13. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an attested man who has been rejected as medically unfit on examination is given a certificate of discharge on medical grounds; since when has the practice of giving such a discharge been discontinued; and what is the reason for its discontinuance?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 19th December, and I have to inform him that the orders issued on the 13th July have not as yet been withdrawn or cancelled. As the hon. Member was informed on the 13th February, the matter raised in this question is at present under consideration.
Mr. SCOTTIs the hon. Gentleman aware that when men who have been rejected ask for a certificate of discharge and refer to the answer which he gave me on 19th December last, they are told by officials at Whitehall that Ministers on the Front Bench often make extraordinary statements?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat is probably true, but if the hon. Member will give me any specific cases I will have them looked into.
§ Mr. SNOWDENSeeing that the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is under consideration and seeing the utter state of chaos in which it is at the present time, thus putting the House in difficulty, will he accelerate a decision and get an authoritative statement made as soon as possible?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will try to do that.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhile the matter is under consideration will the hon. Gentleman see that no further men are called up for medical examination until the matter is settled?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will see what can be done.
14. Mr. SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the decision of the 1141 case of Mr. Gager on 18th December, in which the South-Western magistrate decided that an attested man who had been rejected since August, 1915, and to whom a notice calling him up for re-examination was not sent before 1st September, 1916, was excepted from military service; whether the War Office recognises the validity of this decision; and, if not, why it refused to appeal against this decision?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs I informed my hon. Friend on the 13th instant, the case of Gager was decided upon its own facts, and it is not considered that the decision in that case can be taken as deciding or affecting any other case. The question of appealing against the decision of the stipendiary magistrate in this case was considered and it was decided to contest another case, namely, the case of Mr. Boots. A considered decision on that case was given on the 3rd February that Mr. Boots was liable to military service.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIs the hon. Gentleman aware that since the latter decision new decisions have been given by provincial Police Courts of an opposite character where the War Office have been defeated, and in one case yesterday the military authorities were required to release the man?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat strengthens the attitude we adopt, that every case should be decided upon its merits. In the case of Mr. Boots a considered judgment was given. We have taken the precaution to have an appeal.
Mr. SCOTTIs it not the case that the man Gager was an attested man, that he was rejected after he had attested, and that the magistrate held, on the merits, that he was not liable to be called up again?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI do not remember the full facts of the case, but I think my hon. Friends will be relieved to know that we are now going to take the highest possible legal authority upon the subject.
15. Mr. SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the uncertainty of the legal position of attested men who have been rejected in view of various legal decisions and the conflicting practice of the military authorities; and whether he can make a general statement as to the position of such men?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONA case has, it is understood, been stated for the considera- 1142 tion of the High Court concerning the liability to military service of an attested man who has been rejected for military service subsequently to attestation. The case has been stated upon the application of the defendant's solicitors in consequence of a considered decision by Mr. Boyd, stipendiary magistrate, that such rejection does not cancel the previous attestation. In view of a case being taken to the High Court the present instructions of the War Office are that legal proceedings to enforce liability to military service are not to be taken against attested men who have been medically rejected.