had been cancelled. As a matter of fact it had not been cancelled. Therefore I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, when he has these cases brought before him, will feel it his duty to take steps to put that matter right. These men have been put into a false position entirely, and now the recruiting officer is taking them for clerks. There is a great difficulty in getting these clerks. Why will they not use the wounded men? Why will they not
    950
    use unqualified men above military age? Why do they want to take these men from their work and from their other duties? There is a feeling, and I think there is some justification for it, that the idea of exemption has been very much tangled up indeed. We have seen on the contents bills of London newspapers, "Too many exemptions." They wanted to justify the figures put forward by the War Office, but the results of the exemptions and the work of the tribunals show that criticism of the figures was justified, instead of the figures being justified. Then we get an outcry from these papers, "Too many exemptions." Pressure has been put upon the tribunals not to grant these exemptions, and thus people are finding themselves in this critical position. I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will not justify that kind of thing. We want him to take action to rectify what has been done, because some of these men have been most unfairly placed in a very difficult position through having misinformation given to them and being told that their certificates of medical unfitness were cancelled, and as the result they have attested and are now being called up. I shall listen with a good deal of care and attention and interest to what I am sure my right hon. Friend will say, that he does not support that kind of thing.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think it was fortunate in some ways that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) intervened in the Debate so early. He brought forward the case of the tribunals, and on the whole, though I attach the greatest importance to these cases where men have been medically rejected and are being called up, I think it is the tribunals that are causing the greatest interest in the country. What did the President of the Local Government Board say in regard to them? I am sorry to quote in his absence, but he used a sentence something like this: He said the tribunals had a duty of extreme difficulty to perform. They had the duty thrown upon them of getting the men that the War Office requires. I think those were the words that the right hon. Gentleman used. It seems to me that that is an entire misunderstanding of the position. It is not the business, at any rate it is not the first business of the tribunals to get the men the country require. On the contrary, it is the business of the tribunals to administer the Act of Parliament, and I believe, and I

    951
    regret to say that my belief in this matter has been confirmed by the speech of my right hon. Friend, that these tribunals in many places, and one in particular to which I am going to call attention, are acting under an entire misapprehension. They are making themselves recruiting sergeants instead of fair tribunals to administer the Act of Parliament. In fact, I hardly go too far if I say that instead of being tribunals they are more like the old press gangs that existed in this country, and which pressed men into the Navy whether the men would have it or not.
    If we look at the Act we may see what is the duty placed upon the tribunals. It is dealt with in Clause 2, which relates to certificates of exemption, and it is there stated that,
    "the local tribunal, if they consider the grounds of the application established, shall grant such a certificate."
    Will the House note that if the grounds of the application arc established in accordance with the Act of Parliament, then the tribunals must grant the exemption. The tribunals are doing nothing of the kind. They are finding every reason for refusing exemptions. I will only call one case to the attention of the House, because it will be fresh in everyone's minds. It is the case of the Bank of England, which applied at the City tribunal for the exemption of 199 of its clerks. How was the Bank treated? It was badgered and bullied toy the head of the tribunal as though it had made an unreasonable application. I think this is really more a matter for the Local Government Board than for my right hon. Friend representing the War Office. In this particular case the military representative, Major Rothschild, came forward and said they had considered the Bank's application and that the Bank was really doing war work. Major Rothschild further said that he would take up the matter with the military authorities, and in the meantime he would suggest to the tribunal that a three months' postponement should be granted right away. That was what Major Rothschild, the military representative, recommended to the tribunal. No doubt in saying that he was representing the opinion of the Advisory Committee. That is the grand jury that we heard of, and that was why I interrupted my right hon. Friend and suggested that the analogy
    952
    was not correct, because in this case if the Advisory Committee and the military representative could have given the exemption they would have given it, and there would have been no need to go to the tribunal at all. What took place at the tribunal? Instead of allowing the application of the Bank, which was put forward by the military representative, the chairman of the tribunal (Sir Vezey Strong) commenced a tirade, and said that was so large an order the tribunal should hesitate very much to grant it. I do not think it was a large order at all. These things are relative.
    These tribunals in many cases, I regret to say, and this one in the City of London is among the number, seem entirely incapable of realising the immense interests with which they have got to deal in the discharge of this important work. If this War is to be carried to a successful conclusion the economic welfare of this country must be maintained, and I say the Bank of England has up to the present, and is at the present time, doing as much to carry the War to a successful conclusion as any Army in the field. They are patriotic servants of the State. Hundreds of their men have already joined the Army and the 199 for whom applications for exemption were made are only a mere bagatelle amongst their staff. It was a most reasonable and modest application. The chairman asked why could not they get women labour, and immediately the military representative said they had got it, and that they had 600 women clerks. He was met with the remark, "Let them get a good deal more."
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LOUGH: Hon. Members may think so. Of course, that is a matter of opinion. The chairman added that anything should be done rather than interfere with the advantage of so large a number of young men going to the front. I say that that was a most extraordinary pronouncement to make. It shows that Sir Vezey Strong, the chairman of this tribunal, has a wrong idea about his duties. His duty was to consider the application, once the hardship was made out, and certainly the Bank had made out its case of hardship. It had shown that women clerks had been got, and that it had gone as far as possible, and now it made this modest application on behalf of these men. I think that my right hon. Friend ought to call the attention of these tribunals to what is their

    953
    duty. It may be said, "Suppose the country does not get all the men required. What then?" Well, it is not for Sir Vezey Strong and these tribunals to deal with that emergency. This House should deal with it. In the meantime, what these tribunals ought to do is to carry out the constitutional duty which this House has laid upon their shoulders, and that duty is not to become a Press gang. It is not their duty to hustle men into the Army. Their duty is to grant the exemptions in accordance with the Act of Parliament. I ought not to have to argue this point at all.
    Colonel YATE: It is equally their duty to refuse exemption after a fair statement has been made.
    Mr. LOUGH: There is not much difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. If he will look at Clause 2 he will see that it is the granting of exemptions that these tribunals have been brought into existence to discharge. That is the one duty they have been given to discharge. They are not doing that duty at all; they are acting as if they were recruiting sergeants and as if their business was to refuse exemptions. I will give one case, and it is that of a business man in Chancery Lane, who held a medical certificate that he is totally unfit for service, but they have refused him exemption, and they made a clerk of him. Does my hon. and gallant Friend approve of that?
    Colonel YATEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am amazed. An old man or a wounded soldier could do this work, but instead this man is taken from the head of a business to be made to do clerk's work. Will hon. Members consider the wording of the Act? It says "if serious hardship is caused." Surely that is serious hardship—a business to be closed which employs 140 people! It may be that when these exemptions are granted there will not be enough men, but it is for this House to deal with that, and that is the point I am trying to put now. Let the House see that the Act that it has passed is properly administered. The business of these tribunals is to administer the Act and not to set up a law for themselves. I maintain that the case which came before the City of London Tribunal yesterday in regard to the Bank of England ought to be taken as a typical case. I do not believe that business houses are
    954
    making anything but the most moderate applications. Numbers of them have sent most of their men of military age to the front, and they make applications on behalf of a few others, and then they are refused in a very arbitrary manner. I do not believe that that was intended when this Act was passed. The President of the Local Government Board is in a state of blissful ignorance as to what is taking place. He says there are very few of these cases. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) will not say that. A week ago we gave him dozens of cases, and he told us in an answer to a question that every day there were about a trolleyful of them, and he had to bundle them over to the Recruiting Committee to answer. That does not mean that there are only a few cases. There are a very great number of cases, and it is bringing the Act into disrepute, and it is a great pity that we should have the Act brought into disrepute at this time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were very few cases of widows' sons being compelled to serve. I have had a case brought before me of a poor widow over seventy years of age, who is bedridden. This poor woman has two sons, one of whom has been killed in the War, and the remaining son, her sole support—and there is a sister who is also dependent—cannot get exemption. He was only postponed, when he made his application, to Class 21, and now Class 21 has been called up. There are thousands of these cases of widows' sons who have been refused exemption, and where promises made from the Government Bench have remained unfulfilled. I admit that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) is trying to deal with the question of certificates. I have given one case in regard to a certificate where a man has been rejected four times. Conscription is being put into force, not for soldiers but for clerks. That is not necessary. At any rate, in regard to clerks, men who cannot serve at the front, they might get the benefit of Clause 2 of the Act. My point is that the tribunals do not seem to know what their duties are. They are setting up a law unto themselves. They are recruiting sergeants, or they are Pressgangs, if you like to so call them, instead of granting exemptions in accordance with Clause 2 of the Act, which is the duty which has been entrusted to their hands by the House. I think their attention ought to be called to it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have listened to all the speeches made in this Debate, and

    955
    I confess that I should have no right to speak if I had not those very near to me serving in the War. I have been greatly surprised at the tone of some of the speeches. There was excellent tone in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). It was judicial, calm, and put the points of the working man in a way in which I think they deserve presentation in this House. On the other hand, I was amazed at the tone of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon). He gloated over every blunder of the War Office. That the War Office deserve criticism at times nobody will deny. Certainly, I have never been sorry to see the War Office criticised if there have been blunders in the field, but I think there is one Member of this House who is not entitled to criticise the War Office in the spirit in which it has been criticised, and he is the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon). I cast my mind back to the beginning of this War and I say to myself, "Is it true what I read in the papers yesterday from General Lloyd, I think his name is, who said that the Germans are thundering at the gates of Verdun, and if they succeed in penetrating the French lines, not only is Paris in danger, but London is in danger?" That is the statement made by the general who has the interests of this great Metropolis in his hands, and on the following day I come down to this House, and while this terrible conflict is in progress at Verdun what are we doing? We hear one of the Ministers who made the War, one of the Ministers, one word from whom a week before the 4th August, 1914, would have intimidated Germany from declaring war, one of the Ministers, upon the faith of whose genius I and others supported this Government right through for eighteen months until he left the Cabinet, one of the Ministers who for ten years was a member of the Cabinet and a member of the Government that was responsible for all the unpreparedness of which we have been hearing so much, and we find that member resigning his seat—I am far from saying that he had not good grounds for his resignation—when he objected to compulsory service. But I think that there was one thing from which he might have taken example—and I say this with regret, because there was not a single member of that Ministry for whom I had more respect, I might even say more affec-
    956
    tion, than for himself—but he might well have taken example from the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns).
    The Member for Battersea resigned his seat in the Cabinet, and since then, so far as I have heard, not one word of criticism has fallen from his lips as against his former colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow remained in this Cabinet for eighteen months. He supported them in every act of war, and now because of some criticism that he has to make upon a poster issued yesterday he comes down to this House and in a temper which might well perhaps befit some of those who disbelieve in war, who have conscientious objections to it, he makes an attack on the Government in a spirit which certainly is new to me in this House in connection with this War. If we had turned on the right hon. Gentleman and his administration for the past eighteen months, while he was a member of the Cabinet, if we had criticised the indiscretions of the Home Office and its blunders as he has criticised the blunders of the War Office, is it to be supposed that we could not have made out a good case against the first Defence of the Realm Act, for which he was responsible? That Act was hardly upon the Statute Book when, without any law or the pretence of it, except the Defence of the Realm Act, they suppressed in Ireland a number of public-houses. There was no authority for it. There was no Statute for the suppression of these houses, and for six months you did not come to this House and obtain sanction for it. Some of those who are interested in this matter are my Constituents. Did we come to this House and say, "Oh, you blundering Home Office! You passed a Defence of the Realm Act, and now you come and by the military authority suppress property amounting to thousands and thousands of pounds"!
    Mr. PRINGLE: You took the first Division after the War?
    Mr. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman can distinguish himself later on. I cannot answer him at the moment, but I will deal with him before I have done. What did we do? It was a great blunder in the Defence of the Realm Act. It was a great blunder of the military authorities to shut these houses up, and if we wanted to prevent recruiting in Ireland, all we had got to do was to say, "Oh, this is another Ninety-eight over again. They are taking

    957
    your property. No man's property is safe. There is not a single one of you upon whom they may not come down to stop your business or suppress your industry if they choose to do so." We held our tongues. We pointed out the blunders of the Home Office, with the result that six months later the House was got to pass the Statute giving the powers which had been already exercised. The right hon. Gentleman would have thought it very unfriendly of me if I had criticised him at that time in the same spirit as that in which he has criticised the Government. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) says that we took the first Division after the War. Yes, we did. And what was the result? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Minister of Munitions (Mr. Lloyd George) left his office and dropped his proposals because we objected, he said, to a particular thing which would hit Ireland—namely, the Spirit Duties—harder than England, and we said, "We will not have politics and philanthropy mixed up." We did not believe in the proposals of the Minister of Munitions. He had already put a heavy tax on these commodities, and the proof that we were right was this: that the proposals were dropped with the unanimous assent of the House, including the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who in one of his temperance reviews said that a more mischievous proposal had never been made than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So we had all the teetotalers behind us in our action. Really, if there was one man in this House who I thought would have welcomed a little criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, it is the hon. Member for Lanark, because when he was raising the case of the "Globe" he said that the right hon. Member for Walthamstow had committed the almost indecent act of supplying the Member for Cork with materials for his speech.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Look at what you have done to-day.
    Mr. HEALY: I am not fond of red herrings. I think they are more of a Scottish diet than an Irish diet. In Ireland you are continually sending men to gaol for so-called interference with recruiting, not once but dozens of times. The smallest comment in an Irish Sinn Fein paper is seized upon by the Government: and I would ask which is likely to do more
    958
    harm to the cause of recruiting—the action of some Connemara editor, whose paper has probably only 300 of a circulation or the criticism of an ex-Cabinet Minister, who has for eighteen months maintained the Government in every one of these acts of suppressing newspapers, who has suppressed them himself on the grounds that these things interfere with recruiting? Am I not entitled to say, though from a family point of view I am deeply interested in the result, that at all events what the War Office are doing is this: They may have made blunders? I do not know whether they have made many. But what the late Home Secretary, a man of high legal training, has done is this: He interferes in cases which may be sub judice. I heard the Prime Minister deliver his well-known speech in connection with the Conscription Act, and he made a point which struck me as one of great value. He said that we have no fewer than, I think he said, four different appeals. If it be true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that these blunders are being made, what have these people to do but to take an appeal to the next tribunal? I heard this attack on these tribunals for having blundered. Every morning I read what is going on in these tribunals, so far as the newspapers print it. I think that the criticism against them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington is really unjust. I think that if the country be in that peril in which for eighteen months we were told it was by Ministers like the late Home Secretary it would be a right and reasonable thing that members of these tribunals should address paternal remonstrances to men who come up before them. I quite agree that cases of hardship perhaps have not been sufficiently dealt with, but as the Prime Minister pointed out there are three more tribunals to which they can be taken.
    The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) referred to the claim of the Bank of England to have its men exempted, and he told us that the Bank of England had rendered great service to the country on the 4th of August, 1914. I do not believe that they did. I believe that they did a most mischievous series of things in connection with finance, and that it will cost the country millions of money to retrieve that mischief. And when I hear this praise of the Bank of England for its services I am much more concerned with the widows' sons, and those people who have dependants upon them, and I think that if the

    959
    Bank of England and all this system had been swept away two years ago we should have found a much better substitute for it. Therefore I am not greatly impressed with the statements that this gentleman, Sir Vezey Strong, has not been very tender for the Bank of England. I think that he has shown pluck in dealing with the Bank of England. I think that he gave a good example to tribunals elsewhere, so that it can be said that when the Bank of England asked for exemption an Alderman of the City of London was found sufficiently plucky to give this example. That I think would be the result of a decision of this kind. I have only intervened in this discussion because I think from the tone of the speeches that have been made that the Government have not had that support in their action which they deserve in the present crisis. It is upon that ground that I have risen to make the few remarks that I have made. The Government have been exposed all through in my opinion to a just criticism, and I was very glad when it was administered to them. They have been at other times the victims of unjust criticism, and I must say for myself that any other Member of the House could better have made the speech to which we have listened than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, who is the last man who should be entitled to make criticism of the kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Owing to circumstances outside my control, I have been unable during the last few months to take any part in the discussion on the Military Service Bill. May I ask the indulgence of the House in saying that had I been present I should most certainly have cast my vote on behalf of that Bill. Unfortunately I was unable to give a vote on this solitary occasion on behalf of the Government. I should like to direct the attention of the House to another issue which has not been dealt with by any of the speakers to-day. I should like to say a few words with regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough). He complained that the City Tribunal had improperly carried out their duties, and that exemption had been refused to 190 clerks from the Bank of England. What would have been the effect throughout the country if the contrary view had been taken? Every company with large numbers of clerks would have claimed exemption and pointed to the
    960
    fact that the Bank of England had been granted this exemption. What are all these clerks doing in the Bank of England? The Bank of England has in its service men over military age who could do the work, for all that these men have to do is to carry out certain clerical duties which could be as well carried out by women. If you are going to lay down that 190 clerks in the Bank of England are to be exempted, then the whole system of military compulsion goes to the wall. I think that Sir Vezey Strong has shown much common sense, in the exercise of a very unpopular duty, in taking the course he has. I think all are agreed that the first duty of the Government is to carry out, in the spirit and letter, the Act of Parliament which was passed last month. I read the Debates very carefully, and I saw that certain pledges were given; and I am sure that, so far as the Government and so far as my right hon. Friend are concerned, they wish to carry out the pledges which have been given. In the criticisms heard in the past few months, I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) has been a very hardly used man in having to apologise for the statements made by the representatives of other Departments, and in having to take the whole weight and burden of their action upon himself, making him responsible for all the organisation which the Government, in a time of national stress, has had to bring together.
    My own view in regard to these Debates is that the greatest injustice has been done and the greatest unfairness shown respecting the action of the various tribunals. I think it was unfortunate that the tribunals were local tribunals, because it will be within the knowledge of the House, in many cases, that favouritism has been shown by some of them to men who ought to be serving and who ought not to be exempted. What is happening to-day on a very wide scale, and this is what I want my right hon. Friend to deal with? Large numbers of men of military age have joined reserved occupations and are thereby escaping military service. An enormous number of men, within my own knowledge, have gone into the coal mines of this country, coal mining feeing a reserved occupation. These men immediately claim exemption from military service. At the munition works throughout the country also a number of single

    961
    men have left their former places to obtain employment, even as labourers, in those works in order to escape their military obligations. Of course, liberty is a priceless possession, which we all value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend cheers that statement, but he and those who think with him must remember that we are living in a time of great national danger, and that it is only on that ground that the Government very rightly, I think, came down to this House, which gave them the powers for which they asked. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend this question, whether, in regard to these single men who have gone into the reserve occupations, and thereby escape their military obligations, he will give us an assurance that the married men who attested under the Derby scheme and who are not in reserved occupations but who could take the places of those single men, shall be put in those places, and that they shall not be called upon before those single men have been called out. It is a point which might require legislation, and it is one on which, I think, the Government ought to carry out the pledge which was given to married men.
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the married men?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am referring to the married men who have attested under Lord Derby's scheme, and who are now in what are called non-essential trades. What I pointed out was that a number of single men had left non-essential trades and gone into essential or reserved trades to escape military obligations, and what I ask is that the married men who attested under Lord Derby's scheme, and are employed in non-essential trades, shall be put in the place of those single men who have sought to avoid their military obligations by entering essential trades so that the married men may do their work, and those single men may be called upon for military service before that can be done in the case of the married men. This is a very large issue. A pledge certainly was given by Lord Derby to young married men that they would not be taken until single .men had been called upon, and it does seem to me that where you have married men who can perform the Work of essential trades, whether in munition works or elsewhere, those married men who have attested ought to have
    962
    the preference, and should be allowed to go into those essential trades, setting free the single men liable to military service. Cases have been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), the ex-Home Secretary, who in his blundering administration of his own office seemed to show favouritism, perhaps that is hardly the word to use, but leniency to the enemy in his action, and I think it hardly lies with him, who was in the Government eighteen months after the outbreak of the War, to deal with the cases he brought forward. It should be remembered that we are dealing here with hundreds of thousands of cases, and there is bound to be, in connection with the tribunals, action which is unwise on their part, but which can be dealt with by the Court of Appeal which the President of the Local Government Board has told us will be set up. I think the Government ought certainly to carry out the pledges they have given, and if they want more power they should come to the House of Commons and say what they require. If it is necessary to amend the Act which was passed last month, I am sure if the Government ask the House of Commons and the country for powers, Parliament will grant those powers which are only refused and opposed by a very small minority in this House and outside.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sure we all welcome the return of the hon. Member (Sir A. Markham) and we are delighted to know that he has recovered from what we all feel was a breakdown due to his strenuous Parliamentary duties. Nevertheless, I feel that it is hardly fair, and certainly the circumstances do not justify the attack which he has made, though the ex-Home Secretary is perfectly capable of defending himself. It is significant that the late Home Secretary's action, both to-day and on previous occasions, has been directed to mistakes which have been made, and which have been clearly admitted by the War Office. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Cork said, that we are in a very critical position, but I put it to him that the persons to deal with these tribunals are the Government. If the men whom the tribunals are dealing with are so essential in this emergency, surely it ought to be the duty of the Government to deal with the situation, and not to leave it to the tribunals to come to decisions which vary from day to day. Therefore, I do desire to emphasise what the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned in regard to the Under-Secretary for War. My right hon. Friend

    963
    seems to have to bear in this House the brunt of every mistake that is made, and it does appear to some of us that there are deliberate attempts to ignore, to misrepresent, and to treat with defiance any pledge that is given in this House. The suggestion was made a week ago that a mistake may have been made in issuing the yellow form to those who hold what is called the "medical reject certificate." The right hon. Gentleman frankly got up and said that in his opinion a mistake had been made; it was a mistake that would undoubtedly bear hardly upon certain individuals, and so far as he was concerned he would do all he could to rectify the mistake. Now everyone-who took part in the Debate accepted that assurance from him.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but may I correct one little misapprehension which may arise from what he has said? It is a mistake to say that the yellow form was only for those who had not been rejected, because in many cases no list was kept, and therefore it was delivered to those who had received a certificate of medical rejection and those who had not.
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, in some cases; but large numbers ought not to have been included among those to whom the form was sent, and a week ago the right hon. Gentleman said that, so far as he was concerned, every effort would be made to rectify this matter. I am going to submit that these forms were issued indiscriminately, but in a given district these yellow forms have been issued during the past week to men who hold the blue reject certificate, and I submit that surely the time and money spent by the people who are doing this work would be better employed in doing something useful, if some proper system was in operation. But that is really not the most serious matter. There is another which shows that the War Office themselves have no clear method or system of dealing with these matters. One of the railway men brought to me a blue form, which I have here, and also a yellow form. This was on Thursday. I thought, "Well, now I will see exactly who is responsible for this," and I wrote the following letter to the captain who had signed the yellow form:
    "Alfred Mann, a railway man, has just shown me Army Form W3236, which he has received from you, intimating that he must present himself at the White City for service on 8th March. I have also
    964
    seen the Army Form which was given him after he had attested under the Derby Scheme. I would like to know whether this Notice has been issued to this man in error, or whether you have not been made acquainted with the terms of the Military Service Act, which expressly excepts men in this position. I may say that I have informed Mann that he is not to take any notice of this Order, and I write accordingly."
    6.0 P.M.
    I endeavoured by that letter to ascertain whether the promise made a few days ago by the right hon, Gentleman was known to the War Office authorities, and how they were acting upon it. This was the reply:
    "Recruiting Office, Kensington Town Hall: Sir.—We note your letter of the 23rd inst. re Alfred Mann, and have cancelled the form on your statement that you have seen Form 2512 a."
    I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a method of doing business that could not possibly be justified in any business concern, and one that is very serious. Although they had not seen the form, yet because someone else draws their attention to it, they accept it. Here is a more important case, of a yellow form sent to a man. That form says:
    "You are hereby warned that you will be required to join the Service with the Colours on Friday, 10th March."
    My point in this case is that there is neither care nor consideration taken. The man who received that form has been in the Army since November. The form is W3236, and the man's name is Oliver, of 60, Pragnall Street, New Cross. He is a married man and his wife has received separation allowance since November. That shows an entire lack of business method, and one that is very serious from the point of view of these people, who really do not understand what they have got to do.
    The next point I wish to mention is with regard to the question of the widow's son. I assure the President of the Local Government Board that, whilst my right hon. Friend only mentioned a few, I could mention scores and scores of cases where the tribunals have refused to exempt the only sons of widows. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Prime Minister himself, in introducing the Bill, expressly mentioned that as being the case and that I had drawn his private attention to that fact. I rather gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that the real solution of these cases is the appeal to the central tribunal, because it is clearly evident that there is not only an absence of uniformity in the decisions, but that many tribunals are not

    965
    giving effect to the Prime Minister's pledge. I do hope he will follow up his remarks by making it clear to the central tribunal that the only son who, as he himself said, is the sole or main support of a widowed mother is clearly entitled to exemption under the provisions of the Act. I wish to refer also to the question of labour representation on the tribunals. There, again, the right hon. Gentleman gave a very definite promise and one with which I feel sure the House generally would agree, namely, that labour was entitled to be heard and should have representation on all tribunals. Clearly there would only be one body to say who those labour representatives should be, and that body would be the recognised trades council in the town or district. That is the body to which trade unions are affiliated, and it should be the body to nominate who the labour representatives should be. From all parts of the country, including Liverpool and North Wales, the complaints that we receive are that labour is either entirely ignored or where a working man is put on the tribunal no consideration is being given to the local trades council's representations, and that such men invariably are nominees of the employer or somebody else. Having regard to the fact that the Act comes into operation in two days' time, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman might issue a very definite instruction to the authorities.
    I have no defence to offer for the people who have gone into the mines or munition factories to escape their responsibilities. Incidentally I may say, from some of the cases of which we hear, they very often happen to be directors' or managers' sons, who are brought from professional occupations to escape their responsibilities. In any case we offer no defence for them, and would like to see an investigation made on this point, to see how much substance there is in it. As a matter of fact, when the railway companies themselves were employing men of military age to take the place of other men who were released and enlisted, I immediately took up the question and said that the railway companies had no right to do so. I do submit that that is a matter for the employer himself. No employer ought to employ men of military age for the purpose of releasing other men who have volunteered and who are prepared to do their duty. At all events no excuse will or can be offered by those of us who opposed this measure on those grounds.
    966
    I do press both the right hon. Gentlemen representing the Local Government Board and the War Office to keep clearly in mind that there has been no attempt up to now to give effect to the promise made on the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Bill, and to give real and genuine effect to the provision of the Bill, and this is the only means, namely, debate in the House, by which the question can be rectified.
    Mr. PRINGLE: With regard to the last portion of the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas), in a question I put to the Minister of Munitions to-day I endeavoured to raise the question of undue preference to single men in munition works. I referred in that question to a notorious example in the West of Scotland, and the only sympathy which I received in the reply was a statement to the effect that the Ministry of Munitions had no information on the matter. I think that the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby will convince the Government that there are many Members of this House who will insist upon the Government having information on the matter, and on seeing that no unfair preference is given to single men in respect of employment in munition works for the purpose of escaping service in the Army. I wish to deal with the question which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), and in which he had the luxury of an attack from the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), a luxury in which I also shared and which I duly appreciate. I maintain a position of complete impartiality as between the two hon. and learned Members. On the last occasion in which we were in conflict the hon. and learned Member for Cork was defending the then Home Secretary, and I was then attacking him. On that occasion, however, the hon. and learned Member for Cork performed an operation which he does so often and so skillfully in this House, and which he has done once again this afternoon, namely, he mobilised all his vituperative eloquence. That is more pleasant than a reference to a common or garden red herring. The hon. and learned Member in his gravest tones told us how he read a statement in a Sunday paper, in which General Lloyd said that the Germans are thundering at the gates of Verdun, and yet, said

    967
    the hon. and learned Member, the late Home Secretary raises this point. Apparently because the Germans are thundering at the gates of Verdun, therefore, all the medically unfit are to be swept into the Army. That appears to be the only relevance of that statement to the question we are discussing.
    The irrelevance of the hon. and learned Member for Cork was a long attack upon the past record of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow. I am not concerned to defend the ex-Home Secretary. I think there were many things which he did as Home Secretary which are worse than what the War Office is doing at the present time. I stated so in the House at the time, and the hon. and learned Member for Cork defended him. As long as the Government keep their hands off Irish whisky, there is nothing the hon. and learned Member for Cork would not be ready to sacrifice. I quite agree that there were many worse things done by the Government in the days of the ex-Home Secretary. I attacked them then, and I am attacking this question now. I think if my hon. and learned Friend—and I still call him so—had taken the trouble to understand the facts, we would have been saved from the very amusing, but very uninstructive incursion which he made in this Debate. What are the facts? This House has passed an Act of Parliament which has given certain rights to certain people. It states that certain people are excepted from the operation of the Act. The sixth paragraph of the First Schedule reads as follows:
    "Men who hold a certificate of exemption under this Act for the time being in force (other than a certificate of exemption from combatant service only), or who have offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected since the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    That does not even say "medically rejected," but simply says "rejected." Our complaint is that since the day the Act passed there has been a consistent and deliberate attempt to secure men who came within that exception for the Army. I think the cases that have been proved, and not only those read out to-day by my right hon. Friend, but the cases on other occasions which were quoted, and all the illustrations which have been read, and the thousands of letters which have been
    968
    sent to the War Office, not from one district, but from the South and West of England and from Scotland, every part of it, all those cases prove that the action taken is not isolated action, and is not the capricious action of individual recruiting officers, but that it is a plan universally and deliberately adopted, which would only have been initiated on instructions, and definite instructions, given by the War Office. I do not want to inflict letters upon the House, although I have many of them. As the result of my last speech I had something like sixty letters all dealing with this matter. I have a very instructive one from the Prime Minister's Constituency, and I suggested to the writer that he should write to the Prime Minister. This is the letter:
    "With reference to the controversy in the House yesterday I take the liberty of writing you to say that in this district rejected men have been tricked wholesale into the Army."
    That is Cupar, Fife.
    "I myself am a case in point. Rejected on the 8th December last, I was called upon on 5th February to re-present myself for attestation, which I did. Afterwards, on reading Sir John Simon's disclosures in the Press, I communicated with the recruiting officer (Cupar, Fife) pointing out that he had exceeded his duty, and in replying he shifted the responsibility for his action on to his superior in Perth. I can send you copies of our correspondence if it would be of use to you, and you would then see that so far I have received no real satisfaction. Might I add that a brother of mine in Inverness who was rejected last November has been asked to report at barracks."
    Therefore you have cases both in Fife and in Inverness.
    Mr. TENNANT: May we have the reply?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have not the reply; but I have another correspondence which shows the admirable tone, temper and courtesy of the War Office recruiting officials, so that I hope the reply in this ease will satisfy my right hon. Friend. This gentleman had offered himself and been rejected. The date is 22nd February. This is from the Recruiting Office, Richmond, to W. R.—There is no "Mr." about it:
    "Unless certificate is dated after 9th January signed and cause of rejection thereon, it is now invalid, and notice (enclosed) paper (which you ought to have received) holds good, unless you attest and come up for re-examination."
    This gentleman wrote to the captain by whom that reply was signed, as follows:—
    "Dear Sir,"
    It is quite civil.
    In reply to your memorandum of the 22nd inst. I cannot understand your statement that unless the Certificate is dated after the 9th January it is

    969
    now invalid. The Military Service Act clearly states among those exempted are 'men who have offered to enlist and have been rejected since' 14th August, 1915.' To make a statement such as you have done, even in error, is a very serious matter, especially in view of what has been said this week in the House of Commons, and I must therefore ask you to kindly afford me an explanation by return, as I shall not be content to allow the matter to rest as it is."
    In the reply to this there is no "Dear Sir." It is undated, but is marked as having been received at 7.20 p.m. on 24th February:
    "I give no explanations for my statements"—
    The War Office has the true "Zabernian" ring about it—
    "except that I carry out War Office orders. Since writing you, however, orders have been issued that if the certificate is signed and dated after 14th August it is now valid. So your case is settled."
    I think we should have some further information. We ought to know what were the original instructions. Obviously there have been instructions to the recruiting authorities. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend knew anything about them. I do not believe he did. At the same time he has given a number of answers to questions in this House as the responsible Minister here, and it is due to the House in the first place that the actual instructions issued after the passing of the Act should be given, and in the second place that the revised instructions which apparently reached this gentleman in Richmond between the 22nd and the 23rd February should also be issued. Even as the situation is at present, we can hardly accept it as satisfactory. What is the position? My hon. and learned Friend made a great point of the poster. After all, the poster affects the rights of a large number of people in this country. There are thousands of men affected by it. There are thousands of men who were assured both by the Minister and by their understanding of the Act of Parliament that they were exempt from military service, and many of them have undertaken civil obligations because they knew that they were now exempted from military service. Therefore, it is a matter of the greatest concern that a poster issued by the War Office defining their legal position should be absolutely accurate. What is this poster? I saw it for the first time on the walls of the War Office, or of a building adjoining the War Office, yesterday:
    "When a man considers he is exempt from the Military Service Act—
    "exempt" is not the accurate term; it should be "excepted"; but the War
    970
    Office seem to know nothing about the Act—
    "on the ground that he has offered himself for enlistment, and been medically rejected—
    That, again, is not in accordance with the Act—
    "for military service since 14th August, 1915, he must produce the Rejection Certificate, duly completed and signed, which is recognised by the military authorities."
    But on the 21st February my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow put this question to the Under-Secretary:
    "Whether the military authorities are claiming to regard persons who have offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected since 14th August last, as within the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, and as liable to be compelled to serve unless they can produce a specified form of certificate of rejection? "
    To that question we had this answer, obviously supplied to the right hon. Gentleman by the Department which issued the poster:
    "I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the claim mentioned is not being made by the military authorities."
    According to the information supplied to this House on the 21st February the claim was not being made, yet there is issued for the first time yesterday a poster which makes that claim. We cannot put it down to a blunder. That is too charitable. It is true we have sufficient evidence of what the War Office can do in that direction, but a condition of things like this must be put down to a deliberate policy. Is it not that the recruiting authorities at the War Office know that they cannot get the numbers represented in the Derby Report, and in order to make up the numbers they have to sweep in the maimed, the halt, and the blind; they have to get some figures to justify Lord Derby's bogus prospectus? That is the situation. It is the only explanation that will fit the facts.
    Then we come to the letter of Sunday. "For greater accuracy," as Mr. Speaker says on a certain occasion, I have obtained a copy of the letter read by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question of mine this afternoon. The first point one naturally puts is, Why has it been so long delayed? On the 27th January a written answer was given to a question by the hon. Member for Derby, in which my right hon. Friend stated categorically that every man had to submit himself to re-examination. That was not a mistake made by a recruiting officer. This reply went forth to the country. It was published in all the papers. I have letters from men stating that on the faith of that statement they went to submit themselves for re-examination. What

    971
    happened? My right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow immediately called the attention of the War Office to the matter, and the correspondence which passed appeared in the Press. Apparently my right hon. Friend believed that the appearance of that correspondence in the Press was all that was required; because, in answer to a question put by me last week, he said that he had not issued any special instructions in the matter. Why should he not have issued special instruction when there had been issued false instructions in the first place?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, no!
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman gave an answer in the House of Commons which indicated that such instructions had been given. Either that answer was in accordance with the instructions or it was not. Are we to understand that the answer given by my right hon. Friend did not represent any instructions given by the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
    Mr. PRINGLE: And that every recruiting officer in every part of the country, by a system of thought-reading, arrived at the same conclusion—that it was the wish of the War Office that medically unfit men should be re-examined? It is extremely difficult to understand. The instructions may not have gone from the Director of Recruiting, but they must have gone from somebody. There must have been some instructions, because there are letters over and over again in which the recruiting officers refer to instructions. I do not know where they came from. By a coincidence the answer given by my right hon. Friend in this House agrees to the letter with the instructions which these recruiting officers allege that they have received. I do not know what inference to draw. But no instructions were given. Recruiting officers continued their old practice up to the 23rd or 24th February, and I am told by my hon. Friend near me that they are doing it still. I certainly received some letters by this morning's post calling attention to the same thing still going on. We had a Debate in this House on the 21st February, and yet no instructions were issued. In fact, throughout there has been a studied ambiguity about every expression which has passed from the War Office, as if it were their settled intention to lay their hands upon
    972
    the medically unfit wherever they possibly could. I cannot explain the action on any other system. At last we have this belated epistle of Sunday:
    "I am directed to forward the attached list giving names and particulars of men who state that they have been rejected for the Army since 14th August, 1915, and have been subjected to a second medical examination under a misapprehension."
    That does not cover the cases, because a great majority of these men have never been submitted to a second medical examination at all. The authorities have not taken the trouble to do it. The men have been grouped and passed into the Army without any examination at all. The real way to describe these men is as men who have been in the past medically rejected and have since been attested. The letter continues:
    "I am therefore to request that each individual case may at once be inquired into, and if it is found that any of these men have been misled through action taken on behalf of the recruiting authorities their attestations, if they so desire, must at once be cancelled and their former rejection allowed to stand."
    I do not quarrel with the result of that. What I want to know is what is the meaning of this: "If it is found that any of these men have been misled.—"Who had to find it out? This letter is addressed to the generals commanding in the different divisional commands throughout England. Who are to decide these cases, for, after all, it is not a simple matter? Where a man has some written evidence it is easy to decide that he has been medically rejected, but we know there are large numbers of cases where men have had their medical certificates destroyed. Who is to decide on the secondary evidence as to the existence of these medical certificates? Obviously it is necessary that somebody ought to be specially appointed to deal with such cases. Then we are told they have been misled by action taken on behalf of the recruiting authorities. Surely at this time of day the question of their having been misled might be set aside! After all, they have had the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the Member for Derby in this House. Can there be any question that after that answer was given many of these men must have been misled, and thought that they did not need to bring forward any evidence about the statement' of the recruiting officers? When you have a published statement which is misleading—admittedly misleading—surely it is unnecessary to place the onus of proof upon the man who is now appealing to be excepted! Then it says:
    "It should be explained to them by the recruiting officer that the second examination undertaken

    973
    at their own request for the purpose of securing an armlet, disclosed their eligibility for certain classes of military service for which recruits had not previously been specially enlisted."
    I think really to use the armlet as a means of getting round an Act of Parliament is unworthy of the Government. These men were told at the beginning of the Derby scheme that every man rejected would be entitled to an armlet. It is true that while the scheme was being worked, just as the authorities had not enough forms to be going on with, so they had not enough armlets. They were too busy laying a trap for the Prime Minister to look after these details. Not having enough armlets, they had to advise the applicants to apply later for armlets. When they went back they were told they would certainly be required to undergo another examination for the armlet, as the previous examination did not stand good for the purpose of excepting them from military service. If the War Office are wise, and wish to restore their reputation with the people of this country, they will throw aside this petty point about armlets, and say to the men, "You have been submitted to re-examination under a misapprehension; if you think you have been deceived we will let you go, but we desire you to stay." I think a large number of men would have willingly stayed if they had been honestly asked; because, after all, the great majority of these men had offered themselves not on one occasion only, but on several occasions, and had been rejected as unfit. The fact that these men had offered themselves so frequently proved their patriotism, and if the War Office, instead of getting them in in this way, had said, "It is true that under the Act we cannot take you, but if you are willing to come, there are certain forms of service for which you will still be useful, and for which we desire your service," I believe they would have got these men. If they were to do as I suggest even now, I believe they would get the men. Why do they not? I cannot understand it.
    There is another point. Why are these men desired? We are told it is for clerical work. There was an interruption in the earlier part of the Debate by an hon. Member on the opposite side when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington was speaking. My right hon. Friend was arguing that old men and wounded and discharged soldiers could do this work. The hon. Member who interrupted said, "Oh, but you cannot get them under this Act." In other words, you cannot compel
    974
    them. You would otherwise have to pay them the market wage. The difference between the two positions is that under this Act you can get these medically unfit men for Is. 2d. a day, and without any cost for their dependants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] What is the meaning of the interruption? I have fought this question of compulsory labour in the House since it was first raised, and I believe that here is compulsory labour!
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the men in the trenches?
    Mr. PRINGLE: These men are being taken for clerical work under compulsory conditions. It is compulsory labour.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: How do you know that they are only to get 1s. 2d. a day?
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is the regular pay in the Army. They are not going to pay these men more than they give in the Army. That is the object of the whole thing. It is quite obvious. There is no concealment about it. You cannot get the old men or the wounded or discharged soldier to do it. No, you would have to pay these men the market wage! But you can get these other men under this Act at Is. 2d. a day.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Can the hon. Member state what is the clerical work for which these men are being employed at 1s. 2d. a day?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Army clerical work.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Army clerical work. It is in the Pay Department, and other work of that kind—what are termed sedentary occupations.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: They get their food and lodging.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not dispute that for a moment. I am dealing with the ordinary military pay. The military authorities are getting these men for military pay, whereas for the old men and for wounded and discharged soldiers they would have to pay at the present time the market rate of wages.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Their dependants would get the usual allowance.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We are dealing with single men, and consequently there are practically no dependants. There are no

    975
    pensions, or practically no pensions, and I say that this is simply a means of obtaining compulsory labour. Yes, that is what it means.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: An unworthy suggestion!
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary foresaw it, but it does amount to compulsory labour. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Prime Minister stated in this House that it was the intention of the Government not to use this Bill for the purpose of compulsory labour.
    Mr. LONG: It has nothing to do with those cases.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think it has, and that it means compulsory labour. You are taking men in who are medically unfit for military service, or that has been de scribed as military service—[An HON. MEMBER: "Foreign service!"] I did not say foreign service, I said military service. It is really a means of obtaining the work at military rates. .On that account I suggest that it is a breach of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill. There is a further point: The whole question of pensions and allowances is intimately bound up with this other question. We had a discussion on the Address initiated by the hon. Member for West Ham, dealing with the liability both of the War Office and the Admiralty for pensions to men who were discharged from the Army. In this it was alleged that the disease which had rendered such men unfit was not directly attributable to their Army service. The War Office laid down the rule that if a man is discharged through disease not directly attributable to Army service he is entitled to no pension. Here, however, is the War Office deliberately taking men into the Army who are medically unfit—men whom they know to be suffering from different kinds of disease. Are they going to maintain the rule to which I have just referred in face of the fact that you are allowing men in under no sort of medical examination at all? Because it is interesting to find in the City Tribunal that that is the practice to-day. I wish my right hon. Friend would listen to this point. I am quoting from the "Times" of today:
    "A somewhat startling decision was given in the case of a clerk employed by a firm of distillers. He
    976
    had offered himself for enlistment in the Territorials three times, and on each occasion he had been rejected for defective eyesight. He had tried again last month and had been attested. The following conversation took place:
    The Chairman: There is some statement I have seen where a man who has been refused on medical grounds after a given date is outside the scheme.
    The Military Representative: But he has been attested since. You see, unfortunately, between August and the present date the medical examination has been altered. It has become less and less severe for various reasons, and that lets in a lot of men who formerly were not allowed to attest. If he has attested he comes under the Derby scheme."
    There are various reasons—it does not matter what they are.
    "It has become less and less severe for various reasons."
    Note further:
    "The Chairman: Having attested, he is liable under a contract?
    The Applicant: I have a certificate here dated 5th November.
    The Military Representative: That is no use. It is Territorial.
    The Chairman: You must have an Army certificate."
    These are quotations from the military representative who evidently has not received the letter of my right hon. Friend, or has even, seen the blue poster. He said:
    "That is no use. It is Territorial."
    He had been rejected for the Territorials on three different occasions, and therefore he was no use. That is what it means obviously, but having attested he is liable!
    "The Applicant: I have a certificate here dated 5th November.
    The Military Representative: That is no use. It is Territorial.
    The Chairman: You must have an Army certificate."
    There you have the whole system of misrepresentation still going on within the City of London, in spite of the answer of my right hon. Friend who believed that his answer in the House was sufficient to dispel any misapprehension that arose out of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby. Here is his answer on 21st February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow:
    "82. Sir J. SIMON asked whether unmarried men who have offered themselves for enlistment in the Territorial Force and have been rejected since 14th August last are regarded as falling within the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, whether, inasmuch as that Act excepts from its provisions all who have offered themselves for enlistment and have been rejected since that date, there is any justification for disregarding the Act in this particular?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise."
    [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 191G, col. 418.]

    977
    Consequently the answer to the first part was that a certificate was granted in connection with a man offering himself for the Territorial Force was as good as an Army certificate. Exactly seven days later from 21st February the military representative of the City—who is a Member of this House—says, "That is no use; it is Territorial." I know it is very hard for my right hon. Friend to have to give a defence for all these people. I sympathise with him. But my point is this: Long ago, when he knew that these practices were going on, he should have insisted that clear and definite instructions were issued to every recruiting office in the country, so that no further mistakes could possibly be made, and that no man in any part of the country would ever be able to say he had been deceived by the War Office. It lies with the War Office from the point of view of its own reputation to do that.
    There are the other points upon which I have ventured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give a clear answer. He should state what is to be the position of those men who have no written evidence now on account of their certificates being destroyed by recruiting officers. What evidence is to be accepted as a means of their securing the exceptions to which the Act entitles them? We also ask that no further stress should be laid upon the inducement to attest by the granting of armlets. Surely it is better to leave it to the man himself whether he wishes to attest under the new conditions rather than to get him by what is something like a subterfuge. And, in the third place, we should have a security that this Act is not to be used for the purposes of compulsory labour. After all, the War Office is discharging every day as unfit men who could well do these clerical duties. Why are they not keeping those men? Is it for any other reason than to swell the numbers under the Derby scheme? There can be no other explanation. Then, in the last place, it must surely be obvious that, now you are relaxing your medical examination to such an extent that it is practically a mockery, it is absolutely essential for the War Office to modify its rule in regard to the granting of pensions to men who are discharged as unfit. If a man is now discharged as unfit, why raise the question as to whether it is directly attributable to service when you know yourselves you are taking men who are admittedly unfit. Men with
    978
    weak lungs, men with dilated hearts, men with ruptures, men with all sorts of diseases, will have service in the Army. If the exposure to which they are subjected aggravates those diseases, surely it is your duty to take responsibility for it. Then I think in this House we must insist that the practice which has been adopted in the Army in the past, which has already led to thousands of men being discharged and who are now without any provision whatever, but whose numbers will be swollen to far larger proportions under this new system of enlistment, must be relaxed, and that every man discharged for a disease not due to his own misconduct shall be entitled to absolute rights of pension from the authorities.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would ask the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to reply to the criticisms levelled against my Department, partly on the ground that I have to reply to a great many subjects and partly on the ground that I have to reply for a considerable number of people. It would probably be simplest if I were first of all to bring before the House what action I myself have taken since my right hon. and learned Friend first raised this subject in this House on 21st February, I think it was. I made a speech that day, and I think the following day, in .answer to some questions raised by several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Sir Ryland Adkins), and I undertook to take a certain course and to issue certain instructions. I issued on the 24th, although I think it did not actually come out until the 25th, the following notice, which appeared under the heading "Press Bureau" in the papers:
    "The Secretary of the War Office makes the following announcement:
    In sending out notices under the Military Service Act the recruiting authorities will work on the military register. Notices will be sent to all men whose names are on the register, except those who have been attested and classified in a group, and except also those whom the authorities can identify as excepted or exempted from the Act."
    Upon that I would say that in many recruiting offices no lists at all were kept of men who had been rejected for one cause or another. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible for the authorities to know who were or who were not the people who should receive those notices. Therefore, the forms went out, as I think my right hon. Friend said, indiscriminately

    979
    to those who were of military age, irrespective of the fact that they might have endeavoured to enlist and had been rejected.
    Sir J. SIMON: Then the Derby Report was based on figures that did not exist?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know anything about that. I do not want to be diverted from my argument by my right hon. and learned Friend. I really do not see what relevance that has. The notice went on to say:
    "Notice papers may be sent to any of the following categories—men who have been (first) discharged from the Army, time expired, or on medical grounds; or (secondly), who have offered themselves for service since 14th August, 1915, but who have been medically rejected; or (thirdly), who are for any other reason exempted or excepted from the Act, but in any such cases the recipient should immediately return the paper to the recruiting authorities who issued it, together with a statement as to the documents he has in his possession to show why he should not be called up. If these are in order the notice paper will be cancelled."
    This is the point on which a good deal of stress has been laid by hon. Members in the course of this Debate, for they say the man who has no documentary evidence is in a plight because he can do nothing. But what I want to lay stress upon is that we have asked any man who has not documentary evidence supporting his claim that he:
    "should state the date and place of his rejection and any other circumstances relating thereto. Pending consideration of his case he should retain his notice paper."
    I think that notice covers nearly the whole of the points. There was a further point which I dealt with in a letter I read to the House, and from which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) has also read passages, which dealt with the case of a man who had been medically examined the second time under false pretences—the man who, I considered, was a victim of what was called trickery and cajolery. I maintain that those two documents which have been issued really do cover nearly 99 per cent. of the cases which have been brought to our notice. But it has been said, "You do not deal with the man who has seen your answer to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)." I took the earliest possible means I could of correcting that most unhappy answer. I did it through the instrumentality of correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Of course, people attach value, but I do not know how much circulation a written answer to a question has among the
    980
    public. It is represented to me that, because I made this one unfortunate mistake—and I answered 3,000 questions in the last Session of Parliament—every man and woman's son in this country is burning with indignation, or is suffering great injustice because of this one great error. I am bound to say I do not think answers to questions, particularly written answers, have so wide a circulation as that. Of course I regret it very much, and I do not minimise it in the least, but I cannot think that it can have had quite such a great boom as has been given to it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Everybody is looking for it.
    Mr. TENNANT: Is looking for the blunder, or what?
    Mr. ANDERSON: For the information.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am quite aware of the fact that a great many people in this country are looking for blunders at the War Office, and nothing pleases them better than when they can find them. Coming to the poster, here is a thing which has been issued, I really cannot tell how, and I do not know how. I only got it at luncheon time. If my right hon. and learned Friend is interested in the psychology of the poster, I would say this to him, that I think it probable that the order for it was given before his speeches or my speeches in this House last week. I have to take responsibility for it, because I believe nobody else can be responsible. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that I would much rather it were a foundling. I have become an almost ubiquitous and a universal parent, and as such I have to take that amount of responsibility. But I will give my right hon. and learned Friend and the House the assurance that that poster shall be corrected. It is not all wrong. Like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. The parts which are bad shall be excised, and we will endeavour to make it correct. I hope that will satisfy my right hon. and learned Friend. I will come, I hope in a spirit of good nature, to the strictures of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I would say this, that clear instructions have been issued to all recruiting authorities that no man with regard to whom an appeal has been made is to be called up until the appeal has been disallowed. My right hon. and learned Friend will remember a point that in the yellow form there was no mention of the appeal. I hope that that is a sufficient answer.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily. The right hon. Gentleman has been helpful, and I should be glad if he could assure us that steps will be taken in each recruiting office and each recruiting area to inform those who may be affected by notices that this is the position. It is one thing to inform a recruiting officer, but it is quite a different thing to inform an individual. I hope he will see that in each area the best is done to advertise what he is now saying, so that people may know what their rights are.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. TENNANT: I recognise it is very difficult to make everyone informed of the correct thing; but the real criticism levelled against us is not that we have not shown the public what their rights are, because there have been the Debates in this House and the Act of Parliament, but that we have not given right instructions to the recruiting officers. I am telling my right hon. Friend what has been done in the case of recruiting officers on the point of appeal. I am informed that instructions have been issued that no man with regard to whom an appeal has been made is to be called up until the appeal has been disallowed. This will be brought to their notice by posters and leaflets, and it is not thought to be necessary to refer to it on the form. I am afraid it is too late to alter the yellow form, but there is one other point I will deal with in this connection. I have been asked how it came about that my letter on this question was not issued until Sunday. I do not know if the House realises the amount of time I have at my disposal to draft letters. I had Monday and Tuesday to make speeches, I spoke again on Thursday, and on Friday I got this letter. On Saturday we agreed to it, and it was issued on Sunday. I really cannot do things quicker than that. On Thursday I had over 2,000 letters. I have been most happy to get the assistance of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, and if I had not done that all these unfortunate persons would have received no instructions as to what their position was. These are now being referred to each command in order that every individual case may at once be inquired into. When I am taken to task on this matter by saying that it deals only with appeals of men who have been subject to a medical examination under a misapprehension, my reply is that that is only an instruction on that particular point. With regard to other cases which have reached me, we are asking the
    982
    command to make an individual examination of the case and to report upon it. The letter only deals with that particular class of case, but all the cases will be eventually examined and reported upon, and I think that is the main thing which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) wishes to have done. My right hon. and learned Friend asked me in regard to an instruction which he thought had been issued that everybody, irrespective of any medical examination, should now be called up. I may say that there is no such instruction and there never has been. I have ascertained that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) spoke about the military representative and asked me certain questions. I think the best answer to the argument that the military representative dominates the proceedings of the tribunal was to listen to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), who brought to our notice the action of the military representative on the City of London tribunal.
    Mr. HEALYThe name was Rothschild.
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that fact until my hon. and learned Friend announced it the other day. I do not say that that has no bearing upon it, but I will forbear making any further criticisms on this point. The military representative in this case did not consider that all those persons should join the Army, and he thought some of them should be exempted, but the tribunal insisted on them all going. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington say that the duty of the tribunals was to grant exemptions. That is not their duty; neither is it their duty to insist upon military service where it would not be proper. They have to decide specific cases brought before them, and pronounce upon them. This fact is sufficiently well known, and to argue that the only duty of the tribunals is to grant exemptions is to pervert the duties prescribed by Parliament. Now I come to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who asked what are we going to do about reserved occupations. I can assure the hon. Baronet that this matter is engaging the urgent attention of the Government, and a system is being considered for the readmission of reserved occupations. It is now in a very forward state, although it has not reached absolute completion. With regard to the men

    983
    who have attested, and whom my hon. Friend considers should not be allowed to serve while there are a certain number of young unmarried men in reserved occupations who could be spared, that is one of the matters upon which I can give an assurance that we shall endeavour to carry out what is suggested. I wish to appeal not only to my hon. Friend, but also to other employers and persons in authority throughout the community, to extend to us and to the military authorities their cooperation in trying to bring about these exchanges between the younger unmarried men of military age who are now in a starred occupation, in order to get them to join the Army before the married men.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman not require Parliamentary powers to enable him to carry out that proposal?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not desire to be dogmatic about that, but I am told that further powers are not necessary. I hope I shall not appeal in vain for the co-operation of the community generally in trying to trace these cases. I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield knows how difficult it is to trace removals in all parts of the country, because the Register does not demonstrate where these men are. Whether the machinery used by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee will enable these removals to he traced or not I do not know, but this is a matter which I commend to the attention of the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) referred to labour representation on the tribunals. I am informed by the President of the Local Government Board that in nearly all cases a satisfactory arrangement has been come to on that point. I think it may fairly he claimed that the tribunals have been quite representative in the majority of cases. It would toe difficult to alter them now, and I am assured that the Local Government Board is now dealing with the question of labour representation on the tribunals. It has been stated that as the medical test becomes less severe, more persons will be taken in by a subsequent examination.
    The House must understand that we at the War Office want men for the Army. The Army is in need, and we cannot win this War unless we get a sufficient quantity of men. When the Military Service Bill
    984
    was passing through this House it came to our notice that a certain number of men—not a large number, tout sufficient to make it necessary to take some steps to combat their action—were claiming that they were not able to see, and were depending upon the eye test for exemption. It was said that this applied to men who prior to the introduction of the Military Service Bill had enjoyed quite normal eyesight, and it was rather singular that the passing of the Military Service Bill should have synchronised with their defective eyesight. Consequently orders were given to the recruiting officers that the eyesight test would no longer be considered a bar to men being considered medically fit to join the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "Home service? "] This condition applied to any service, and I think it was a good step to take in order to find out who were and who were not genuine in regard to eyesight. Of course, if you get a man who is really defective in his eyesight, you cannot make a soldier of him fit to go to the front, but you may take his service for other things, such as garrison duty, although you cannot take him for fighting in the ordinary Infantry of the Line. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Lanarkshire in regard to industrial compulsion, for he was very insistent, almost like King Charles' head. I hope my hon. Friend will believe me when I say that not only is there no industrial compulsion by the means which he described, but there has been no endeavour to impose industrial compulsion upon a reluctant world.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I never used that phrase at all.
    Mr. TENNANT: "We are endeavouring by a side wind"—
    Mr. PRINGLE: To get compulsory labour.
    Mr. TENNANT: To get compulsory labour! Then there is a distinction in my hon. Friend's opinion between industrial compulsion and compulsory labour. I know my hon. Friend is always very precise. If compulsory labour is desired, surely it is always put upon new work. Supposing, for instance, you wanted to take a soldier and make him do something which has never been done by soldiers before. That might be described as compulsory labour, but here we have work which has always been undertaken by soldiers—work at the Pay Office, keeping

    985
    the books, the Army Service Corps duties, the services of the Quartermaster-General, all the Ordnance work. All this work has always been conducted by soldiers enlisted and by men who have joined the Colours. It was represented to us that some of those duties might be undertaken by men who are less physically fit than the Regular soldier of the Line fighting in the trenches, and surely it is not improper for the War Office to say, "We should like to have grouped in such-and-such a class a certain number of men who are not so fit as the really efficient soldier of the Line, but who may undertake these less arduous and rigorous duties. It is very difficult, I know, to convince my hon. Friend, but I should like to convince him, and I hope he will listen to what I have to say, and that he will really believe there is no intention whatever of doing something which we are afraid to own up to or which we are ashamed to confess. There is no such intention whatsoever. That being so, I trust he will allow that particular argument of his to lapse into the limbo in which I think it really deserves to remain.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You have owned up to it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I have told my hon. Friend exactly what are the intentions of the Government and the War Office, and, if there is anything to be ashamed of in that, I really do not understand the morals of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend also asked me if I would do something to alter the conditions under which we grant the armlet. I really am not very much inclined to make a change. It is some little means of getting home to persons who may be quite efficient for certain parts of the work which I have just described, and I do not think that I could recommend anyone who is concerned to alter the conditions under which the armlet is issued. They have now been issued for nearly three months. I do not think that they have worked badly, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press me on that subject. Finally, my hon. Friend referred to the question of pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) has given notice to bring that matter up on the Motion that you, Mr. Speaker, do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, and, that being so, I should like to be allowed to leave the matter to that more convenient opportunity, when I hope to be able to deal with it more comprehensively.
    986
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) spoke to me on the same lines as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waltham-stow (Sir J. Simon). I would only say to him that we have taken such action to rectify what has been done as we could in the time at our disposal. I have undertaken to take further action in the alteration of the poster. I do not think that I have undertaken to do anything else, because I am really uncertain what the House would desire me to do. I do realise that mistakes have been made and that blunders have been made, but I hope that they are not nearly so numerous as hon. Gentlemen seem to think. A great number of the letters—I will not say most of them—that I have received have been questions asking me what is the position of my correspondent. They have not been complaints altogether. I do not say that there have been no complaints, on the contrary, there have been complaints, but I understand that a great number of the letters are queries as to the category in which these gentlemen stand. I would repeat that the action of tearing up certificates of exemption is reprehensible. I have said that before, and I will endeavour to see that is never done again.
    Mr. WATT: Let punishment be meted out for it.
    Mr. TENNANT: There is only one other point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), respecting the conscientious objector. I have stated, in answer to questions in this House, that the conscientious objector who has attested under Lord Derby's scheme must be rather a rare animal. I cannot help thinking that he is, but I have undertaken to have his case examined into where there is reason to suppose that it is genuine, though I think everybody must admit that primâ facie a man who has attested and agreed to join the fighting Forces of the Crown cannot really be said to have any conscientious objection.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is my right hon. Friend aware these men have been told by the recruiting officers that they cannot claim exemption until they have attested? That is being done throughout the country.
    Mr. TENNANT: The conscientious objector?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Yes, everybody.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You do not know what is happening.
    Mr. TENNANT: I think those of whom the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) is speaking are different people. They are men who have already attested.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I take one case. Some men went into a recruiting office and asked for exemption forms. They were told that they could not have them, and could not claim exemption until they had attested. Then, having attested, they were told that they could not be given exemption.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend is confusing the group system with the compulsory system under the Act.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: No.
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman must realise the absurdity of any conscientious objector being able to go into a recruiting office and to say, "I am a conscientious objector and must have a form of exemption." What he has to do is to show to some competent authority that he has a conscientious objection, and it is for the tribunal to decide whether he is really a conscientious objector or not.
    Sir J. SIMON: He has got to fill a form up.
    Mr. TENNANT: It seems to me quite absurd to allow any man to walk into a recruiting office and say, "I am a conscientious objector, and therefore you must give me a form of exemption."
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: An application form?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, an application form. If he wants to have an application form to put before the tribunal under the Act, I think he has a right to get one.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: He is told that he must attest first?
    Mr. TENNANT: I suspect the man said, "I want to be exempted" from something else, from carrying out his oath in his attestation form under the Derby scheme. I suspect that is really what occurred.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: No.
    Mr. TENNANT: I want to say one word on the Advisory Committees. The hon. Member for Blackburn asked me what use the Advisory Committee was. It has been of the greatest value, and it has been much more the friend of those who have
    988
    some right to be exempted or excepted than of the military authorities. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear me out in that statement. The Advisory Committee has great local knowledge of the requirements of the particular industry in the locality and of any local facts of that kind, and can advise the military authority as to whether a man's case should be fought or not. In a great number of cases the Advisory Committee's military representative came to the conclusion that the case need not really be contested and the man has been exempted at once. Therefore, so far from blaming the Advisory Committee, really the hon. Gentleman ought to be very grateful to it for the work which it has done I hope that any hon. Member who has heard what I have said will represent to the hon. Member for Blackburn that he need not take this kind of action or hold this kind of view with regard to the Advisory Committee, but he may look upon it as the friend of those who are genuinely desirous, for good reasons, to be exempted or excepted from the operations of the Act. I am informed that there is a notice in today's paper making it quite clear that men are entitled to the application form of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) spoke. There is a notice in to-day's papers saying that they are entitled to obtain these forms.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: It should be made clear to the recruiting officers.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that this question of medical rejection has been argued upon very narrow lines. It has monopolised nearly every speech that has been made this afternoon, and the main object of the speakers seems to have been to find out some flaw in the machinery of the War Office, or some diversity between an answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and some notice issued by the War Office. That is a very easy task from my experience of the War Office, and I expect every Member of the House is armed with a great number of facts on the basis of which he could make serious complaints against the machinery of the War Office. There is a much wider consideration to be borne in mind with regard to this laxity of medical examination. I could give instances, if I wished to argue the thing on the personal consideration, of men who have perhaps been badly treated or deceived. I could give the House an instance of a man who was

    989
    examined and who was rejected five times. His main anxiety was not to become what he called a "Conscript," and it was the moral compulsion of the approaching Compulsory Bill which induced him to go a sixth time, when he was passed. I happen to know that, in that case, and in a great many other cases which have formed the subject of complaint this afternoon on other grounds than those which I am going to urge, the passing of these men simply means adding to the Army a very large number of useless recruits. I expect every Member of this House has had this subject under observation, but I do not know whether it has sunk into their minds in the proportion which it has really assumed with regard to the expense to the State, the waste to the Army, and the necessary abandonment of hopes which are created when you see large numbers joining the Army.
    All this laxity and carelessness of medical examination contribute to a waste which was estimated by an experienced medical authority to have amounted over a year ago to something like two millions sterling in respect of men who have joined the Army, a great many of whom—I do not by any means say the whole of them—would not have joined if the medical examination had been sufficiently strict. That sum of two millions sterling must have grown, and I cannot say by how many times the figure may be multiplied if this goes on. These men, wasters, as they are called, hang about the Army; and an experienced authority, writing to the papers three months ago, stated that only those who come to close quarters with the inside of the Army have any conception of the number of men hobbling about the barracks, doing no work, perpetually going sick in and out of hospitals, and generally helping to make up the sum of £150 or £200 which, according to the Prime Minister, it takes to clothe, feed, and train as a soldier. While I quite admit that personal injustice is a very important consideration, and that the keeping of faith on the part of Ministers is also important, yet, to my mind, the real gravamen of the matter consists in the fact that the acceptance of men who have been rejected, and for whose rejection there must have been some reason, and the growing laxity of the medical examination can only lead to disappointment, waste, and unnecessary expenditure.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member who has just spoken raised a very important point which has not previously been mentioned in this Debate, and that is the amount of waste that goes on from both an industrial and a financial point of view because of the great reluctance of the Army authorities to discharge anybody from the Army once he has been enlisted. I have personally come across quite a considerable number of cases of this kind. Not long ago one of my Constituents informed me that, although he was anxious to obtain his discharge from the Army and to go into a munition factory, and although he had been on sick leave off and on for about nine months, doing no useful work either for the country or for himself, yet he could not get his discharge. That class of case exists to a much greater extent than is realised, and it has two bad effects. One is that a large number of these people could go back to civil employment, and pro tanto release an equal number of other people military fit. The second bad effect is the large amount of useless expenditure which is incurred. I have never been able to understand where the difficulty originates or why it exists. I have been informed it is due to some extraordinary organisation in the War Office, by means of which the gentleman who acts as a final authority as to whether a man is fit and should remain in the Army, never sees the man at all. The man may have been sat upon by two or three medical boards which have declared him to be unfit, but the ultimate tribunal which directs that he shall remain in the Army never, in fact, sees the patient. I can scarcely believe that to be the case. But, at any rate, there must be something wrong about the system.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is being put right.
    Sir A. MOND: I am very glad to hear that. I think a little unfairness has been done on this question, and the people who enlisted on lower standards have been made to suffer since the passing of the Military Service Act. Prior to the passing of that Act, the War Office had to get men as best it could, and it was not in a position to pick and choose. A great part of our discussion this afternoon has arisen from the fact that we have hitherto been working under a kind of mixed voluntary and compulsory system—the Derby scheme—which has

    991
    led to hopeless confusion. Everybody seems to be rather hard on the poor recruiting officers, who every morning get different sets of instructions under different schemes. Anyone who has been in their offices, as I have been, and has seen these men, who are neither lawyers nor politicians, struggling to master the intricate documents which reached them daily must feel sympathy for them in trying to do their duty under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and it does seem remarkable that hon. Members of this House, who have for months opposed a proper regularised system of national service in this country which would have solved three-fourths of the difficulties, come forward to-day with criticisms of War Office administration.
    Let me take a point raised by the hon. Members for Mid-Lanark and Derby, in connection with the fact that a large number of men who ought apparently to have been enlisted have gone into munition works and reserved industries. It is felt it would be a very difficult matter now to get these men into the Army. I agree with the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to employers, but I should like to ask him one question. The employers, of course, to a very large extent have always been ready to release their men as far as possible for the purposes of the War. But one of their great difficulties has been that they could get no guarantee from any Department that, if they allowed the unmarried men to go, they would be replaced by married men. For instance, if an employer allowed 400 of his single men to go into the Army, he could get no guarantee that he would be allowed to get married men from any part of the country to replace them. The difficulty is an obvious one. You cannot allow unmarried men to go who are engaged in important Government work unless you are certain that those men will be automatically replaced. Under the system under which we are working I do not see how that guarantee can be given. Our difficulties are enormous as compared with those of our Ally—France. I was recently talking to a French munitions maker and I asked him how he got over the labour difficulty. He said, "We have none. When we want men the Government simply send them to us." But in this country you cannot get that, and that is one of the difficulties which undoubtedly has to be faced. It is no use, after all the money we
    992
    have spent on our munition factories, to disorganise them simply in order to change the system under which we are working.
    There is one other matter to which I want to refer. The President of the Local Government Board, in reply to a question, gave some indication that the Government were considering a very important question, which I have raised before, namely, the contractual liabilities of the men now compulsorily joining the Colours, as well as of a great many who have voluntarily joined. I am glad the Government are thinking of doing something in that direction. Time is very short, and the necessity is very urgent. It is obviously necessary, and I do not think the point need be laboured; you cannot ask a man to perform impossibilities. Take a case of a man who has a five years' lease at £60 a year. You take him into the Army and give him 1s. 2d. a day. You compel him to join the Army—he has no option. How is that man to pay that rent? He cannot pay it. What is to happen? Is it suggested that the landlord is to be allowed to seize his furniture or whatever other goods he may have, to sell him up and to practically make him a bankrupt and thereby disgrace him in this country because the State has insisted on his doing something which makes it impossible for him to meet his contractual liabilities? Something must be done to meet that case, as it has had to be done in every other country.
    As long as you had a purely voluntary system you might argue, although unfairly, that a man could please himself whether he would put himself into financial difficulties. But as soon as you got a compulsory system you could not argue on those grounds, and some steps must therefore be taken in order to protect this man. As a matter of fact, those steps ought to have been taken long ago. We must cover the large class of married men who have already gone, as well as those who are coming into the Army, under whatever scheme they may come, and you must put these people into a position to break contracts entered into under circumstances which were never contemplated. In this country we have, very rightly, a great regard for the sanctity of contracts. But surely that is carried much too far when you are going to make a tenant responsible for the maintenance of a lease under circumstances which neither party have contemplated or could have contemplated before the War broke

    993
    out. If war was a normal or current form of human occupation you would find in every lease, or every contract, a clause that, if war broke out and if the individual were called to the Colours, he should be relieved from his obligations. Such a clause is not usual in British contracts, but I believe you will find it in a great many contracts on the Continent where compulsory service obtains. The fact that each man has to serve his country has led lawyers there to foresee, to some extent, these difficulties, but because the English citizen, in ordinary time, has not foreseen the difficulty is it really right, without any regard to the present condition of the nation, to do nothing for him? Is it right to saddle somebody with the payment of rent, probably for several years, which he cannot possibly pay and which would be a burden to him if he ever comes back, or a burden to his family? It cannot be right.
    The suggestions which I have made are mild to a degree. I do not go the length of suggesting what is done in France, Germany, or Italy, where neither the soldier nor his family, under any circumstances, are asked to pay any rent. What I propose is that if any man has a contract which he can produce to a judicial tribunal and shows that because he is fighting for his country the contract cannot be carried out, the Court should be empowered to make any order they think reasonable. A more mild proposal than that, one less liable to cause damage, hardship, or injustice to those who seem to think the right of property more important than the lives of human beings, it would be difficult for anybody to suggest. I hope that at any rate this elementary justice will be done. If it is, the minds of a vast number of people will be relieved. It is heartbreaking the kind of letters one receives continuously on this subject from people whose only desire is to go and die for their country. They only ask that coupled with that great sacrifice they should not be asked to beggar themselves and their families. One would have thought that such a proposition would have met with universal acceptance. I am sure it would if people could only transport themselves for a short space of time to any part of the firing line in France, which I have recently seen, where there are whole villages in which not a single house remains standing, where practically every house is reduced to ruins. I can quite understand a French soldier saying to the landlord, "You will
    994
    be a very happy man if after this War you have a house left to let at all, and I am not going to bother about any interest you get on the house during the War." That is pretty obvious, because if the soldier does not defend the house it would disappear. You have only to translate that point of view, for after all our soldiers are fighting in France to defend our property in this country just as much as the French soldier is fighting to defend property in France.
    You ask a man to sacrifice his life, health, and private income, and at the same time you tax him because of a liability entered into under entirely different conditions. The injustice of that must be obvious even to those to whom contracts assume a kind of sacrosanct position, which personally I cannot see, and which they ought not to have in this connection. I do hope that this question is going to be met in a satisfactory manner. I do not say that the proposals I have suggested are the best ways of meeting it, or that there may not be better or more effective means of dealing with it, but the matter should be dealt with, and that without delay. It ought to have been dealt with earlier. There can be no doubt that there is a growing volume of opinion with regard to it, particularly as you are getting near the date of the Military Service Act coming into operation, which must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that any further delay would cause a great deal of disappointment and heartburnings among the men who really deserve the best their country can give them.

    ROYAL NAVY.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: We have been discussing matters affecting the Army at considerable length, but I will now ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order to discuss a matter which affects the Navy, or a not unimportant section of the personnel of the Navy. I allude to the midshipmen in His Majesty's service. The pay of a midshipman in the Royal Navy is not quite what it ought to be. The House will be surprised to hear that the pay amounts to the large sum of 1s. 9d. per day. This country, in view of its wealth and its importance, might treat its midshipmen a little more generously. A private in the Army is paid 1s. 2d. a day, and he is clothed and fed by the State, whereas a midshipman in the Royal Navy is neither fed nor clothed by the State. He clothes and feeds him-

    995
    self, or his parents do it for him. Nobody will argue, in view of our experiences in this War, that the duties of a midshipman are altogether unimportant. It will be agreed that our midshipmen have carried out many important duties on more than one occasion in the course of the War, and have earned the gratitude of the country. It would be fairer to put a midshipman in the Royal Navy more nearly on a par with corresponding officers in the Army. A midshipman receives 1s. 9d. a day, while a second lieutenant receives 5s. 6d. or 6s. a day. The duties discharged by a midshipman are quite as important in relation to his service as are the duties discharged by a second lieutenant who holds a corresponding rank in the Army. Here I want to spike one of the guns which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will shortly shoot at me. I have nothing whatever to say on the question of the allowances made by parents to their sons who are midshipmen. So far as the parents are concerned, I am quite certain that those who are able to afford it are quite happy to pay those allowances. The question of the parents' allowance does not arise, and I do not raise it in any shape or form. I know that where the parents cannot pay the allowance the Admiralty pays it for them. That does not affect the position I take up, therefore my right hon. Friend need not bring forward that argument against me. I deal with the case, on its merits, of the pay given by the State to the midshipmen.
    To simplify matters, and to explain to the House exactly where we are in this matter, I should like to give them the budget of a middy in the Royal Navy. He gets 1s. 9d. a day from his grateful country. Before the War the cost of the messing of a midshipman used to be 1s. a day, but since the War, owing to the increased cost of foodstuffs, the cost of messing has been raised to 1s. 6d. Everybody knows that a middy cannot live upon his messing alone, and that he has to pay extras. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact, but if a middy asks for a second helping of anything at any of his meals he has to pay 3d. extra. If a middy wants 5 o'clock tea he has to pay 9d. for it in addition to his messing. If he wants to drink such a thing as soda water or Apollinaris or any mineral water he has to pay 3d. or 4d. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that distilled water is supplied to the Navy gratis. So
    996
    it is, but in nine cases out of ten distilled water cannot be drunk because it is a mixture of oil and other compounds. It is the most abominable thing which anybody could drink, as anybody who has had experience of it can bear witness. A middy has to provide himself with some kind of drink, and the least he has to pay is 3d. or 4d. for it. I have worked the thing out very carefully, and the figures which I have given show that he gets 1s. 9d. a day from the State, while the cost of his food alone is 3s., so that he gets 12s. 6d. a week, and his food alone costs him 21s. a week. There are other expenses. When a middy is placed in a turret, he has to pay 1s. 3d. a week for polishing up that turret. Midshipmen are very glad to pay it, and take a great pride in the work, but at the same time it costs them 1s. 3d. a week to keep the turret in proper trim and sufficiently polished. Again, when a middy is promoted to the command of a picket boat, which is a very important thing in the Navy—midshipmen have discharged their duties as commanders of picket boats with great distinction in the Dardanelles and elsewhere—he has to pay another 1s. 3d. for the painting of that picket boat, so that between the turret and the picket boat he has to pay 2s. 6d. a week.
    Then he has to pay his servant 3s. a week. I suppose that middies have to have to have servants to look after their wardrobe. Further, they have to pay for their washing, and where coal and oil is used, the washing of collars and cuffs is a somewhat expensive matter. A middy's expenditure on washing is at least 2s. a week. Probably that is as cheap as most of them can do it. Then middies have to buy books for their instruction, by orders of the Admiralty—most appalling books and expensive books—and also notebooks in which they have to make notes when they are going up for various examinations. These notebooks and instruction books they have to provide out of their own pockets, and they have also to pay for outfit in connection with various games. In addition to all that, there is the mess contribution, so that no middy can possibly exist on less than about 30s. a week, while a grateful country pays him 12s. 6d. His parents add to his pay to some extent. They do not complain of that, and those of them who can afford it do not ask to be relieved of that payment. In view of the fact that you pay a private in the Army 1s. 2d. a day, that you clothe and feed him, and that you pay your subaltern in the Army 5s. 6d. or 6s. a day, I

    997
    think you might do a little better for the midshipman than give him 1s. 9d. a day. I commend this matter to the kindly consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be able to tell us that eventually some little allowance may be made to make up some of the difference between the 12s. 6d. which the State pays the midshipman and the 30s. he has to pay himself.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel YATE: The point I want to raise is the question of the men who are discharged wounded and invalided out of the Service. I have received to-day a letter from a man in a sanatorium in my county, a divisional engineer of the Royal Naval Division. When he enlisted he was in receipt of £3 10s. a week as engineer of a central station in a tramway and lighting works. He has now returned from the fighting line wounded in the right leg and the right hand. He has been discharged from the Service, and is apparently suffering from some form of consumption. His wife is an invalid with a child. His home has had to be broken up, and he has nothing whatsoever coming in. His case has been sent to the Admiralty. He tells me he has received a letter from the Admiralty offering him the magnificent sum of a gratuity of £3—not a pension, but a gratuity. I ask that the question of the interpretation of the warrants and regulations regarding the pensions and treatment of these men who are thus invalided out of the Service may be reconsidered. I do not believe that the Pensions Committees which give these decisions do this willingly, but I think they are simply hidebound by red tape. We know what we hear about red tape. Sir Frederick Milner has been writing to the papers, and he says:
    "My experience of public officials is that they are more like machines than human beings."
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to give a wider interpretation of the warrants and regulations regarding these pensions. I believe it can be done by administrative order. We want these permanent officials who try to save every little petty thing they can to have their horizon widened and deal with these things more generously than they have hitherto done. It is impossible to go into the question of the way money is wasted. We had an instance at Question Time to-day with regard to the appointment of a man to superintend the inspec-
    998
    tion of frozen meat for the Army, and the sum given was £28,000, which someone has obtained from the beginning of the War to the 31st December. Think what that £28,000 paid to that man for inspecting Army rations would do in the way of pensions to these poor invalided men. If economy is to be effected, it should be done in that way and not in this. Another man writes to me to-day—I am just taking letters which happen to come into the post to-day—and he says:
    "Tens of thousands of pounds are wasted without apparent profit or benefit to anyone by the War Office method of buying, by the appointment of large numbers of inspectors without expert business, knowledge or experience to supervise manufacture and delivery."
    He ends by talking of the "great hordes of recently created officials who know nothing of what they buy, and whose ignorance of business training is only equalled by their complacent incapacity. "These are the opinions which are general amongst manufacturers and merchants in the country, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question, and to try to save in other ways and not on the poor unfortunate personnel of the Army or the Navy who come back wounded and diseased from the front and who deserve every consideration, and give them something better than a mere gratuity of £3.
    I should like to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary for War the extraordinarily mean way in which they are also treating the poor unfortunate nurses who are serving the sick men at the front. I have to-day received a copy of an Army Order of 25th January, and this is what it says:
    "The Army Council have decided that none of the allowances mentioned in Army Order 501/14, namely, lodging, fuel and light, shall be drawn by members of the Queen Alexandra Military Nurses Service and other nurses after 31st January, 1916."
    These poor nurses have been drawing this allowance ever since the War commenced. They are doing most heroic work at the front, and our wounded men owe an enormous debt of gratitude to them. They have provided their own clothing, and have doubtless been put to enormous expense to keep themselves, and yet, after a year and a half of war, the Army cuts down all these allowances at five days' notice. Can you imagine anything more mean than the way you treat these nurses? I ask that this question shall be brought to the notice of the Government and the whole matter reconsidered.
    Major NEWMAN: I want to bring forward a point in connection with a gallant sailor who served his country well in the past, and at the call of his country came forward again at the outbreak of the War. The Debate on the Air Service on 16th February left on my mind, and on the minds of a great number of the general public, the feeling that this sailor, one of those people who manage to get things done in this great crisis of our country, has been somewhat harshly treated, and was left by this Debate in a very dubious position. At the end of September and beginning of October we had two or three air raids in London, and a certain amount of damage was done, and the public very rightly demanded that the question of the air defence of London should no longer be a battledore and shuttlecock between the Army and the Navy, but should be seriously taken up and that someone should be made responsible for it. The Government, not for the first time in their history, sheltered themselves behind a great name, and they chose Sir Percy Scott, I suppose one of the greatest experts in gunnery in the world, to take in hand the defence of London. He at once set to work to improvise, on the spur of the moment, the defence of London against aircraft. He was entrusted with the job of getting together guns which would have a chance of bringing down Zeppelins if they came again to London. He found only a few guns, and those insufficiently manned and served. He managed to get a scratch team of gunners together. I do not think this is betraying public confidence. After all, our German friends know everything we are doing. He got together guns which in the ordinary way would have gone to foreign countries—to Greece and to Russia. He got some 4.7 guns which we did not want for the moment, and more important, he was able to get together, or to get constructed, carriages for the guns. He did more than that. He got special shells from our Allies, and in a comparatively short while he managed to improvise a fairly efficient defence of London in the way of guns. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and since, I think, the middle of October we have not had a Zeppelin raid over London. The last time Zeppelins came they did not come to London but to the Midlands. The Debate on 16th February was introduced by my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks. Towards the close of the
    1000
    speech of the Under-Secretary for War he made the following remark:
    "A Standing Joint Naval and Military Committee will be formed to collaborate in and to coordinate the question of supplies and design for material for the naval and military Air Services."
    This has been done, and Lord Derby, I understand, is at the head of it. My hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) interrupted and said:
    "Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that Sir Percy Scott has no longer anything to do with the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go away with any such idea. Sir Percy Scott is still in the position he was in. There has been no change in reference to Sir Percy Scott. What ultimately will be done I do not like to say. Sir Percy Scott's position is what it was. He is in command of the gunnery.… If the arrangement which I hope is going to be completed is actually completed, the services of Sir Percy Scott will be transferred from the Admiralty to the War Office. It is a little inconvenient to answer these questions when the arrangement is not actually quite completed. We hope it may be so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood you to say that it came into effect to-day."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1916, col. 100, Vol. LXXX.]
    That last remark was a correct remark. As a matter of fact, on 16th February, before the Debate took place, Sir Percy Scott had been relieved of his command. It left the general public with a very erroneous opinion. For instance, supposing on February 18th or 20th there had been an air raid on London, people would have said it was Sir Percy Scott's fault. As a matter of fact it would not have been, because he had no more to do with the defence of London than I have myself, but that would have been the effect. Perhaps, unwittingly, the Government did not make the position clear. They did not tell us on that day, "At twelve o'clock to-day Sir Percy Scott has given up the position he holds in the defence of London against aircraft and we are now going to have this Joint Committee, of which he will not be a member." That was not done, and things were left as they were. On 24th February I put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty, who answered me as follows:
    "Sir Percy Scott's responsibility to the Admiralty ceased on the transfer of the Anti-Aircraft Defence of London to the War Office. He has accepted the appointment of advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in regard to gunnery matters relating to such anti-aircraft defence."
    That is the position of Sir Percy Scott at the present time. He is merely an adviser. If his advice is asked of course, he will give it to the best of his ability, but if it is not asked he will have nothing to do whatsoever. I put it to the Government and to the Secretary to the Admiralty

    1001
    that that really is wasting a man of Sir Percy Scott's ability, I think it is quite right that the whole of the air defences should be co-ordinated and that London should not be a separate unit, but that the Midlands, the East, the West, the North and the South should be co-ordinated in one general scheme of defence against aircraft. I can well imagine that perhaps Sir Percy Scott would not be a big enough man to put at the head of the whole of this great system, but at any rate he ought to be employed; he ought not, as a reward for getting things done, to be put upon the shelf. His ability ought to be recognised, and in a crisis like this it ought to be made use of. I trust the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) will be able to tell us what the War Office is going to get Sir Percy Scott to do. We cannot afford to let him be wasted at the present juncture. I think in deference to public opinion, and in view of the gallant Admiral's services, we ought to have a satisfactory answer.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will take the three points that have been raised in the reverse order, beginning with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman). He has raised the question of the circumstances associated with the transfer of the anti-aircraft defences of London, with particular reference to the position of Sir Percy Scott. I associate myself with the tribute he paid to Sir Percy Scott's great knowledge and experience. In regard to that transfer, on the 16th of February, as my hon. and gallant Friend properly stated, the Under-Secretary for War set out in full the conditions of the transfer, which will be found in columns 99 and 100 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. On the 24th February, in response to a question by the hon. and gallant Member, I said:
    "Sir Percy Scott's responsibility to the Admiralty ceased on the transfer of the Anti-aircraft Defence of London to the War Office. He has accepted the appointment of Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in regard to gunnery matters relating to such anti-aircraft defence, and he is also, under an arrangement made in November, 1914, available for consultation in regard to naval gunnery when the Board of Admiralty desire his advice."
    I am afraid I cannot add anything to that. That is a plain statement of facts, and I cannot go beyond the reply which I then gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Major NEWMAN: He is not on the Joint Committee, I understand?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can ascertain that, but I cannot say. The hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) raised a very interesting question of the allowances and pensions to disabled sailors and marines. That is a matter which, by Notice of Motion, will be raised on going into Committee of Supply both on the Army and the Navy Estimates, as my hon. and gallant Friend will see by reference to the Order Paper. Nevertheless there are one or two things I would like to say. We proceed under the orders given us in the Report of the Select Committee which was appointed on 18th November, 1914. The reference to that Select Committee is as follows:—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the naval and military services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    I need not read the other parts of the reference, which deals with the widows, orphans and dependants of officers and men, and so forth. The relevant part of the reference to the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised is that which deals with:
    "A scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the naval and military services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    In the introduction to the Special Report which the Select Committee subsequently submitted to the House, and which was printed in April, 1915, there appear the following words:—
    "The Select Committee appointed to consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the naval and military services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War," etc.
    It will be noted that they rehearse the terms of reference. So far as we are concerned at the Admiralty, we secured an Order in Council. There is some misapprehension about that. People talk as if it were an antediluvian and obsolete document, going back into the very far Dark Ages when the State did not do the thing so well as I must insist—it is not the present criticism to which I take objection—it is doing it to-day. That cannot be said in regard to this Order in Council under which we proceed, because our Order in Council is dated 12th August, 1915. We paid the old rates down to that date, and they were less generous than those which followed the Report of the Select Committee. This is the procedure. Of course, I am speaking for the Admiralty. The man is examined by a medical board, who give a decision as to

    1003
    whether the man's condition is or is not attributable to the Service. It is a fundamental part of this Order in Council, and of the Army Warrant, which I think is much older than this, and I think of the Select Committee's reference from this House, and the Select Committee's finding, that the disease and wounds must arise out of the present War. It is an essential feature that the invalidity must be attributable to the Service. The case is examined by a medical board, who give a decision as to whether the man's condition is or is not attributable to the Service. Their report is reviewed by the Medical Department of the Admiralty, and if there appears to be any doubt as to the fairness of the decision the man's medical history is very carefully gone into, and the final verdict not infrequently goes in favour of the man. The cases also go to the Accountant-General's Department and are again examined, and if it is felt that any material facts have not been gone into fully in the Medical Department, or if any fresh evidence has been brought, the case is heard again. Further, if in a case such as that raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the decision has been given—I do not promise any revision of decision of this case in what I am about to say—and if there is any new evidence, and if the person appeals to have the case re-examined in the light of some further evidence he can throw upon it, it is gone into again. I may say that the man gets the benefit of the doubt so far as we are concerned.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong when he talks about Civil servants as being guided by red tape and giving rather official and hard-mouthed decisions. That is not true. The contrary is true. I say on behalf of the Accountant-General of the Navy and all the heads of the various branches which deal with the various aspects of this question, that they give the most sympathetic and warm consideration to every case which comes before them. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the case to which he refers he may rest assured that it will be gone into with every endeavour to see that if it is attributable to the Service the man will get the consideration which he ought to get, if his condition is the result of the rigour and hardship of the Service which he has rendered to the State at this time. But there are cases which are refused, and they are refused because they are not
    1004
    attributable to the Service. Take the sort of case which comes before the Admiralty. The same is true of the War Office. These are cases where there has been a hasty medical examination. Let us understand where we are. Here is a man who has not been out of this country. He has not been added to the Fleet. He has gone down to the depot to be kitted up, and so on. Somebody finds, on closer examination, that he has got very bad eyesight. He was very eager to get into the Service for a most honourable purpose. There is, perhaps, the same thing as in the Army. We are a small family, and we can keep our hand upon this matter to a much greater degree than where the expansion has been so rapid. But it is suddenly found that his eyesight is very bad, or that he has got flat feet or varicose veins, and he ought never to have been admitted. That man's condition is in no way the result of any exertion or strain, or the result of service which would give him the right to a pension. I do not think that anybody could seriously put that proposition forward.
    What I do claim on behalf of our administration is this, that if it can be shown that the man's condition is in any way the result of service—that is to say, suppose he had gone on living the ordinary life of the civilian in fairly easy conditions, it would be assumed that he had five, ten, or fifteen years of very good health, with the possibility of good work before him, and that his condition has been produced in the Service as the result of pressure or drill, or certainly of going with the Fleet or into the trenches, then I say that our administration follows this policy, even if we go beyond the precise letter of the Orders in Council, that we should take such a case into consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will not ask me to go into the matter further than that, because it will be fully discussed on Notice of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Army and the Navy Estimates. I have before me a number of cases of men in the Navy who have been refused. There are many of them, but I may quote one or two. Here is one with defective teeth. He was in our service six days. He ought never to have been passed into it, and it cannot be claimed that because we made a mistake, therefore before he had rendered any effective service he should be given a pension. What we say is that if his service has produced or has hastened or accelerated a breakdown,

    1005
    then some consideration is due. Then there is the case of a man who has got ventral hernia. You may say that that ought to have been discovered by careful medical examination, but if it was not and if the man had no strain of any kind whatever, what is the position? No man in this House would wish to treat those cases with greater consideration than I.
    Mr. KING: Take it out of the doctor.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: You cannot give a life pension on that. Take the case of a man with epilepsy. He is with us four months. He is suddenly discovered suffering from epileptic fits. What are we to do if suddenly he has an epileptic fit to which he is subject and which is in no way aggravated by the service? Is it then to be said that we are to give him a life pension? I do not think so. What we must do is to consider carefully whether our Orders in Council enable us to give assistance to a man who may have contracted or be susceptible to a form of disease, not due to misconduct, which everybody rules out, but that although he may have the germs of or be susceptible to it before he enters the Service, yet if it can be shown that entering the Service aggravated, developed or hastened the breaking down of that man, then I think that we have got to give such a case sympathetic consideration. That is the way in which I state the case to the House. That is, broadly speaking, the line on which we have gone in our administration. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to go into the case to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford referred, as he has done on more than one occasion—and I have failed to convince him up to now—to what he considers the inadequacy of the midshipman's pay. I will try again. The midshipman's pay is 1s. 9d. a day, which is 12s. 3d. a week. Then, says my hon. Friend, "you must not take into account anything else." I cannot allow the case to be taken in that way. I must take into account the fact that it is part of the duty of the parents to make an allowance of £50 a year, which is 19s. 2d. a week, so that if you add the two together he gets a total of 31s. 5d. per week.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: No, only 21s. 5d.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg pardon. It is 31s. 5d. I have the advantage of my hon. Friend. I was once a schoolmaster. Out
    1006
    of this there is the compulsory messing, 7s. a week. Then he has got to pay some other matters, into which I will go in a moment. There was a tuition charge of 3d. a day against him which has been waived for the period of the War. The only compulsory charge against him is the 7s. a week messing charge. I agree that there will be extras which will have to be added. He will have to pay for his washing. He will have to make a contribution for his servant. But suppose you double the 7s.—that is the messing charge of the Government—that makes 14s., and suppose you add another 7s. for incidental charges, he has still got 10s. a week in his pocket out of the 31s. 5d. On the whole, I really do think that is enough for him considering his age. The ages would be from fifteen years and ten months up to nineteen years and six months, and the average would be roughly seventeen years and eight months. My hon. Friend says that he ought to be more on a par with a second lieutenant in the Army, but, after all, his service, his age, and the charges against him are not comparable with those of the second lieutenant in the Army. A second lieutenant in the Army is paid higher, I agree, but the expenses of military messing are higher, and the age of the second lieutenant is higher. As regards parents' allowance we announced long ago, as I think my hon. Friend knows, that we are prepared to give favourable consideration to an application from the parent that it should be waived in part or in whole for the period of war if it can be shown that the War has made it more difficult, by reducing income, to make the payment, and if that is done that is an increase of 19s. 2d. a week to this young lad from State funds. I happen to know every application because, with others, they pass through my hands as well as those of other persons. We have refused three only, and said "Yes," very rightly said "Yes," in the other cases. In all those cases 19s. 2d. is granted to these young men, and taking all these facts into consideration I hope my hon. Friend will not press his view further. I am aware how proud he is of these fine, eager, and gallant lads, and I know he looks to them to render fruitful service to their country in the future, but I think he will see, on reflection, that we have not done so badly for them, and I trust, therefore, that he will at any rate revise his view on this matter.
    Mr. CURRIE: I wish to refer briefly to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, which has direct application to married men who are joining the Army, and which I think should be really dealt with by the Government. I think the plea put forward is both just and reasonable, and the Government should lose no time in dealing with it. The principle direct obligations of these men are rents and insurance premiums. My view of these obligations is that they are national and should be shouldered by the nation, that is the taxpayer. I know that in other quarters the idea is being pressed that the obligation should be placed on the landlord—a moratorium of rents, or, in the case of the insurance companies, a moratorium of premiums. Against that idea I protest strongly indeed. I think it would be extremely unfair and might have very disastrous results. I think the Government should lose no time in giving an answer to the question that has been raised, and, of course, I would like to hear something on the part of the Government in regard to it.
    Mr. LYNCH: I propose to say but a few words on this occasion before the Bill is finally passed. I believe that we are approaching the moment which may be decisive of the whole campaign. That does not necessarily mean that the campaign will come to an end in a very short time. But I think that, if the history of great campaigns be regarded, it will be found that one certain period has marked the decisive operations, and that the rest of the campaign has been really only working out the logical and ultimate conclusion the factors of which have been already in a great part determined. Therefore, I believe that the next few months are of extraordinary importance. I am one of those not at all reassured by the optimistic views which prevail on the Front Bench, and I am not satisfied that the Government has put forth even its possible energy and has brought out the greatest efficiency within its power. I will dwell very briefly on a topic which I raised before, and that is with regard to the position of Lord Kitchener, though not with any animus whatever against him. I leave all personalities out of account, but it is evident that the Government itself has virtually inflicted upon him a censure more severe than could emanate from any speech delivered in this House by having successively taken from him his chief function, so that he is now left in the
    1008
    ignominious position of being little more than a figurehead. It might be said that this is the best solution of a difficult question. When we consider the great interests at stake, when we consider the extreme importance of this crisis, what are we to say of a Government which, as the best defence for the Minister of War, has to say, "After all, he is little more than a figurehead, and that is the best possible condition in which to leave that officer"? That shows a spirit which does not reflect upon him, but reflects upon the Government, for their want of grit, their want of real honesty, their want of moral courage.
    I will point this out and I will hold it clearly to the view of the public until the required impression is made and these statements are recognised to be true, so that we may thus gain a force that will move the Government. We have had too many of those lawyer-like tricks, devices, and shifts, and those semi-honest means which pass in the piping times of peace, although even then they prepare disaster; we want men who will recognise the reality of this grave situation and who will act acordingly. I will touch upon one aspect of the field of the Government's conduct in this War, and in viewing it we come upon some amazing deficiencies arising from want of energy, intelligence, and grit, those winning qualities which are there so conspicuously absent. I will not say that this applies to all who are on that Front Bench, for that would be unjust in certain quarters. Take, for instance, the Air Service. If the representative of the Admiralty will give me his attention, I would like to know whether it is the fact that if a Zeppelin, or any hostile aircraft appears, young men who fly the British machines, excellent and brilliant young men for the most part, and who are eager to go out and fight those hostile craft, are not allowed to ascend until they get permission from some headquarters. Thus during the interval the enemy aircraft have time to do their damage and disappear. I believe it is so; I am informed that is the case. What speech delivered in this House, even of the most caustic character, could be a more biting comment on this inefficiency than that mere statement. When these airmen do ascend they are insufficiently provided with means of fighting the enemy, and even when by remarkable foresight and exceptional brain power, so to speak, the Admiralty provides them with guns, those guns are incapable of being set at the proper elevation to do their work. In a moment of

    1009
    crisis like this, the great leaders of a great nation should be such that wherever one touched their activities one would be startled by the energy which emanates from them, as in touching an electric machine. But what is the fact? We have flabbiness, procrastination, a glossing over of problems, lawyer-like speeches, instead of great military energy and foresight. I think the Government know that themselves. I think they have become habituated to recognising that this is their official character.
    The situation on the Western Front is grave. I do not wish to exaggerate the gravity of the situation, because I am consoled to think that this main thrust by the Germans has to some extent been anticipated and provided for by the Commander-in-Chief of the French Forces. Those who know General Joffre best tell me that he is still entirely confident, that he has been master of the situation from the beginning, that he has had his reserves in hand, and that he can use those reserves and push them forward at the right moment, and that the next phase of this gigantic conflict will be the astonishing reverse of the German. I would like to believe, and I hope that may be so, because the one bright character of the news which has reached us lately has, at any rate, been this, that the French troops have displayed the most dazzling courage against overwhelming odds, and that the Frenchmen of to-day are not a whit inferior to their glorious ancestors who made their names illustrious in the great days of Jena, of Austerlitz, and of Wagram. This particular thrust may not be the really decisive attack of the Germans on the Western front. A disquieting feature has been this, that it has not been replied to by a counter attack on the British side. Right along the line where one might have anticipated that, we still have the Germans taking the initiative, the Germans taking the aggressive, the Germans, who have so many fronts to maintain, and so many enemies, always developing their plans, and fighting them out according to their own preconceptions. I anticipated this thrust long ago, and said so in a speech delivered in this House some six months ago. The events since then have borne out what I said at that time. I will repeat that any nation, any fortress, or any army, which tries always to play the safe game and to rely entirely upon the defensive is doomed to ultimate defeat. Even a draw
    1010
    on this occasion would be the equivalent of ultimate defeat. Those who organise their plans in this way of defence leave out what is one of the most decisive factors in war, and that is the psychological factor.
    From my knowledge of the French, having lived amongst them in complete sympathy for a number of years, I will say this, while no one admires their assailant qualities more than I do, yet, if the War degenerates into a mere war of endurance in trench work, then I would fear that the French would go under before those qualities of the Germans, which are secondary qualities, but which, at any rate, find their most effective play in that kind of solid endurance in which the Teuton has always been brought up. But the French have a higher quality, what you may call a Celtic quality, the quality of dash, of vigour in the attack—a quality which ultimately means victory. I believe the British soldier also is happier when, instead of defending his trench day after day and week after week in indecisive but bloody combat, the word is given to him to go forward to the attack. It is on that note rather that I would close this address, namely, to say that from this out we should fight not for any kind of safety. We should not be disinclined to take risks, but we should fight for victory: we should build our plans entirely to that end. We should nail our flag to the masthead definitely, and, having formed our plan, bend every thought, every disposition, every detail of organisation, every movement of the spirit, towards that end on the plan of attack, an attack which will crush through the German lines, which will roll them back, which will seize their lines of communication, and force them out of the trenches to fight in the open. Then there will be found full play for those qualities in which the Allies excel, in which they are superior to the Teuton—the qualities of dash, vigour, irresistible élan, energy—the great fighting assailant qualities which have burned so brightly in the history of these Isles and of France.
    Mr. KING: The House, even though we are present in diminished numbers, always listens with great admiration to the horn Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch). Sorry as I am that the Government has not heard in greater numbers his views on the War and his inspiring admonitions, yet I feel that those of us who have been here to listen must be grateful to him for his insight, eloquence, and confidence. I am going to ask the House to go from a broad

    1011
    question of policy to a matter of detail. I desire to refer to a question to which I have called the attention of the House on a previous occasion, and to which the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Plymouth have also called attention. I mean the organisation and position of our medical forces and the medical resources of the country at the present time. Apparently without the knowledge or approval of Parliament, or without the due consideration which I think it ought to have received either here or outside, the whole position of the medical forces of this country has been slipping away into a very anomalous and, I believe, very unfortunate condition. We are largely indebted to an understanding—
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): May I ask the hon. Member what Department he suggests should take cognisance of this matter?
    Mr. KING: I should be extremely glad if the hon. Gentleman's Department or any Department will do so.
    Mr. HOPE: My Department is that of Treasurer of His Majesty's Household. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that Department should take cognisance of it?
    Mr. KING: I am very glad to answer any question interjected by anybody on the Treasury Bench. I have already put this question privately and publicly before Ministers. I know they are overburdened and that they have an enormous number of questions brought to their attention. Therefore I shall not feel aggrieved if nobody is here to answer my remarks. Those remarks will stand on record, and if possibly they are considered afterwards, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I raise no objection to nobody being here now especially to answer. The position is this: When the War broke out, there was a greater deficiency in medical men, relatively speaking, than in any other professional skilled class in the community. That was largely due to the Insurance Act and other reasons. Since the War that position has been aggravated. First of all a number of young doctors took commissions or even enrolled themselves in the ranks, a number of medical students did the same, and we are now in a position where the number of medical men in this country has fallen to a dangerously low point. My contention is that the way in which the War Office are
    1012
    treating this question renders the danger and the deficiency even greater. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Shirley Benn) for having called attention, by means of a question on the 12th January, to the exact position of the medical profession at the present time. From a very long answer given by the Under-Secretary for War it appears that the British Medical Association at its annual meeting last July—I have no doubt acting quite properly at the time with their objects in view—appointed a committee and settled its own terms of reference as follows:
    "To organise the medical profession in England Wales and Ireland, in such a way as will enable the Government to use every medical practitioner fit to serve the country in such a manner as to turn his qualifications to the best possible use: to deal with all matters affecting the medical profession arising in connection with the War: and to report to the Council (of the British Medical Association)."
    9.0 P.M.
    That was a very comprehensive order. The British Medical Association which, while not representing the whole medical profession, is undoubtedly a very powerful and well-managed body, appoints a committee to organise the whole medical profession, and to direct its energies for the whole of the nation both in peace and in war. The committee was appointed, co-opted certain members who were supposed to represent the universities and colleges and other medical bodies, and got to work. The War Office, being, I believe, quite overdone with work and quite unaware, perhaps not having even considered, how it ought to deal with the medical question in the country and in the Army, appear to have fallen down before this committee, and practically, without any authority from this House, or any authority at all, as I understand, have handed over to this self-constituted committee the whole of the organisation and control—it practically amounts to that—of the medical profession. This committee, which is called the central medical war committee, has, since the passing of the Military Service Act, issued a circular numbered W 10, requiring all single doctors of military age to enrol themselves as willing to place their services at the disposal of the War Office, if required to do so. Of course, every single qualified medical practitioner under the age of forty-one is liable to be conscripted, but I am sure most of us would agree that if he was in general practice, or occupying some position in an institution, for instance, he would be considered as doing better work than as

    1013
    a private in the Army. Yet this self-appointed committee take the matter up in such a way that they send out a circular pointing out that all single doctors of military age must enrol themselves, or, if they do not, they may be conscripted. We are told in the "British Medical Journal" of the week before last that there is at present no compulsion except for single doctors under forty-one, but it is desired that the whole medical profession should be attested, and they are now appealing practically to the whole medical profession under forty-one, on the ground of patriotism, backed up to some extent by threats of Conscription, to attest or enrol themselves as ready to come into the Army scheme whenever called upon.
    This would be a very serious position in any case. It is doubly serious when it is done without any Parliamentary sanction, or even explanation, by a committee appointed, without any encouragement or suggestion, as far as I know, from the War Office, by the British Medical Association, which is not representative of the medical profession as a whole. I consider it a very serious matter indeed, especially as one sees that this committee is getting more and more power and authority. I might quote, in support of what I say, several statements by the Under-Secretary for War, the "British Medical Journal," and the "Lancet." I do not believe that the country realises that we have reached a position where practically the whole medical profession under the age of forty-one, and to a large extent over, is under the actual control of the War Office and that the War Office are using the medical profession in an extravagant and wasteful way taking far more medical men from the service of the civilian population than are required, and quite ignoring the really vital interests of the health of the civil and working population of the land. This is a very large subject, and might be pursued at some length; but I will now refer to what I believe is well recognised by all who have studied the question, namely, that the whole of the organisation of the medical service is wasteful and extravagant, takes far too many men away from the medical profession in this country, and so not only wastes money, but, what is more important, wastes the energies of skill and necessary men.
    1014
    A few instances will show what I mean. The War Office organises its medical forces at the front by making the unit a division. Each division has a complete medical service independent of other medical services. That is a very simple arrangement and, I suppose, according to War Office methods which probably existed before the War began; therefore it must exist now. But what is the result? The result is that divisions are staffed with medical men up to the requirements needed when the division goes into action. A division that is at the base or far behind the firing line obviously will need far fewer medical men than if that division is actually in the firing line. The arrangement entails a perfectly unnecessary waste of men and money. I hear from various quarters of the extravagance and waste in connection with it. I was informed by a friend of mine—and I hope I am not giving away anything confidential—that he was asked to prepare a scheme which would be more economical and satisfactory. He is a surgeon of very high position in the country. He gave three months of almost uninterrupted work to a scheme, and was in constant communication with the War Office and with leading men in the leading hospitals and in Harley Street. He brought this scheme forward after being encouraged that the whole new scheme—which, of course, was not his alone—would be put through. He was put down by being told that, after all, the old system must continue. It is most lamentable that a state of affairs like this should be, because by it we are wasting men, money, and the health and strength of our civilian as well as of our military population.
    I must just refer to one or two ways in which this extravagance to which I have referred is continued. In the Royal Army Medical Corps practically no commission is given to any officer who is not a fully qualified medical man. That rule may, to some extent, have been modified lately. I do not know. But certainly in the early days of the War it was only under the most exceptional circumstances that any commission was given to anybody but a fully qualified medical man. What does that mean? It means that in the Royal Army Medical Corps there are many officers who have to do such work as direct the ambulance—work that is quite independent of medical skill and qualifications. Many men, again, have to do with provisioning. Say a man is a quartermaster of a large base hospital or of a clearing station. There is no necessity whatever

    1015
    for the man to be a medical man. An officer holding a commission in the Royal Army Medical Corps, according to the present ruling, must be a medical man. He does not of necessity do better certain work that I have specified. You are taking away medical men who are very much needed elsewhere for merely routine, organising, clerical and other duties where their medical qualifications do not come in at all. It is the same way with a large amount of clerical work—the filling up of forms, the making up of accounts, the rendering of returns, and so on. If these things have to be done they ought to be done by men who have not medical qualifications.
    I shall not pursue this matter much further to-night. I may have another opportunity, possibly on the Army Estimates. But I have said enough, I think, to show that a great deal of waste of men and of money, a great deal of clinging to old forms, which might have been right before the War, but which ought to be modified now, is going on; that there is still a great deal of incapacity, inefficiency and waste, which a little foresight, or, at any rate, a little attention, might change, with great benefit to our resources of men, money and materials. I call attention to this matter because it affects not only the efficiency of the Army, but the efficiency of the civilian population. The whole of our industrial class is now working at a strain and often under conditions which are trying beyond anything to which they have been accustomed. Everybody who knows anything of the administration of the National Insurance Act knows that the strain and difficulty in connection with the medical service is increasing, and likely to continue to increase as long as the War lasts. If I have said anything to-night which will have the effect of altering matters, I shall be glad. I hope sincerely that the line of inquiry which I have suggested may produce some good, and call the attention of the War Office to the need for greater economy and greater efficiency, while at the same time doing something, not only for the military, but the civilian population of the country.
    Question, "That the Bill be read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL PRIZE PROCEDURE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
CLAUSE 1.—(Proceedings in Prize Courts against Naval Officers, etc.)
So much of Section fifty-one of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, as provides that actions and proceedings against any person in His Majesty's Naval Service or in the employment of the Admiralty shall not be brought or instituted elsewhere than in the United Kingdom shall, so far as not already repealed by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, be repealed, and such repeal shall take effect as from the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is a material point which I wish to raise, though not in any hostile spirit. I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), who has unfortunately been called away and who asked me to raise this point, in which he is interested. I notice that at the end of this Clause there is a somewhat unusual provision in Bills of this kind, a provision that the Clause shall be retrospective in its action—that it shall apply to all cases which have arisen since the beginning of the War. I do not at all know why this was not done earlier in the history of the War. If a Bill of this kind had been brought in I do not suppose there would have been any objection, but now that proceedings have been started in other cases, if the law is changed, it is conceivable that under the changed condition of things there may arise hardship to individuals who are concerned in actions which are still pending. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that in the administration of this Act, and in connection with the retrospective words at the end, he will take special pains to investigate every case in which the procedure is being altered and call attention to it, to prevent hardship or injustice arising to any individual concerned in the case, and that he will be willing to receive representations from individuals who are concerned in those cases in this matter.
Mr. WATT: I would like to ask what are the advantages to be gained by making this Act retrospective? As my

1017
hon. Friend has pointed out, evils may arise in making such an Act as this go back to the beginning of the War, and I do not think the House ought to be asked to pass the Bill until an explanation has been given by my right hon. Friend who represents the Admiralty.
Dr. MACNAMARA: On the Second Reading the learned Solicitor-General gave a succinct explanation of the purport of the Bill, the main part of which is contained in the first Clause; but I will answer my hon. Friends so far as I can and give what assurance I can that the Bill, being retrospective, will not work hardship or injustice upon any individual. My hon. Friends know that at present persons who make claims respecting the detention of ships and cargoes are advised to apply to the Prize Courts. My hon. Friends know that cases of detention have occurred overseas, and they know, of course, that there are Prize Courts in the Dominions. They know that claims do not lie against the Crown, but actions have to be brought against individual officers, and most of the officers concerned act under the immediate control of the Admiralty. Under the Act of 1864, the last paragraph of Section 51—that is to say, the remaining outstanding part of the Section which we are now seeking to repeal—"any such action or proceeding against any person in His Majesty's Naval Service, or in the employment of the Lords of the Admiralty, shall not be brought or instituted elsewhere than in the United Kingdom." Now it would be a matter of greater convenience if action could be heard in any particular case in one and the same Court. That is the purpose of the procedure. In some cases actions have been started or are pending in oversea Courts.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In this country?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not so concerned about this, country, for the law as it at present stands provides that the claim against the individual can only be heard in this country. I have in mind actions which have arisen in the Dominion Prize Courts.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Actions which are now pending in this country, and which, under the operation of this Act, and against the will of some of the parties who have taken steps here, may be transferred to a Court in the Dominions?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid my hon. Friend does not understand my explanation. He has misconceived the purpose of the Bill. The purpose is to repeal the remaining paragraph of Section 51 of the Act of 1864, and thus, for greater convenience, enable claims to be heard against naval officers and Admiralty employés in a Court other than in the United Kingdom.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Bill enables you, I think, to transfer an action which has been started here under the law as it exists at present. This Clause enables you to transfer that action to a Court in the Dominions, which could not have been done before, and therefore to prejudice—
Dr. MACNAMARA: No; at present the action against an individual could only be heard in the United Kingdom. It is to hear a claim in a Court other than in the United Kingdom that this Bill seeks the repeal of the remaining part of Section 51 of the Act of 1864. I think I have made it clear that it would be convenient that the application against an individual should be heard in the same Court as that in which the claim for the detention of the ship and the cargo was heard. Now what my hon. Friend calls my attention to is the retrospective action now proposed, that is to say
"and such repeal shall take effect as from the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The whole matter is simply transferring a claim from a Court in this country to the Dominions. I cannot imagine that any prejudice could arise, but if it does it would certainly be guarded against by those who are responsible for justice and equity by the proviso to Section 2 of the Bill, at which my hon. Friend should look. It is:
"Provided that where the proceedings are against a person in the service of His Majesty, or of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, or of any Government Department, the Court shall (except in the case of proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England) on the application of the proper officer of the Crown, make an order transferring the proceedings to another Prize Court."
If prejudice were likely to arise, we should have seriously to consider whether we

1019
ought not to take the course provided for in the proviso of Section 2.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

  COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. PETO: I desire very briefly to call attention to a matter which I wished to bring before the House at Question Time to-day, but I had not an opportunity—I make no complaint—of putting the question, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not be present. In view of that, however, I think it would be as well if I just read the question, and the answer I have since received, to which I wish to call attention. I asked the Secretary to the Treasury "whether his attention has been called to the fact that no representative of the National Federation of Employés' Approved Societies has been nominated to represent the societies on the Committee recently appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the finance of the National Insurance Act; whether he is aware that the members administering the affairs of these societies have a wide and long experience of industrial insurance and have administered the National Insurance Act to greater advantage than many of the approved societies; and, in view of their special interest in the result of the inquiry, whether he will take steps at once to appoint an additional member or members of the Committee to represent them?"
  Before giving the answer I have received I would like to call attention to the facts of the case Towards the end of last month a Treasury Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and its terms of reference were extremely wide in their scope. They might cover a very great deal which would very materially affect the position and financial interests of those particular employés societies. I should like to read the terms of reference, or at any rate a short portion of them. They are:
  "To consider and report upon any amendment in the financial scheme of the National Insurance Acts which experience and the administration of the sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits may suggest as
  1020
  desirable within the existing limits of contributions and benefits, apart, however, from exechequer grants before the completion of any valuation of approved societies."
  Broadly speaking, the position of these employés societies is totally different to that of any of the approved societies, or of any of the insurance companies who have taken up the business of national insurance. They were experts in industrial insurance for many years before the present Minister of Munitions took up the subject or made his celebrated visit to Germany. For many years they had been administering industrial insurance. Their officers were elected by the members who directly benefited by their contributions. As a matter of fact, at the time when the Insurance Act was being hotly debated here the position of those particular societies was regarded as a thing apart, and a strong claim was made for them inasmuch as they were an existing entity that they should be left outside the provisions of the Insurance Bill. That position, however, was abandoned. We were pressed to use our influence with them to come in and work the benefits of this Bill, and to give effect as far as they could to the national scheme of insurance and form a part of it. They have done that, and they have loyally co-operated and looked after the interests of their own members, and I ask the House to remember those facts. Those men administered the funds and considered the claims for sickness benefit of their fellow workmen in the same shop and industry, whether it happened to be a railway company, a gas undertaking, or whatever it might be. They know all their members individually, and it is not surprising to find that the adminstration in those particular societies has been infinitely more efficient and economical than in many approved societies who now find themselves in financial difficulties. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts) in his place, because I understand that he is going to reply and explain the position of this Committee. I believe it is his Committee, and that he is responsible for its composition. The answer which the hon. Member gave to my question to-day divides itself into two parts. It is as follows:
  I have received representations on behalf of the body named in the question, and I am glad to have an opportunity of again expressing the hope that they will be willing to place the results of their special knowledge and experience at the disposal of the Committee in the form of evidence."
  They are to be called to the bar, so to speak, and yet they are not to be given any seat upon the Committee. They will

  1021
  have no voice whatever in the considerations of its financial arrangements that are to be made, which may prejudice their position and the position of the employers who have guaranteed the funds of these societies. The answer proceeds:
  "Having regard to the large size of the Committee and to the progress which I understand that they have already made with their labours, it will be, impracticable to add to their numbers."
  This is the hon. Member's Committee, and I understand that he is responsible for it. If it is too large and not representative enough he is responsible. As to my being late in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, let me say that on the very day after the announcement in the public Press was made that this Committee was to be set up, requests were made direct asking for representation upon this Committee to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but they have been refused, and consistently refused, until now the matter is raised and now we are told that they have held three or four sittings and that it is too late. It ought not to have been necessary to call attention to the fact that these employés societies with experience for many years of industrial insurance were essential to a proper consideration of any question affecting the financial position of these somewhat financially distressed societies, and particularly women's societies, some of which have large deficits to meet. Obviously it was only fair and English if you are going to setup a Committee at all that you should give fair representation to those societies which best administer this business. I wish to call attention to this apparently inspired paragraph which appeared in the "Daily News" on the 26th of February. After explaining the construction of the Committee and the great influence the hon. Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Booth) had in setting it up, the paragraph says:
  "Some of the insurance societies are in very low water and others have a big surplus, and some kind of equalisation is necessary."
  No wonder these employés societies who, thanks to their excellent management and the guarantee of their funds towards which employers have paid willingly for many years before the national insurance scheme came into operation, are a little nervous when they hear that the hon. Member opposite has set up a Committee on which they have no representation, and which contemplates equalising things by taking their surpluses to assist the badly managed societies. I
  1022
  await with interest the explanation of the hon. Member as to why this particular branch of societies has been entirely left out and why, while he admits that they have special knowledge and experience in the working of industrial insurance which would be valuable if given in evidence before the representatives of less successful societies, they have been given no place whatever upon this special Committee which has been set up to consider the finance of the Insurance Act.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I wish to join in the representations which have been made by the hon. Member opposite. I have had strong representations made to me on behalf of the men associated with the Great Western Railway employés' societies. They are very anxious about these matters, and they urge that another representative should be appointed who shall fairly represent their associations on this Committee. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Lincoln may in some way be able to respond to our request.
  Mr. CURRIE: I wish to say a few words in regard to two societies, both of which were formed after the Act was brought into force. It is not so much good management as the fact that they obviously rely upon lives above the average, and they have a substantial surplus. One of them is anxious to start a pensions fund. These societies, and there are many others in the same position, feel that they have an absolute title to retain their surpluses. They are very much afraid that in Scotland, judging by what Sir James Leishman said, that a movement is on foot to take away from them their surpluses. I can only say that I think they are well warranted in their feelings in this respect.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): Will the hon. Member tell me what Sir James Leishman is alleged to have said?
  Mr. CURRIE: I know that various interpretations have been placed upon the speech, and in many quarters a feeling of anxiety has been aroused by what Sir James Leishman said. If it can be explained away, or a proper construction can be put upon it to another effect, I shall be only too glad. I was one of those who urged the hon. Gentleman to start this inquiry, and I was inclined to think that it might lead to much good. I do not want to prejudge the matter, but if societies so placed are prejudiced by want of proper representation, then they re-

  1023
  serve to themselves the right to regard the moral authority of the Committee as greatly impaired. I hope that a satisfactory explanation will be given to remove this doubt, but I must confess that I think it will be very difficult to find it.
  Mr. YEO: I rise to support the appeal which has been made to the hon. Gentleman. I would ask him if he does not think it worth while taking into consideration upwards of half a million of employés of firms who are most generous in their contributions and in helping in every way. These societies are beyond dispute unbreakable from the standpoint of finance, and surely it is not unreasonable to ask, if they are worthy to be considered and to be called to the Bar to answer questions for the benefit of other societies, that they should be allowed to have at least one member representing them on the Committee. I hope that it is not too late for the hon. Gentleman to consider their case. They are as much entitled to have a seat upon the Committee as the Treasury have a right to appoint a Committee.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I want to add my voice to the voice of others who have spoken against what would be a policy of spoliation if the funds of those who have been economical and hard working—in some cases the officials have worked for nothing for the benefit of their fellow-members, and if the equivalent of their work in the shape of money were to be taken away from the society they have served for the love of it—if that took place, then a very great wrong would be done. I can hardly believe that the Government would sanction such a thing, but it would be very poor encouragement to employers to contribute, as they do in many cases, to these funds, and to help the societies in every way they can, simply out of a desire to encourage that thrift and that self-respect which are such a valuable asset among the working people of this country. These are times when we are supposed to be practising economy. It is not economy to discourage thrift. The object of all our legislation, it seems to me, and particularly at such times as this, should be, more than anything else, to discourage waste and carelessness and to encourage thrift by all the means in our power. This would be downright robbery of one set of people by another, and I cannot believe that it will be either encouraged or perpetrated by the Govern-
  1024
  ment. If there are some societies who are weak from some cause beyond their own fault, then the proper way is to help them from the funds of the Government, and not to rob Peter in order to pay Paul.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I have been asked by more than one society to support this representation to-night, and it seems to me, if the Government wish to secure general confidence in a Committee like this, it should take care that successful societies are represented on it, especially societies such as those which have been mentioned. They have just as much claim—indeed, I think more claim, to representation as societies which have got themselves into difficulties, especially if there is any impression getting abroad of pooling interests. In that case it is more important than ever that those societies which would be the greatest sufferers should, at any rate, have confidence that they are being heard, and that their representations are having weight in this consideration and in this review that is taking place. Therefore, even if it is to allay a false restlessness, a restlessness for which there is no ground, I conceive that it would be to the interests of the Department to see that one representative or more should find a place on this Committee. It does not seem to me the case to say that the Committee already numbers twenty, and that as it is already a large Committee others cannot be added to it. If it is a large Committee there is all the more reason why it should be a representative Committee. I therefore wish to support the appeal which has been made to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BALDWIN: It is with great reluctance that I ask a question of a Minister on that bench, who apparently has not a single friend in the House to-night, but there is one question which I feel I must ask him. If he cannot see his way to accede to our request, will he give the House an undertaking that under no conditions will he allow these societies to be pillaged under any recommendation of any Committee for the benefit of those who have been less successful? We feel that, at any rate, they ought to have the benefit of securing to themselves the funds which they have done so much to put upon the sound basis on which they rest at the present moment. If the hon. Gentleman is unable either to give a satisfactory answer to my question, or to accede to the request, I am afraid that it will be the duty of a great many Members to criticise

  1025
  very closely and severely the recommendations of this Committee when they come before the House, and, if necessary, to oppose so far as we are able and to the end any proposals that strike us as unfair.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I ought, I think, to begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his absence at Question Time this afternoon. I am sure the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) realises that he was engaged on serious business connected with his office, and that it was no discourtesy to him that my right hon. Friend was absent. He has asked me to reply to-night to the case which has been made by a number of hon. Members who no doubt are interested in a particular kind of society to be found in their constituencies. I am very much interested in the case which they have made on behalf of this particular kind of society. All the hon. Members who have spoken have really spoken, if I may be allowed to say so, from a wrong standpoint. The insured persons under the Act number some thirteen or fourteen millions. They have every conceivable kind of experience. They have their own particular methods, and there is considerable variation in organisation. If it is to be alleged that every group of societies, and every type of society which may conceive it has a vested interest under the Act is to be represented on these Committees of Inquiry, and if the House of Commons is going to accept that view, then I say it will become quite impossible to get Committees of this kind.
  Mr. PETO: In reference to the figure of 13,000,000 of insured persons quoted by the hon. Gentleman, may I say that the societies I have mentioned represent well over half a million, and the hon. Gentleman has already twenty members on the Committee.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will deal with that point later. The point I wish to make is this. It is not a question of getting on to the Committee members who have vested interests. If we concede that point I am afraid that others who have equally approached the Treasury, and who are much interested in their type of society, will think they have a special claim by reason of their individual experience and special knowledge, which I recognise. Other societies and other types of organisation will also have individual claims. I really do not know in that case what the size
  1026
  of the Committee is to be. There must be some limit. It is quite possible when you fix that limit—indeed it is almost certain—that some particular group which is left out will come forward and point out how much they would be able to enrich and strengthen by their experience the Committee if a twenty-first, thirty-first, forty-first, or fifty-first lady or gentleman whom they are anxious to see on the Committee were added to it. But that is not the way in which Committees should be constituted. We have done our best to get persons on that Committee who are acquainted with the main types of the societies, who have knowledge of the practical work of administration, and who are acquainted with the work of sickness benefit and so on. I imagine that they form a strong Committee. None of them claim that they have an exhaustive or exclusive knowledge. They would not say there are not others who have some special experience. But they can supplement there own experience by calling in the assistance of others, and it is not fair to suggest that a witness before an inquiry of this kind is summoned to the bar as if he were a prisoner. You are merely asking his assistance and you are inviting him to put his experience into the common stock and to contribute his share to a common fund. That seems to me to be the right way of appointing a Committee. We may, indeed, have gone too far already. We have a large Committee. Surely the House knows the disadvantage of an excessive size. I think it is well to have a Committee of a reasonable size, but I am afraid it would be opening the door far too wide if I were to act on the suggestions made to-night and if I were to put no limit. That is my reply on general lines. Let me now take the particular case, that of the National Federation of Employées' Approved Societies. That is a federation which is made up of societies of two different classes. First, there are the Employers' Provident Societies approved under Section 25 of the Act. These constitute, I fully admit, a special group with a special experience of their own. They are not very numerous. The federation also consists of small friendly societies without branches, shops clubs, and works societies and so on.
  Mr. CURRIE: Which are all solvent.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will accept that statement. It is not disputed at the present time. But first let me deal, with the Employers' Provident Societies, which are

  1027
  a small group, numbering, I think, not more than 100,000 members. If you are going to give them a vested right to a seat on this Committee—if you are going to give to every group of 100,000 members such a right—I am bound to say I see no possibility of getting these committees appointed at all. The other kinds included in the Federation are already represented on the Committee; there are two or three gentlemen on the Committee who have been specifically appointed because they know the work of small societies, and it was recognised there might be a difference of interest or a difference of experience between large societies and small isolated societies. Both, therefore, are represented and to that extent, so far as the National Federation of Employés Approved Society is concerned, it already has representatives on the Committee who thoroughly know the case of the small societies. With regard to the Employers' Provident Societies, I think that is a group so small that if we were to attempt to give them a vested interest we should be opening the door far too wide. I think what the House is more concerned with is a statement as to what are said to be the aims of this Committee, and one of these aims is said to be to make the valuation of the societies general in order that the surplus of one may go to make good the deficiency of another. If I can satisfy hon. Members on that point, I trust they will not think us unreasonable in the decision we have come to.
  Mr. CURRIE: Is it not the aim of the Government as well as of the Committee?
  Mr. ROBERTS: So far as the aim of the Government can be stated by myself, I think the hon. Member should have clone me the justice to remember an answer I gave to a question he put only two months ago.
  Mr. CURRIE:I do remember it.
  Mr. ROBERTS: That question raised this very point, and the answer I gave was that it had not been suggested to me that the expedient suggested in the question was one which need be seriously considered. That was the statement I made when that question was put to me. This is an independent Committee. I cannot undertake to make statements in advance as to the recommendations which they may make to the Government. I can only say that, so far as my own mind goes, it is not
  1028
  predisposed to that solution, as I explained in the answer to which I have referred.
  Mr. CURRIE: Then you repudiate the idea altogether?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I suppose I am bound to consider with an open mind any recommendation which may be made, but I really do not think that the experience we have had to-night need cause any great alarm in the minds of hon. Members in this House. Hon Members can form their own opinion, but one thing is obvious: that any proposal of that kind would be objected to on both sides of the House, and under these circumstances, from a practical Parliamentary point of view, I fail to see how any proposal of that kind could be brought forward in such a way as to lead to any practical result in this House. After all, hon. Members need not be so alarmed by statements which appear in the Press. Some of them are inspired and some of them are badly inspired. I cannot say what may be the interpretation of the statement attributed to the Chairman of the Scottish Commission. I do not know what that statement is, and I cannot provide the interpretation of a statement which I have not seen.
  Finally, may I say that I think it is very unfair to suggest that this type of society or any of the other types of society who have not got a representative on the Committee are shut out from the inquiry. The Committee, which is, of course, independent in its methods, has already issued an appeal to the Press asking for all the experience and all the assistance which can be given to it from those who are not actually represented on the body. I hope a response will be made to that appeal. I hope when it comes to the question of reducing the cost of the Act—and may I assure the hon. Member that that is an enterprise which is being considered and is being pressed on at the present time—when it comes to the question of the simplification or reducing the cost of the Act, if these societies have any memoranda which they can suggest, if they come forward and offer their witness I am sure the Committee will be only too glad. I hope they will do so. I make that appeal not only to this particular type of society but to all the types of societies. I am looking forward to the result of this inquiry with great interest. No doubt the inquiry is being conducted under the conditions in which we live, and it will be of greater

  1029
  use the greater the unanimity with which it reaches its conclusions. I think it has been recognised by all those who take an interest in the work of the Insurance Act that it is a strong and representative Committee. It is almost impossible to satisfy every claim or to meet every representation, and I hope that hon. Members will not press us too hard if some gentlemen or some societies think they did not get quite the recognition which ought to attach to their special experience. I hope also that hon. Members will not make up their minds in advance with regard to the result of this inquiry, because some of the societies in their own Constituency did not, unfortunately, get all the recognition which they think themselves amply entitled to get. The inquiry may be productive of great good. I hope it will be. I hope its deliberations will be unprejudiced by the fact that, though I believe almost all claims have been substantially met, there may be a few special cases where we have not been able to give individual satisfaction.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I must confess I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) has not given a more sympathetic reply. Whoever constituted this Committee has gone much too far in a direction in which I do not think it is desirable to go at all—I refer to the principle of constituting these Committees on what is called a representative basis. It may succeed or it may not, but it can only succeed if you have that principle comprehensively applied in the constitution of the Committee. What is the representative basis, and how can you apply it to the constitution of the Committee? It is the basis of choosing individuals personally, however honourably, concerned in interests that are likely to be affected by the Committee's findings. In acting on that basis you have to follow it to its extreme length. You have not done that in this case, and in consequence you have left out the type of societies which are not small, and which are founded upon a principle entirely different from all the others.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: As I failed to make my point clear, perhaps I may be allowed to say that we did not proceed on the basis of the representation of vested interests. What we wanted to get was men of standing, judgment, and discretion
  1030
  who were acquainted with the main types of organisation and administration.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Yes, Sir, but it is not a question of vested interests at all. That phrase gives rise to all sorts of false analogies. It is a question of interests. Here you have a number of interests represented upon this Committee which are more or less antagonistic to ours. We represent to-night societies founded upon the principle of being independent of all outside influence, bringing together all those engaged in the same enterprise who are bound together by the good fellowship and comradeship of joint service and of independence in that bond of sympathy, and including many great undertakings. There is one great undertaking which has a membership of 30,000. I know one connected with the transport service in London with a membership of 14.000. With integral items like that you can make up more than 100,000 to which the hon. Member says the class is confined.
  As to this principle of constituting committees on the representative basis, it may be said that the merit of the system is that it secures expert knowledge, but, on the other hand, it has the defect that it detracts most seriously from the judicial character of the Committee. We all know how it is said that if you are shut out of the sacred ring you can come before the Committee as witnesses against those whose interests are contrary to your own. The persons constituting the Committee may be excellent persons in their own estimation, but the result can only be that those excluded from the inner deliberations of this Committee must feel in the end that they have not had the chance of those who, to put it in a plain way, were on the right side of the table. If it be a misconception to which birth has been given by this ill-advised communiqué in the newspapers, all I can say is that, in the first place, I have very little doubt that the newspaper which started the idea that pooling was going to take place did not start it out of its own head. Does anybody suppose that it was not started by agencies outside, representing societies with deficiencies and minus quantities, who could see set before them dishes containing surpluses of societies more enterprising than themselves, and by that reason not disqualified from being consulted as experts and given a vote in the deliberations of the

  1031
  Committee? You have gone on the principle of excluding the most successful. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider, even at this late hour, this most unfortunate decision. He has applied this unfortunate principle very far, but not far enough. He has overcrowded his Committee by too many members, and yet has not got all the members he ought to have. The bad impression produced by this communiqué in the newspapers is certainly supported by the almost studied and nebulous language of the terms of reference, which speak of the
  "Financial scheme of the Insurance Act."
  It looks as if those terms were so worded as to give rise to apprehensions of the most formidable kind, while at the same time, by way of punctuating this dangerous announcement, we are told that whatever changes are to be made, there are to be no further Exchequer Grants. If there is to be any subsidising of
  1032
  resources or making up of deficiencies, it is clear that the minus quantities are going to be made up by recourse to the plus quantities. Possibly they will not have that Parliamentary strength which will enable them to resist a raid of that kind. It is not enough that the hon. Gentleman says he is surrounded by enemies to-night. We all know one of the agencies which, if a Parliamentary rally were called, might bring a formidable force to bear against the societies for which we are speaking, and it is unfortunate and will tend very much to detract from the authority of the finding of this Committee that societies which are successful, societies which represent a definite and individual principle and an extremely beneficial one, one which tends to promote harmony between capital and labour, should be left out in this way.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes after Ten o'clock.