CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Call Up Certain Excepted Men for Examination.) (Hansard, 30 March 1917)

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "time"["at any time"], to insert the words "after May the first next."
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary for War will intimate the lines that he proposes to take. There are a number of Amendments on the Paper, and more are, no doubt, being handed in in manuscript, many of which are based upon pledges or indications of policy which were made yesterday in the course of the discussion, and my Amendment is one that is based upon words used by the Leader of the House, who yesterday said that arrangements had already been made that no man would be taken before 1st May. That may possibly have been meant primarily for the purpose of agriculture, but it does not say so, and it is not quite clear. This Amendment, at any rate, will enable the Under-Secretary to make the position with regard to this point quite clear. Even apart from any pledge or indication of policy given yesterday, I thing this Amendment has got some substantial reasons, that may be urged in its favour. First of all, this Bill has come as a very sudden change of 785 policy. It is only three days ago that we were first informed it was contemplated. I venture to think that a large number of men who have before them the prospect of being summoned immediately for examination and then of being drafted into the Army will, if you give them a breathing time, come forward voluntarily. That is what I should urge wherever I could do so personally. Besides that, a great number of these men who will be re-examined and passed into the Army have made family and business arrangements, little expecting anything of this kind, and the great difficulty, domestic hardship, business upset, and general feeling of dissatisfaction and irritation will all be modified and greatly reduced if we give them a breathing time before the Act is actually put into operation. I need not labour the question of agriculture. Obviously the most valuable time for putting in crops and for getting the ground in order after the great delays and difficulties of the recent severe winter will be available if farmers can be quite sure, and if people who have gardens and allotments—also very important—can be quite sure that at any rate no men will be taken till after the 1st May. I beg to move, with great hopes, that this Amendment will be accepted.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)
I wish to make it perfectly clear at once that the statement which my right hon. Friend made yesterday about the 1st of May referred entirely to agriculture. With regard to this particular Amendment, I am afraid I cannot accept it. Obviously this Bill would not have been introduced at the present time unless we required the men rapidly, and my hon. Friend refers to a breathing space. Well, under this Bill you give them, first of all, notice that they will be re-examined, and then, under the Military Service Act, they have still got the right to thirty days, and I think it is only right that the man himself should know as soon as possible what sort of military service he will be made to perform.

§ Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether men will be given thirty days in which to appeal to the tribunals? He said yesterday that all these men would have the right to appeal to the tribunals. There will be a good many cases, as the Prime Minister 786 stated, in which that appeal will be granted, and a good many of these men are in positions which are of national importance, and I think it is very desirable that they should be fully acquainted with their rights in this matter. I think it would be an advantage and tend to diminish friction if it was clear that they had plenty of time in which to appeal to their tribunal. Seven days is too short after a man receives his notice. If possible, it should be the thirty days mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman from the date of the original notice. They would then have the whole of those thirty days to find out how they stand, instead of the seven days. Where I think the matter is of some importance is that if they were to receive this notice next week there would come, out of their seven days, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Faster Monday, which are Bank holidays, therefore it would give them rather short time. I do not wish to press this point, for I know the necessity of the case, but I am quite sure my hon. Friend wishes to give these men every reasonable opportunity, and therefore I have mentioned the matter.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
The Leader of the House yesterday gave me a reply to a question which I did not understand to mean that the exemptions in agriculture would be terminated on the date mentioned in the Bill. I understood him to say that the men engaged in agriculture would not come under the operation of this Act.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I will deal with that subject in the next Amendment. The present proposal of my right hon. Friend is this that any man who is registered as being engaged upon agriculture will not be called up either for re-examination or for military service before 1st May.

§ Sir J. JARDINE
Before this Amendment is disposed of, I would like to put a question in regard to particular points of occupations which require special consideration—for instance, in the domain of agriculture. I would particularly mention the men employed to travel with stallions, especially in the months known in Scotland as the stallion season, which begins on 1st April. How will that be affected?

§ Mr. PETO
I beg to move, in Subsection (1) after the word "man"["re- 787 quire any man"], to insert the words "who is not employed in agriculture and."
I desire to outline the case for the Amendment which appears to be unanswerable. In the Debate yesterday the Leader of the House pointed out that he considered the position of the food supply of the country was an absolutely vital matter. As it forms the basis of this Amendment, I think it is as well that I should read first exactly what the Leader of the House said: The main ground for this change is well-known to the House. It is due to the increasing severity of the submarine menace. In consequence of that the Army has not got the men which it expected to get from agriculture, and the Government, and I think everyone in this House and in the country, recognises that food production has, for the moment, become one of our most pressing needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1 17, col. 637.] 1.0 P.M.
The farmers are at present depending in a very large measure on the very men whom it is proposed to re-examine under this Bill and pass through the sieve once more, so as to get a further proportion of them back into the Army. If agriculture is not excepted you are altering and diminishing the very slender basis on which the food supply of the country rests. What the farmers of the country are suffering from at the present time is divided counsel, and the varying statements which we get on this vital subject from time to time. It is only a week or two ago that the Prime Minister's appeal to the farmers was circulated. I received two of these appeals addressed to me personally. We are asked to do everything possible to put our backs into the matter and produce food. That is all right. I am perfectly certain that the farmers of the country will respond to the very utmost and do what they feel to be their share in this national emergency. They do not, however, know where they stand. The moment they are asked to go on producing food we get some such statements as we heard on the 8th and 15th of March by the two right hon. Gentlemen representing the War Office. They spoke definitely in regard to this very contentious question of the 30,000 men. I do not want to go on questions of pledges. I only want to make the point that the farmers really do not know what they are to believe. The Financial Secretary dealing with the 30,000 men, and the 10,000 who have been taken, said on 15th March: 788 So far as I know we have kept our word. As I said on a former occasion if evidence cm be shown that some of these men are still being called up I will agree that they should not be. Now we have another Bill brought in to say that men engaged in agriculture who have not been passed as fit for the Army, and whom therefore the farmers thought they were safe in depending upon—or rather did so until now—are all to be recalled for re-examination. There is an old British proverb which I think really the right hon. Gentlemen might bear in mind. It is to the effect that "too many cooks spoil the broth." That is what we are suffering from. There are far too many authorities all contending, all anxious to win the War, all anxious to do their very utmost. In the end it really becomes a tug-of-war with the farmer in the middle of the rope, and he does not know whether the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture will win or whether the War Office is going by the final pull to bring him over the line. I suggest, in the first place, that it will be hopeless to expect any increase in food production or anything approaching the food production which we had even last year unless you make it perfectly clear that you are not going further to disturb the small supply of agricultural labour that remains. May I point out one smaller point, and that is that there is an enormous loss of time in the country in calling men up for medical re-examination. In the town, perhaps a few hours, if it were well-arranged, will enable a man on essential work to go up for medical re-examination, and find out his fate one way or another. In the country it practically means a loss of at least two entire days. That naturally causes a very great delay and upset in the work on the farm. The hon. Member for North Somerset dealt with this in his first Amendment. There is another matter which the Leader of the House stated yesterday. He said: Arrangements have already been male that no man will be taken before 1st May. He went on further to say: I explained that one of the reasons for the need of this Bill is the fact that we are not allowing any men essential to food production to be taken away, and that policy still holds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1917,"col. 713.] I ask really where are we ! It does not matter to the farmer whether the man on whom he is depending to milk his cows or to drive his plough has been before the medical board and has or has not been rejected, provided he is fit for the 789 work he has to do on the farm. It makes absolutely no difference to the farmer, but the Leader of the House gives to the farmer with one hand and takes away with another. Therefore, I do hope we shall be able to see where we are. I am sure that the farmers are quite anxious to assist the Government to find the men that are essential to fill up the ranks of the Army and keep it up to strength. But I trust we shall have a sense of proportion between these twin national needs in production of food and the fighting forces of the Crown, and that we shall hear from the Under-Secretary of State for War that the policy is quite clear, and that he will leave agriculture out of this Bill. If ho cannot do that, may I suggest a via media? The Leader of the House said, at any rate, that they would not be taken until 1st May. I do not think that is any good.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
Not a bit!

§ Mr. PETO
It is no good telling farmers that they can hang on to men just another month, and that then, on the 1st May, all these men must be called up again for reexamination. I ask, at any rate, for six months, and, if that is impossible, then at least three months, that this Bill shall not apply to any men in agriculture. If the hon. Gentleman can give me that assurance, as far as I am concerned I shall be prepared to accept it, if he cannot do anything more. But I would press him to do that. After all, we get these Bills fairly frequently, and if he leaves agriculture out of this the farmers know it is quite likely some other Bill will be introduced before the autumn season, because the conditions may be very different, but if left out now they will feel some security for the operations in the present season which are so terribly in arrear.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
May I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend, and commend it to the favourable attention of the military authorities? I do not do so in any way to enable those engaged in agriculture to evade military service—that is the last idea I have got in my head—or, indeed, that the farmers may, by utilising labour, largely increase their profits. It is simply and solely a matter of food production, and food will become of far more importance in the great towns and in the great centres of industry than it will in the country districts. The country districts will not starve. I am not so sure, if things go on as they are, what 790 will happen to our larger centres of industry. The scarcity is growing to-day. The War Office have had notice of it over and over again. It is not only a question of prices, but a question of getting agricultural supplies, and if the War Office do not accept this Amendment, and do not give the agriculturists some security that they will be able to go on with their cultivation, I fear that there may be a far greater restriction of home-grown supplies than there is at this moment. The examples are staring the military authorities in the face, but it is very difficult to teach the War Office anything. There is the question of potatoes. Now, potatoes are being planted at this season. If you withdraw men now, you cannot expect farmers to plant this very necessary vegetable. It will not be only a question of potatoes—and potatoes will be unprocurable practically in a month or six weeks—but there are the substitutes which the farmers will have to produce if this country is to be fed. It has been very difficult indeed to persuade our country that there is a great necessity for home food production. They have had the seas open to them. They have been able to import everything that is essential from abroad, but to-day that position is greatly changed. I hope you will allow me to allude to this, Sir; I have a letter here which shows how unsafe the bringing of seaborne supplies is, even in the English Channel.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I really do not think we can go into that. We cannot have a general agricultural Debate. I have allowed this Amendment for the purpose of raising the question as to whether there are to be any class exemptions. A whole number have been handed in to me, of which this is the first. We cannot destroy the Bill after Second Reading by a series of exemptions in that way. One hon. Member, for instance, handed in an Amendment proposing to exempt all those making earthenware. There are a series of proposed exemptions. I think on this Amendment, the first one, it is for the Committee to decide in this matter, and then such points as the hon. Member suggests must be dealt with administratively by the War Office under the Bill.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Of course I bow to your ruling at once, and I agree that possibly I was going a little wide of the Amendment. But may I return to the practical difficulty, unless this Amendment is accepted, that will confront those who are 791 engaged in agriculture and food production? These men, who will be reviewed, I presume, by the local military authority, will be called up for medical inspection. That will mean so much waste of time. Already farmers are complaining bitterly that their men and they have to waste so much time in this busy, critical season of the year. I want to emphasise that point, because it really is very essential that the agriculturists, with their men, should be able to devote every available moment at the proper season to the planting of crops which will result in food supplies this year. I ask, therefore, my hon. Friend who represents the War Office that he will allow this Amendment to go into the Bill. We get most beautiful statements and charming sympathy from the very able spokesman of the War Office, but we never get anything practical. Here is a typical answer given yesterday: Instructions were issued to recruiting areas on 24th February that the necessity fur maintaining food production must not he lost, sight of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29TH March, 1917, col. 615.] That is no good—"it must not be lost sight of. "We want something practical. If you are really in earnest about this matter, accept this Amendment, and then we shall know where we are. But it is not the slightest use pouring forth this hot air across the floor of the House. I do not want it. If my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, he will have done something to reassure agriculturists. As I said before, it is not a question with me of prices. I would even have further limitation of agricultural prices, because I know they are inflicting insufferable hardship on the people of this country. It is the question of production, and the War Office have it now in their hands to give some security to this harassed industry. How many men would they take as a result of the re-examination of men engaged in agriculture? Will they get 10,000? I do not suppose they will. Therefore, is it worth while to upset the present arrangement, and to put the farmers in such a position that they do not know where they are, for the sake of some 10,000 semi-invalids, as I suppose they are? I do suggest that the War Office might take some account, too, of the policy of the War Cabinet. The War Cabinet have stated that they regard food production as being even more important than men for the Army. But the War Office takes notice of nothing. They go 792 on in their own sweet way rejoicing, and I ask if the War Office will not accept this Amendment, that we should get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, through the War Cabinet, that their policy should be carried out. I put these considerations before the House, for I am perfectly certain that unless greater certainty and security is given in this matter, it will prove a great menace to food production during the coming months.

§ Sir JOHN SPEAR
As I have a very similar Amendment on the Paper, I desire, in a very few words, to support the arguments used by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) and the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in favour of this Amendment, and I do so on the broad lines of interest for the consumer rather than agriculturists as a body. We are fully alive to the very serious position of the food supply of this country, but it would be a great hindrance to any increase of our food supply if this Bill passed without such an Amendment as that which is now proposed. These men who are working on the land who have been medically exempted, while they are extremely valuable on the land, will be of little serivce in the Army. They have a close knowledge of the farms on which they are working, and of the systems adopted in carrying on the agricultural industry in the districts in which they live, and therefore it would be a great pity to take these men away for a purpose for which they are not fitted. The Leader of the House last night said that these men would not be called up until after the 1st May, but that is of very little use, indeed. I admit that the War Office have helped agriculture and food production considerably by providing a liberal amount of assistance in allowing soldiers to work on the land. We are also indebted to them for extending the period for which these men were originally granted to the 30th April, but they will have to return to their camps then. Consequently, it is most important that we should have these men in order to continue to carry on food production when the soldiers are withdrawn. I think that is an argument which must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Amendment.
I must press the importance of doing something to restore confidence in agriculturists with regard to their treatment 793 on the labour question which has been very seriously shattered. I am bound to say that Ministers have often spoken in opposite directions after the continuance of labour on the soil with the result that farmers do not know where they are, and really they hesitate to break up more land to provide more crops because of the uncertainty of the position. It will be a small concession on the part of recruits in the Army to accept this Amendment, but it will be very valuable in encouraging and restoring some degree of confidence in the producers of food. We want to avoid, if possible, any more calling up before the tribunal, for this has been most unsatisfactory. I am prepared to admit at once that it was a big and difficult question, and the tribunals on the whole have probably done their best, but there has been a system of the military representatives appealing against the decision of the local tribunals who generally have a complete knowledge of the requirements of the locality and this has caused much irritation. This will be increased unless the Amendment is accepted. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote two cases that have occurred in Devonshire. At the Bideford Rural Tribunal they had before them forty-two cases—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that is going beyond what is right on this Amendment. We must confine ourselves to the question of exemption as it is contained in the general framework of the Bill which is to be granted in this case.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
I was saying that the tribunals are so irritated at the military representative so often appealing against their decisions that it would be a great pity by this Bill to increase that irritation and produce greater friction, but I will not pursue that argument further except to say that these tribunals have rendered great service. It is very disconcerting for the military representative to be constantly interfering with the decisions of the tribunal. Only two days ago the right hon. Gentleman stated that the military representatives ought to confer with the agricultural representatives before appealing against the decision of the local tribunal. I have received a letter from my district in which it is asserted that the agricultural representatives have not been consulted, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear to the military representatives that before they appeal against the decisions of the local tribunal 794 they should confer with the agricultural representatives. If the hon. Gentleman will inform the military representatives of the decision of the War Office, I am sure it would create a better feeling with reference to the discharge of the very difficult work which the tribunals have to do. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, for then he would be helping food production, Had he would not be reducing unnecessarily the fighting-forces of the Crown. Agriculturists are as anxious to win the War as any other section of the community, but we stand on the ground that we cannot win without our food supply, and we cannot have a full development in that direction unless the Government deal with us more liberally with reference to labour on the land than they have hitherto done.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I want to join in the appeal which has been made to the Under-Secretary for War to accept this Amendment, or at any rate to put into this Bill something that will make it clear that agricultural labour is not going to be disturbed. I see the President of the Board of Agriculture on the Treasury Bench and I want to ask him whether he will not support this Amendment? He knows very well what is going on all over the country upon the farms. We are being urged by the Board of Agriculture and the War Council to grow more food and plough more land, and exemptions have been granted on condition that more land is plougher. The farmers are doing their best, but they feel a sense of insecurity and uncertainty. Perhaps I may be allowed to give my own experience in regard to the letting of a large arable farm during the last three months.
I offered to let that farm of 330 acres, of which 136 are arable, and I had many applicants for it. The farmers, responding to the invitation of the Government, are anxious to move from small farms to larger farms, and to take arable farms if they can. These applicants found no fault with the farm at all, and they did not base their objections upon the rent, but one after another, seeing that there were 136 acres of arable land, said, "We are afraid to undertake it at present, because we do not know whether we could get the labour to cultivate it." Several of the applicants—I think three of them—themselves had sons whom they would have brought with them to the farm, but they said that their sons had been called up for 795 medical examination, and, if they took the farm and even got the ploughing done and their crops sown, they did not know whether they would have the labour to reap them.
It is impossible to overstate the ill-effect upon the production of the country, of the uncertainty under which the farmers suffer with regard to their supply of labour. I have had to take that farm in hand, and I have got a man to manage it, but he has only temporary exemption, and I do not know whether after 1st May I may not lose him. We have not yet got the labour to manage the farm properly. That is one instance of what is happening in every county throughout the country. I think any representative of an agricultural county, or any man acquainted with agriculture, can confirm from his own experience the fact that farmers are afraid to undertake fresh liabilities because of their uncertainty with regard to the supply of labour. Many of them obtained these men because they had been rejected for military service. They said, "Here, at any rate, are men who have been medically examined and rejected, and with them we can go ahead, certain that who shall not lose them." Now, again, they are placed in a position of uncertainty. My right hon. Friend does not meet the case by saying, "We are going to have these men examined, but we shall not take them." It is a great waste of time having these men medically examined.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Not before 1st May.

§ Mr. JONES
It is going on now—not the medically rejected, of course. I agree that will not happen until after 1st May, but it means a day or two examining them, and at the end of it all you are going to get very few from these rejected men engaged in agriculture. They are surely a very small class when you come to the question of the supply of men for the Army. I appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Prothero), and I ask him not to sit silent upon that Front Bench while the agricultural question is being discussed. He knows that every word I am saying is true. He knows that all his appeals for increased production on the farms fall upon deaf ears. Farmers receive circulars asking them to plough more land and to grow more food, and they write back saying that it is absurd for the Board to appeal to them to grow 796 more food and to plough more land when they have not labour enough to work the land which is already arable land. If the right hon. Gentleman could be induced to bring with him the files which there must be in the Board of Agriculture on those lines, I think it would reveal a striking picture. I am sure he has tried to impress it upon the War Office, and if he would really put it to the country it would awaken a feeling which would compel the War Office to act.

§ Sir G. REID
I have listened, as a representative of a populous constituency in the City of London, with the greatest interst and with considerable anxiety to the statements that have been made by a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen representing the rural districts, and I must say that it is time more consideration was given to the sufferings of the great masses of the people of this country in consequence of the increasing scarcity of the necessaries of life. It is one of the supreme interests in this War that no situation should arise in this country that will cripple our Armies at the front. If the President of the Board of Agriculture has assured his colleagues that there is no necessity for this Amendment, I should be greatly reassured, and I am sure that that the people of this country would be greatly reassured. It is one of the most promising changes in the political evolution of this country to see men of practical experience put into Departments which require expert knowledge, but we want the benefit of that expert knowledge. We feel the strongest possible desire to support my right hon. Friend in charge of this Bill, whose able management in his office has attracted the attention of hon. Members in all parts of the House. We feel the strongest desire to stand by him, but when these statements of the greatest possible weight are made by hon. Gentlemen who have a perfect knowledge of the problem, I must say that I cannot refuse to vote for the Amendment unless the President of the Board of Agriculture assures this House that it is unnecessary.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I should like to support the Amendment very strongly, and I would put this to the Under-Secretary: What security have we in this Bill that these men are not going to be taken from agriculture? Our experience hitherto has been that whilst we have most excellent assurances in this House we have not 797 had them put in writing in the Bill, with the consequence that the tribunals have said, and rightly said, "It is the Bill which we have got to interpret to the best of our ability. We cannot go to the proceedings of the House of Commons and see what Ministers have said there." Just see what has occurred within the last few days. Yesterday I put a question to the Leader of the House, and he answered in what seemed to me a very unsatisfactory manner. He said: Arrangements have already been made that no men will be taken before 1st May. But it goes much further than that. I explained that some of the reasons for the need of this Bill is the fact that we are not allowing any men essential to food production to be taken away, and that policy still holds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March. 1917. cols. 712–3.] The day before we had from the Under-Secretary himself the statement that men are still being taken from agriculture. That process is still going on, notwithstanding what the Leader of the House said yesterday. I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I myself sent him a certificate of the Board of Agriculture that a man was indispensable for the cultivation of the land, and he told us that it was impossible for us to have the man. What guarantee have we unless we get something of this sort in the Act that we are not going to have these men taken away? I do not want to be unreasonable, but I think the Houss has some right to ask what guarantee it has, particularly when the President of the Board of Agriculture himself has said that he needs and wishes to have the power of saying that men are indispensable in this industry. I know something about agriculture, and I know the extremely critical condition in which it is to-day. The weather has been such that it has been almost impossible to do anything during the last two or three weeks. We have only four weeks left to put in the crops, and anything that delays labour on the farms in these critical four weeks is going to be an absolute disaster to the country. As the last speaker has said if the President of the Board of Agriculture will get up and tell us that we are running no danger or risk and that he can guarantee that we shall not have any disturbance of labour in the next four months there may be a good deal to be said for not accepting the Amendment. But we know that the exact contrary is the case, that we have never had such need of a good harvest as we have this year, and we have never had such bad prospects as we have 798 at present. In these circumstances, we want some guarantee, and we want this Amendment to secure that guarantee.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think that on general grounds it would be very unwise to accept this Amendment. In the first place, it would pave the way for the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Hartley (Mr. Outhwaite) has given notice to except such persons as are engaged in the manufacture of earthen ware and china. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who have taken part in this discussion have been really sincere in their utterances and did try to impress upon me and the Government the seriousness, from their point of view, of taking men from agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who moved the Amendment, very fairly stated the case, but I think he recognised that I could not accept the Amendment, and he hoped that I would accept a compromise and say three months. I would like to point out to my hon. Friends who have spoken that that is practically what we are doing. We are not calling up for further medical examination any man under this Bill before the 1st May.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
Where is that provided?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My right hon. Friend promised that yesterday.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
We want it embodied in the Bill.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I cannot accept the principle that we should except any one individual occupation. After all, there are a great many essential occupations in this country. I cannot accept that individual exception. I would ask my hon. Friends and the Committee to accept the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would not call up, under this Bill, any man registered for agriculture before the 1st May for re-examination. If we do not call him up before the 1st May he gets seven days notice before re-examination, and then he has his rights under the Military Service Acts, under which he gets thirty days to appeal to the tribunals. That is a very reasonable way of meeting a very difficult case. I would ask my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, because, first of all, it would be wrong as a general principle, and, secondly, we have done every- 799 thing that is possible and reasonable to meet the case of agriculture in view of the great urgency of getting all the possible men.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My right hon. Friend shakes his head. He asked me to tell him what the policy of the War Cabinet is? I will tell him. The policy of the War Cabinet is, as was stated yesterday, and as I state now, that we require this Bill and the men under this Bill as soon as and as speedily as possible. That is the policy of the War Cabinet, and I would therefore ask the Committee not to press this Amendment.

§ Sir G. BARING
I very much regret the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given. He is extremely courteous, and I very much dislike hearing that he is not willing to accept what we suggest. When he talks about the policy of the War Cabinet, may I respectfully remind him of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a speech in this House, expressing the considered view of the War Cabinet at that time? It was only a few weeks ago. He said that in their opinion the men engaged in the essential production of food were for the time being of greater importance than men to fight our battles across the seas. I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether that is not still the view of the War Cabinet on this important question? The hon. Gentleman says that no men are going to be called up until the 1st of May, and that that means a considerable delay.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
They are not called up except for re-examination.

§ Sir G. BARING
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what may happen after the 1st May. We know that there is an extreme shortage of labour in practically every agricultural county in the country. I am sure that the President of the Board of Agriculture will assent immediately to that proposition. After the 1st of May a man may be called up for medical reexamination. He may be passed—perhaps improperly passed—because mistakes have been made by the military medical boards. He will then exercise his rights and appeal to the local tribunal. I know something of the work of those tribunals, because I have acted as chairman of the Hampshire Appeal Tribunal for a year. 800 The man must go before the local tribunal. That means half a day's work wasted. If he fails before that tribunal he then goes before the Appeal Tribunal, perhaps a long journey from where he resides. He there produces two medical certificates, showing that he is suffering from some serious illness, and that, in the opinion of the local practitioners, the decision of the local tribunal is not the correct one. On that the Appeal Tribunal will allow him to go to the Central Medical Board in London. We all know that the work of the Central Medical Board is very much congested, and there will be a long delay before he is examined by that board. At the end of that time, as has often been the case, the Central Medical Board may reject that man altogether. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider how many days a man of that kind may be taken away from his work; how much uncertainty will be caused by proceedings of that kind, and how impossible it is for farmers to rely on the full and successful work of a man who is under disabilities of that kind. I respectfully ask my hon. Friend whether he really thinks it worth while to contest, I will not say the words, but the principle of this Amendment? We must all recognise that agriculture is in an entirely separate position. Nothing would induce me to support the other Amendments which may be proposed in regard to exceptions if this Amendment were admitted, because I am basing myself on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in Debate in this House, namely, that in the opinion of the War Cabinet, men employed in the essential production of food are actually of more importance than men for fighting our battles across the seas. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House that that is still the opinion of the War Cabinet, and, in these circumstances, I hope that the principle of the Amendment, if not the words, will be accepted.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)
I recall what the hon. Member quoted as being what I said in Debate. Indeed, in introducing this Bill, I explained that one of the necessities which had made it incumbent upon us to introduce it was that the Cabinet had prevented the taking of "agricultural labourers by the military-authorities. It is the considered view of the Cabinet that at present the production of food is at least as important, and 801 at the time I spoke we considered it of more importance than getting men into the fighting line. That is still our view. But I could not consent to the Amendment as I understand it, which is now before the Committee, for this reason: No one pretends that nobody can be taken from agriculture. It is quite true that there is a shortage of labour in agriculture, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has often been before the Cabinet on this subject, has himself admitted that there are cases where men can be taken. That is the point. It is not at all certain that there may not be, in the classes referred to in this Bill, men who can be spared from agriculture, and for that reason it would be very unwise to make an absolute rule that no man affected by this Bill is to be taken unless he can be spared from essential production. The position is really one of which I do not think the House need have the anxiety which I see agricultural members have. If we are to carry on the War at all, we must get every man who can be spared from vital needs. I think the Cabinet has shown, by what it has done, that it recognises the importance of that. You cannot prevent mistakes in individual cases, but no general principle of taking men from agriculture is adopted except after consultation with the Board of Agriculture.

§ Sir G. BARING
Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he would accept the certificate of the Board of Agriculture that a man was indispensable for agricultural work, as is done in the case of munitions?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
That is not the case with munitions. I have explained that before. I really do not think it is fair that any Department should be absolute judge of its own case.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
The War Office is judge.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
No, it is not. The Cabinet is the judge between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I contend that the War Office goes its own sweet way whatever the Cabinet says, and in their instructions to military representatives they do not take the slightest notice of what the Cabinet or anyone else says.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The right hon. Gentleman makes that contention. As a humble member of the Cabinet I make the other contention, that the War Office has to obey and does obey our instructions. I do not think those who are interested in this wish to be unreasonable in the matter. Let them start with this knowledge. Sixty thousand men were to have been taken from agriculture. After consultation with the Cabinet it was agreed to reduce that to 30,000. That 30,000 has been still further whittled down and no more are to be taken unless substitutes are given. Let them have this further knowledge in their minds, that the interests which they represent are constantly kept in view by the head of the Board of Agriculture. We cannot, of course, prevent individual mistakes being made, but if he finds that any principle is being adopted which is wrong, he at once takes action, and if the War Office does not agree to his view it is decided by the Cabinet, and I am told that in every case the military representative consults the agricultural committee. That is the instruction.

§ Sir G. BARING
Suppose they fail to agree?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
If they fail to agree I think you can trust to the representative of agriculture in the Government to bring the case before the Cabinet, which in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says will insist on the War Office obeying general instructions. If I have not satisfied the right hon. Gentleman I am surprised, because if anyone in recent months has a right to complain in this matter it is the War Office rather than the Board of Agriculture, for they have entirely upset their plan by recognising as strongly as any Member in the House what the needs of food production are. We cannot accept the Amendment, and I am sorry that to that extent we cannot meet the House, but I think if there is one industry in this country which is certain to get fair play, and perhaps more than fair play, it is the industry of food production.

§ Mr. PETO
Would my right hon. Friend consider as a compromise at least agreeing that no man engaged in agriculture shall be called up for re-examination for the next three months as a minimum?

§ Mr. C. HARMSWORTH
May I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the kindred topic of fishery? The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has a different arrangement in regard to the enlist- 803 merit of fishermen from that which obtains with regard to the enlistment of agricultural labourers. It is a very much more satisfactory arrangement, but it is undoubted that this Bill will affect fishermen.

Mr. FABER
On a point of Order. Does fishing come into this Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been given a chance yet of showing whether it does or does not.

§ Mr. HARMSWORTH
I only came into the Debate rather late and I am not quite certain whether you are going to permit a discussion on the ensuing Amendment, which undoubtedly includes the fishing industry, but I merely want to make a very small point. I should like to have an assurance that bona-fide fishermen will not suffer under this Bill, because they are, man for man, even greater producers of food than agricultural labourers. I do not want to press the point, and I am far from desiring to be out of order, but it is a very important matter, and if any assurances are being given I shall be glad if the Leader of the House will give us some assurance in regard to the fishermen round our coasts.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Gentleman's remarks were out of order, but it shows the wisdom of what I said earlier, that we shall have a series, one after another, of exceptions, and the Committee ought to decide now whether or not there should be a series of exceptions.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I should like to say a word from the standpoint of a member of the Central Appeal Tribunal, which has had a great deal to do with agricultural questions. It has dealt with a very large number of cases, and has also had very great experience in estimating the manner in which the different tribunals have exercised their powers. It is very obvious to us that in a number of cases tribunals have been rather too severe and have taken away more men than they ought to have taken, and have not made due provision for the proper cultivation of the land and for the number of people required. But there are others who have acted in a totally different way and have refused to take any men. These cases have come on appeal to us. At the very outset of our proceedings we constructed a 804 scheme to apply to every kind of farm, which we believe leaves the necessary minimum to carry out the production of the farm in the manner in which it ought to be carried out, and produces the greatest possible output which the farm can produce. We may have made mistakes here and there, and perhaps taken more men than we ought, but we have certainly done it on a deliberate plan, which, after being amended in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, after we had been doing our work a certain number of months, was accepted by them and has been rigidly and consistently carried out by the tribunal. I am afraid it does not apply to all cases, for many of these cases do not get the length of our tribunal. They are settled definitely by the County Appeal Tribunal, and are not allowed to proceed to us. Therefore, latterly we have not had quite the same experience as we had in the first nine or ten months, but I know of my own knowledge that there are certain farms still at which there is too much labour. This House will make a very great mistake in the public interest and do a very wrong thing if it exempts these men.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
The hon. Baronet who has just spoken referred to men on the farms whom he wished to see in the Army. But these are not the men with whom we are dealing in this Bill. I have an Amendment down to exempt the pottery, china, and earthenware trade from the operation of the Bill, and I wish to bring to the attention of the House certain facts which are perhaps more relevant to this Motion. In the first place, I want to show that we need be under no apprehension in discussing the limitation of the supply of men who are essential for food production. There is no more patriotic country, I presume, than France, and when a Bill of a somewhat similar character to this was introduced into the French Assembly the question of its effect on industry was discussed. I should like to point out in this connection that the Leader of the House secured assent to the Second Reading of this Bill yesterday by arguments which he set forth in the following statement: I would like to call the intention of the House to this fact: A Bill on precisely the same lines was carried by the French Government last week. It would not he right for me to go into the numbers of the male population of France who have been called to the Colours, but the House knows that it is a much larger proportion than is the case in this country, and the fact that the French have found it necessary" to adopt this same measure is an indication of what I have already said, 805 that every one of the belligerents is putting forth his full fighting force to-day, and that it is necessary for us to do the same.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March. 1917, col. 641] That statement is, I venture to point out, absolutely misleading, although no doubt it was used in a misleading sense quite unintentionally. The Bill which was introduced into the French Chamber similar to this was torn to pieces, and a Bill absolutely dissimilar was carried. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. May I read to him a synopsis of the Bill which appeared in a leading article in a French paper?

§ Mr. BUTCHER
Is the hon. Member entitled, for the purposes of this discussion, to go into the synopsis of a Bill brought into the French Chamber? May I point out that if every Member is to be entitled to go into the details of Bills introduced into the Chambers of our Allies, and possibly of other nations, in? order to enforce their arguments, this Debate will be very much prolonged?

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is a matter of degree. The hon. Member is entitled, within limits, to adduce that as an argument in support of his case.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I will not go beyond the limits laid down, but I directly challenged a statement made yesterday by the Leader of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, by a shake of his head, denied the accuracy of what I was stating. I therefore would like to quote from an article in "La Journal" in support of my statement. The article states that the French Minister for War had come down crying for men, more men, and still more men, and the writer continues:— The Chamber did not yield to this suggestion: its vote was determined, above all, by considerations of equity. It resolved that the rejected and exempted (reformes) before the War who had only undergone one examination before mobilisation should be submitted to another revision. 2.0 P.M.
This means that a number of men had been exempted at the outbreak of hostilities, and the French Bill simply provided for another examination of those men. It was consequently a totally different Bill from that which the House is now considering. The French Chamber rejected the main provisions of the Bill originally introduced, and reduced it to this very small measure of re-examining these particular men who had been exempted from military service at the outbreak of hostilities. It is on these 806 grounds that I suggest that the Leader of the House, no doubt quite unintentionally, absolutely misled the House in this matter. I was indeed astonished to hear his statement, because I had been following this question with considerable interest. The result of the deliberations of the French Chamber was undoubtedly attributable to the ruinous effect which the Bill would have had upon certain industries. If you take these men away from agriculture, as is now proposed, you will do more than merely lose their labour to agriculture. We are taking into agriculture great numbers of women at the present time; I presume these men are skilled men who are directing the labours of these women. A very serious point has been raised in this Debate as to what is our position in this matter. I have asked for the real facts of the case. At one moment we are told we are a beleaguered city and that this question of the supply of food may determine the result of the War against us. We are told we must have more men in agriculture, and, again, it is suggested that no more men should be taken from agriculture. If it is a fact we are a beleaguered city, a great increase in food production is undoubtedly essential. Obviously if we take away these men who have been admitted to be of limited capacity for military service, it will be detrimental to the general interest. We have been passing Bills to secure land for discharged soldiers. Are we now going to turn round and take these men away from the small holdings which have been provided for them at such great cost to the State? I shall certainly support this Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, apart altogether from any other Amendment which I may have it in my mind to move.
If the Government is wise it will have some regard to the experience of other countries. There is no doubt whatever that the revolution which we have seen in Russia was largely the result of a condition of affairs brought about by famine, and the main charge against the bureaucracy of that country was that it was starving the people. It was hunger which brought about the revolution. It was a movement which sprang from below and was then taken up by Parliamentarians. Again I say if we are a beleaguered city, if we are going to have famine in this country, we shall have, I will not say a revolution, but a 807 condition of affairs which may be very serious, and we ought now to do our best from a military point of view to avert any such calamity. Nothing will so upset our troops at the front as to think that their women and children at home are not getting sufficient food. A statement appeared in the Press yesterday from a German soldier who had escaped to Switzerland, and he said that the German soldiers in his part of the line were largely fathers of families, and that they hated the War and wanted it to end, because of the tales coming from their homes of the starvation of their wives and children. Therefore, for our own military purposes, the thing above all others we should seek to secure is to keep the population at home, at any rate those associated with the Armies in the field, well fed and contented. It will be a great mistake to take away the men required for agriculture.

§ Mr. MARTIN
This Debate has been participated in almost entirely by hon. Members representing agricultural districts, and they have pointed out that the great danger which we must try to guard against is the danger that confronts us in the agricultural districts. They have certainly alarmed me very much by the case they have made out. It seems to me that when well-known agricultural representatives make statements, such as have been made to-day, that the Under-Secretary for War should have adopted the Amendment at once. I feel that after listening to the speeches he would have accepted the Amendment if he had the power to do so; but no answer has been forthcoming. The Leader of the House, who got this Bill through its Second Heading yesterday, came in, and also refused absolutely the plea put forward, but he had not heard it. It has been stated that already some weeks have gone by in which no agricultural work has been done in this country, and that, therefore, only a few weeks remain within which the crop can be put in. It has been further stated that the farmers have depended upon the previous assurances—of which we have another instalment to-day—that the medically rejected men would not be called up. Therefore, they have taken them on to their farms and are relying upon them to put in their crops. We have been told by the agricultural representatives that there is great 808 danger of the crop not being put in, at any rate to the extent that it should be. Consequently there is great danger of starvation in this country. The Leader of the House replied to that argument by saying, "We have got to have the men. I quite admit that the men who are engaged in agriculture are just as important from the War standpoint, as the men who are fighting in the trenches, but we must have the power to take these men." Under these circumstances I shall certainly vote for the Amendment, and I hope it will be pressed. Then eight or ten hon. Members who have spoken were either merely trying to make a case against the Government, or they were stating facts which they knew within their own knowledge. Certainly I am quite right in stating that the result of these speeches shows that if the Government are going to insist on taking these men from the land there will be a considerable shortage in the agricultural land producing crops this year. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the Leader of the House should have said at once that he would act on the suggestions made and that he should have said, "we will, at any rate, agree that no young men shall be taken from these medically rejected men if they are working as agricultural labourers until the crop is in, or until the crop has been seen." He could still get the men later if he required them. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, but if not, I hope it will be pressed and that it will be carried.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I intended to go into the country this afternoon, but instead, I came down here with the fixed determination to support the Government on every Amendment. I am afraid that my determination has undergone a slight change since I have seen what this Amendment amounts to. I have been so impressed with the absolute necessity of getting men that I was prepared to support the Government upon almost anything in this measure, but I must say that the necessities of agriculture are as great as the necessities of the Army for men. We cannot carry on the War if we cannot feed our population, and we cannot feed our population unless we have the men to grow the food. The situation with regard to agriculture is well known. Owing to the very unpropitious season—first, owing to the long frost, and secondly, owing to the weather during the last 809 three or four weeks, it has been impossible to sow the spring corn. Even if any great proportion of the spring corn is sown before the middle or the end of next month there will be an equal need for men to get in the hay harvest, which is the most important harvest. Hon. Members are inclined to forget that. The shortage of feeding stuffs means that hay is the only food which is left for the stock, and the provision of meat is almost as important as the provision of cereals. Under these circumstances, I cannot see why the Government do not accept this Amendment. I very much regret having to vote against the Government on any Amendment connected with this Bill. I cannot conceive that the acceptance of this Amendment would do harm to the policy of the Government for carrying on the War. On the contrary, I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Outhwaite) that the revolution in Russia was largely caused by the absence of food. I feel certain that if we do come to that position in this country there will be a very great demand for peace. Therefore, you could not really lose by accepting this Amendment. It cannot affect many men, not more than 10,000 or 15,000, I should imagine. I think the matter is so important that, much as I regret it, I must vote for the Amendment against the Government. I make this explanation because I have practically given an undertaking that I would support the Government on everything connected with this Bill, but I had no idea that they would refuse an Amendment of this kind.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I wish to speak on this Amendment, but not from the standpoint of any agricultural interest. This matter is important from the standpoint of food supply in this country, and it is more from that point of view that I wish to direct attention to it. From the standpoint of the population in our towns, there is need for seeing that they are properly supplied with food as well as the Army. The Leader of the House in his very reasonable and conciliatory speech gave nothing away. The position remains exactly what it was when this Debate began. The fact is the power will remain vested in the War Office. Whatever the feeling may be, the War Office will have the last word in regard to the matter. It has been said that there still are men in agriculture who can 810 be spared from agriculture. They are not presumably unfit men, and therefore the Government has power to deal with them under the Military Service Acts, if it so desires. The right hon. Baronet who is chairman of the Appeal Tribunal told us that from some districts too many men had been taken from agriculture and from other districts too few. That might be capable of some adjustment as between the districts from which too many have been taken and the districts from which too few have been taken. But clearly that is not any argument for resisting this Amendment.
The food problem is undoubtedly becoming a matter of some seriousness, especially to the poorest of our people, because it is difficult for many of the poor people to get bread, which is now a shilling a loaf in London; and potatoes are out of the question in many homes, and sugar is becoming more and more difficult to obtain. In view of that, I say that it is suicidal to run the risk of letting agriculture run down, and letting local food supplies run down; and the position, as everybody knows, is aggravated enormously by our present shipping position and the submarine position. There is no need to emphasise that. The facts are known to every Member of this House. In view of that, I cannot see how the War Office can have any reason for resisting this Amendment. As to whether or not there is really any reconciliation between conflicting claims, the trouble is that each Department to a very large extent appears to revolve around itself, and be independent of any other Department. When I came to the House a few minutes ago the Under-Secretary for War was on one end of the bench and the President of the Board of Agriculture at the other end of the bench. There was a long gap between them and nobody sitting there, and that does appear rather to indicate the general policy. They have no touch with each other. They hardly seem to speak as they pass by, but the position is very serious and may place the country in danger. I am convinced that if the problem does get worse, especially if there is a feeling that the matter has been very badly bungled by the Government, you will create a very serious position.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said that that aspect of the matter, as everybody knows, as we have been told in the newspapers, has gone to create the revolution in Russia. 811 I do not know whether anybody desires a revolution on somewhat similar lines in this country, but already in some of our towns—Glasgow, for example—there have been marches of the women to visit the Lord Mayor—large numbers of women, many of them wives of soldiers—to tell about the difficulty of obtaining potatoes, bread, and other food supplies, and in view of all that and in view of the small likelihood of the Army getting anything—for if they continue to resist this Amendment, what do they expect to get out of the men who are at stake in this Amendment?—it is absolutely essential that every acre that can be cultivated should be cultivated. There is no danger- now of erring upon that side. The danger is all in the other direction. It is not in having too many men upon the land, but in having too few. I do not imagine that any representatives of agricultural constituencies can feel satisfied with the assurance that they have got. They have had experience. If they had no experience of what assurances meant, they might be satisfied. Hut they have had experience- with regard to the War Office and with regard to the tribunals that I am convinced that any assurances that they have got ought to be embodied definitely in an Act of Parliament. Apart from that, they would be well advised to take the feeling of the House in this matter and carry it to a Division. May I point out in conclusion that those who have spoken have looked at the matter from very wide points of view, and very often divergent and conflicting points of view, and yet practically no Member has spoken in opposition to this Amendment, and the great majority of the Members have combined to press it upon the Government.

§ Mr. ROWLANDS
I desire to add my voice to the unanimous appeal which has been expressed with regard to this Amendment. There has not been a single speaker, except from the Front Bench, who has not pointed out the importance of this Amendment, if not entirely endorsing it. The statements that have been made by the Leader of the House and by the Under-Secretary for War are not of such a character that we could accept them instead of this Amendment. I do not think that there was any hint of a real concession in them. I know that their words were good and kind, but they did not contain in them anything that indicated a grip of what we desire with 812 regard to agriculture. We were told both by the Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary that the War Office is very much under the advice of the Board of Agriculture before it takes men from agricultural districts. I wish that my experience taught me to believe that. I have had quite a number of cases, as other Members have had. I have gone to the Board of Agriculture to ask them to use their influence to get the exemptions that we desire. The Board of Agriculture has used its influence, but I cannot recall the number of cases in which that exemption has been obtained. We have found that, instead of the Board of Agriculture being able to influence the operation of the War Office, on the contrary, the War Office has remained determined to have the men, and the men have been taken.
What is the exact position with regard to agricultural districts at the present time? Every one of us who have large agricultural areas in our Constituencies have continually had the case put before us by the farmers and by the men themselves. The position in a Constituency like mine is this: that agriculture has been denuded of labour from two standpoints. First, it has given up a large number of efficient men to the Army; then it has lost a number of men owing to the large munition works in the area, and very few men are left on the agricultural land in my Constituency. The farmers were called upon by the Government to make all the efforts they possibly could to increase the crops for this year. Many of them are doing all they can. They have sought whatever labour was in the market, and the only labour which they could obtain, the labour on which they rely at the present time in the main, is the labour which under this Bill the War Office want to take away from them. There is no use in saying that no man shall be called up before the 1st of May. I think that that was answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who pointed out that when you had passed May then you came on to the hay season, and so it goes on during the year from one point to another, and you require the most competent men and the most able men. The farmer would be in a difficulty in any case. These men have been rejected, and have not their full share of health, and when they come to the farmer his difficulty is quite enough, without taking them away from him now and leaving him 813 without any men at all. I sincerely trust, while it is not too late, that the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment in its spirit if not in its words. In regard to the industrial parts of my Constituency, I would point out that in regard to the food supply you are face to face with great difficulties. You have to get your crops, you have to produce your food for your Army, you have to produce your food for the large civil army working on munitions at home, and already there is a great increase in prices. How are you going to meet that shortage of food if you do not get men on the land to produce the greatest possible amount; how are you to get sufficient food produced, even with all the ingenuity of the farmers, supported by the labour of a qualified sort which you give him at the present time? The matter is a most serious one for those who for months have had to continue to deal with this question between the War Office and agricultural labour. We cannot rely on the War Office, and we want a distinct concession, which shall be put into the Bill itself.

§ Mr. T. DAVIES
I represent a large agricultural district, where men for the land are wanted, and where farmers have been supplied with men who had been medically declared unfit, and on whom the farmers have spent money in order that they might be qualified to work on the farms. Having done that, they are confronted with the fact of the War Office coming down upon them to take away even those men. For myself, I think the production of the food of the people in the present juncture is at least as much a matter of vital importance as comparatively few men from the land for the Army. I am sure that this Amendment is a very necessary one, and the Government I think would do well to accept it. After all, the War Office would obtain not more than some 10,000 or 15,000 men at the outside. In view of such a result, it would really be far better that the men the farmers have should be left to them, especially in view of the fact that they had been sent to them after having been declared medically unfit, and have now gained experience in cultivation. I could give many instances in my own Constituency where too many men have been taken away, with the result that thousands of people have been deprived of a source of food supply that they otherwise would have had. In the case of one farmer, who 814 cultivated 400 acres, 300 acres arable, who had a large stock of pigs and 850 sheep, he bad his men taken away, and even the man who looked after the sheep was called upon, and all he is doing now is driving a motor car in an adjoining town. A consequence of this withdrawal of men from the land there must and will be less production of food.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
There are one or two points to which I wish to refer before we divide. I am bound to say that an Amendment of this kind if put in the Bill will make it extremely difficult to work. How are you to define what agriculture in this connection is?

§ Mr. L. JONES
The President of the Board of Agriculture will tell the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My right hon. Friend has interrupted me, but we have many cases where the men try to shirk by saying that they are employed in agriculture. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the great difficulty has been, so far as many of these men are concerned, to get them to recognise their obligation to the country. They have done everything they can to escape that obligation. It seems to be thought here that the War Office is the bete noir, and that it will do nothing for the Board of Agriculture. It is thought that the Board of Agriculture is ready to do everything for the country, but that they have been brow-beaten by the War Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] What are the facts? My right hon. Friend has explained what we have done by giving a certain number of men for agricultural purposes, and not only that, I would remind the House that since October last year we have not called up anyone except in five individual cases under Category A.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
But you are taking them now.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
No; we have not called up a single man since October in that category except in five instances?

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Does the hon. Gentleman mean under A, or below A, or in A?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I mean what I say. Category A, and the men in B and C, and so forth—[An HON. MEMBER: "Class A!"]—and we have not taken a single man under A, that is, in B or C. These are the men covered by this Bill at 815 the present time, and that policy has been in existence since October, and is going to continue. We have also a further arrangement with the Board of Agriculture so far as A men are concerned (that is, who are fit for general service), and the fact of our having come to an arrangement shows that we are, in fact, on very good terms with the Board of Agriculture. The arrangement we have come to is not to call out any of these A men, unless we first of all consult the Board of Agriculture.

§ Mr. L. JONES
I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is not the Board of Agriculture but the farmers who are in perpetual uncertainty. You will have to put clear words into the Bill; you will have to make it clear to the farmers that they are not going to be deprived of their men. They have got to be able to point to the words of the Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Every farmer will soon know the provisions of this short Bill.

§ Mr. JONES
It is the uncertainty.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
If we are giving any finality at all, or security, we are giving it to agriculture. They have the assurance from my right hon. Friend, which he gave yesterday and repeated to-day, that not before 1st May would any man be called up under this Bill, even for A Class. That is in addition to the well-known working arrangement between the Board of Agriculture and the War Office, which every farmer knows. I think that ought to reassure the House, and that we should not be asked to accept this Amendment. I cannot press too strongly on the House that if you insist upon this Amendment it will be extremely difficult to work the Bill, and you will find you are losing men for the Army and for agriculture, because you are driving men who have no pretensions to a knowledge of agriculture into agriculture, and consequently you are preventing those men, although of no use to agriculture, being utilised for the Army at a time when, as the fact that we are introducing this temporary measure must conclusively show to most serious-minded men, that we do urgently require men for the Army.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Would it not be possible to put in words to provide that this exemption shall only apply to men who are engaged in agriculture at the 816 present moment. It would not do to give a loop-hole, and I think it is necessary to put in certain words.

§ Mr. BILLING
I happen to represent a great number of men who are at present engaged in agriculture. There is very considerable uncertainty throughout the whole agricultural districts at the present time. I would like to point out that of this 100,000 suggested men I think we will find that about half of them will be from the land, which would be a very unfortunate condition of affairs. Surely the Government realise that you must think before you fight. What are the Army doing to-day? If you go down to any barracks you will see the more or less unfit men sweeping out barrack yards, scrubbing floors, and doing odd jobs of that kind. Is it reasonable to take a man away from growing corn and putting him to sweeping a barrack square at present? Either the food problem is critical, or not. If under this Bill we call up a number of farm labourers and reduce our harvest, we shall certainly be in a much worse position than the German nation when the harvest-time comes round. Therefore, I feel it is not only my duty to my Constituents, but also to this country, to support this Amendment to omit from this Bill all agricultural labourers who are at the present moment engaged on the production of food in this country.

§ Mr. PETO
I think if the words "now registered as" were inserted after the word "not" in my Amendment, they would meet the only point of substance made by the Under-Secretary against my Amendment. I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "not" to insert the words "now registered as."

§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order. Can an hon. Member move an Amendment to his own Amendment, or can that only be done by withdrawing the original Amendment?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rawlinson)
Certainly an hon. Member can move an Amendment to his own Amendment in this House.

§ Sir E. LAMB
If these words "now registered as" are inserted, it will only mean men engaged in agriculture previous to the middle of 1915, when the Registration Act was brought into force. I hope that the Government do not mean that they are not going to include the men who 817 have come into agriculture for nearly two years. This Amendment to the Amendment would apparently meet the point, but in reality does not. I think the right hon. Baronet will see that some men must be covered who have come into agriculture since 1915.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The skilled men are men who were registered at that time and employed at that time by the farmer. We cannot get our way in everything. I think this Amendment to the proposed Amendment will meet us very largely, and I trust the Government will accept it.

§ Sir E. LAMB
I hope it will go further, because men have been brought on to the land as labourers, because the farmers have had to be content with men who filled gaps. That was very largely caused by the action of the tribunals. I hope that the Government will meet us in some respects They have made out such a case as to the need of agriculture that we ask them to put their pledge into the Act, so that the farmers will know where they stand and will be able to produce the Act as their protection. We must remember that this Bill is brought in in consequence of pledges given by the Government, and which they now want to break.

Mr. RUNCIMAN
I hope the Under-Secretary will see his way to accept either this Amendment as it is now proposed to be altered or something which his draftsmen may be able to assure the House means exactly the same thing. From what has been said by my hon. Friend, it is quite clear that he, at all events, has the same object which we have, but unfortunately the farmers have not to deal with my hon. Friend. If they had to deal with my hon. Friend, they would know exactly where they were, but they have to deal with a large number of people all over the country who have been in the habit of interpreting the Acts in their own way, and my hon. Friend knows perfectly well the extraordinary variety of decisions and methods which have been adopted. If my hon. Friend, and I am sure he does, genuinely means to prevent any further depletion of labour in agriculture, he ought to accept something of this kind in order that the assurance may be given to the farmers. There is real point in the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) that in this matter the farmer is not only thinking of arrange- 818 ments made between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture—and those are often obscure; do not let my hon. Friend think they are clear to the country; I am not quite sure that they are very clear to the Department—but what the farmer wants is some assurance. He is not going to plough the land and find it left derelict; he cannot run the risk of that, and it is necessary that the agricultural interest, as a food-producing Interes the I do not care anything about its profits; it is making very large profits now, perhaps rather more than some people think it is entitled to—but it ought to be assured of its labour in order that in the coming season and the seasons following there shall be some chance of the farmers getting the maximum out of the soil. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he should confer with his draftsmen or his officials and give an assurance that we can rely upon that on the Report stage he will give us the thing in proper draftsman's form. He will leave the Committee in a most difficult position if nothing more than what he has suggested is the last word he has to say, and I invite him now to give us some undertaking.

§ Mr. BILLING
I rise to support that the word "now" be put in, for one particular reason. In the past twelve months hundreds and hundreds of mechanics have been brought into agriculture to assist farmers with motor ploughs and tractors, and we do not want to exclude all those men at the present time.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I see that the sense of the House is that something should be done, and some sort of compromise should be arrived at, and I think I have resisted it as long as I can. I hope that something bearing the meaning to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) have drawn the attention of the House may be put in—something on the lines of "a man who is registered as employed in agriculture," a man who is registered and who has a stated occupation. [An HON. MEMBER "He may have changed it!"] That is the intention I had in my own mind, because I am very dubious about not having some sort of definition given of agriculture. By a man employed in agriculture I mean a man so employed when there was a peaceful time 819 and nothing to be gained by disguising himself as an agricultural labourer or anything else. We know that if some men can shirk service, they will. I must have time to consider how best I can define agriculture in the best interests not only of the Army but of agriculture, and on the Report stage, if I can meet the point raised, I shall endeavour to do it.

§ Sir G. BARING
The hon. Member said he was hopeful of putting words in. Will he give us an undertaking that words expressing this meaning will be definitely put into the. Bill?

§ Mr. L. JONES
Will he put the words into the Bill now? He has got the evident sense of the House that they are necessary in the Bill itself, and I assure him they are necessary in order to reassure the agriculturists throughout the country. They can easily be amended on the Report stage if necessary, but it is quite a common thing for a Minister in charge of a Bill to accept an Amendment in the sense in which it is moved without pledging himself that the exact words shall remain in the Bill in its final form. If he finds on consulting his advisers that it is desirable to modify the words, that can be done on the Report stage.

§ Mr. HOLT
There will be no Report stage unless an Amendment is made in the Bill in Committee, and, therefore, we have no guarantee, unless these words are put in now, that they will be put in on the Report stage.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I do not think I ought to be pressed any further just now. From the point of view of the Army—and we are all anxious that the Army should get these men, consistently with the best interests of agriculture—I think I must have time to consider what words I shall put in on the Report stage. I have given my word that the lines on which I shall proceed will be the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, and, if the House does not agree with that, I would suggest that we should go to a Division at once.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think we should accept the proposal which has been made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because I think he has endeavoured to meet us most fairly. He has given, as I understand, a distinct pledge that he will introduce words to carry out that 820 object, namely, that men who were engaged in agriculture at the time of the Registration Bill shall not be taken. That being a distinct pledge, which I personally am quite prepared to accept, the only point I have in my mind is whether the hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment so that there shall be a Report stage. In order to carry out what he is intending to-do, there must be an Amendment in the Bill on Committee, otherwise there will not be a Report stage. Do I understand that he will secure that?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Yes.

§ Mr. PETO
After what the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has said, there seems to be a complete agreement on the matter, and I should like to withdraw.

§ Sir E. LAMB
On a point of Order, Mr. Rawlinson. We may mean the same thing as the hon. Member, but I do not think we do. I would like to ask you whether, unless there is an Amendment in some form, it will not be necessary to recommit the Bill in order to have a Report stage?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No one raised any objection when I put the Question that leave be given to withdraw. I foresaw the point, and thought no objection would be taken.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "man"["require any man"], to insert the words
"not being engaged in any trade, industry, or occupation declared by the Director of National Service to be an essential trade, industry, or occupation from which men for the time being should not be withdrawn."
3.0 P.M.
The words that I have read out are not exactly what I put down on the Paper. The object of my Amendment is to bring this point into relation with the work of the Director of National Service. That gentleman has got in hand a very great work, enforced by a very recent Act of Parliament, and assisted by an enormous number of workers, paid and voluntary, both in the great central office and throughout the country. He has an immense organisation at work obtaining men for substitution, so that men may be withdrawn from various vital industries, or, still more, that they may be wholly with- 821 drawn from unessential industries with the object of strengthening the Army. That is a very intelligible, laudable, and reasonable work upon which to embark at the present time. Why, then, we may ask, is there no reference to the work of the Director of National Service? It is directed on other lines, but with the exactly identical object that we have in this Bill. One of the curious things about the Debate to which I listened yesterday—and I have refreshed my memory by reading it again in the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning—was that there was no reference to the colossal work of the Director of National Service. Surely the Leader of the House, and the representatives of the War Office, ought to have told us how exactly his work is going to assist them, and to have connected it in some way with the methods and objects of this Bill! That they entirely failed to do. The real fact, of course, is that the Government is working in very watertight compartments, instead of having any co-ordination, any controlling mind, any method by which the various directing forces should be made to work on parallel lines. They have done nothing of the kind; hence, in framing suddenly this wonderful Bill, they have entirely forgotten that there is a National Director of Service. I hope they will excuse me reminding them of his existence. By this Amendment I have done real service by enabling them to defend their position, and the position the work of National Service. This Amendment has been well thought out. I have endeavoured to make it a practical and useful Amendment, and I therefore hope it may be accepted.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)
None of us are likely to forget the existence or importance of the Director of National Service. I am sure, however, my hon. Friends will not expect the Government to accept his Amendment. I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it is discourtesy to him if I do not follow him at length into his arguments, seeing the general question has been debated for a considerable time. Under the circumstances, I hope he will not find it is necessary to press the matter.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Seeing that the principle has been accepted by the Government that exception is to be made in 822 regard to agriculture, it seems desirable that the Committee should consider, or might like to consider, whether the exceptions in the case of agriculture are sufficient to meet the case. We know that the exception in relation to agriculture is largely if not entirely due to the desire to meet the requirements of this country in relation to food. But the food supply is not solely one of production; it is also one of transport, and means of transport. While I am not quite sure that the Amendment moved is the best way to deal with the matter, it seems to me, from the point of view of making food accessible to the people of these islands at the present time, that the problem of transport is of equal if not of greater importance than the problem of production. I do not wish to go into details, but we know that a great effort is being made to accelerate shipbuilding. The more ships got into the water the more food there will be available. The number of workmen that are available in the shipbuilding yards is surely as much a matter of national interest as the number of men that can till the land? I put this suggestion to my hon. Friend who represents the War Office, that the consideration of exceptions should not be confined solely to agriculture, and that the Government, in framing the Amendment for the Report stage, should also consider the important question of transport. If my hon. Friend who represents the Government would state now that in addition to agriculture the needs of labour in respect to facilities for transport would also be safeguarded, the Committee would, I think, be well satisfied, and we might proceed with the further consideration of the Bill.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I am very sorry, but I cannot accede to the request of my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
In the matter of transport?

§ Mr. FORSTER
I am afraid I really cannot give an undertaking of that kind.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I will raise the matter on Report.

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
The hon. Member for Blackburn has a series of Amendments on the Paper.

§ Mr. KING
I have another Amendment to come in at the same place, which, I understand, is in order, or, at least, I hope so.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has handed in an Amendment relating to a Schedule. I think that is really a negative of the Bill. We cannot go on with a series of exceptions.

§ Mr. KING
May I respectfully point out that it is recognised by the Government—I have spoken privately with them—that this is an attempt to make the Bill, as far as possible, on all-fours with the French Bill, which the Leader of the House yesterday told us was the same Bill. This is a bond fide attempt to make our Bill exactly the same as the French Bill. It takes the Schedule or list of exceptions in the French Bill and endeavours to put them in this Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will recollect that early in the discusssion I pointed out that, after we had disposed of the main Amendment -I had a whole series of manuscript Amendments—I must take the decision of the Committee to govern the rest. It is not possible to allow a series of Amendments of that character, and if, as I understand, the Government is going to bring up some exceptions on Report, of course that will enable the House on that occasion to deal with other cognate matters. We certainly ought not to go on continuously in Committee in this way.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Does your ruling, Mr. Whitley, mean that we are not able to propose any Amendment to mitigate what is acknowledged to be the hardships of this Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was admitted that it would inflict great hardships, and are not hon. Members entitled to mitigate those hardships by moving to omit certain men?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member himself has handed in a manuscript Amendment to except the pottery trade. To admit that would reduce our proceedings to an absurdity. I trust the Committee will see I am taking a broad line and not a narrow one on the question.

§ Mr. KING
May I point out that my Amendment has nothing to do with trades or occupations at all? It is something quite different. It is the family relations of those persons, and therefore raises 824 quite different conditions altogether from the question we have been discussing for the last two and a half hours.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I quite understand that it is another class of exception. With regard to the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn to leave out paragraph (a), and afterwards paragraph (b) and paragraph (c), that, again, taken together, would be to go behind the decision of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any special point on one of these paragraphs. If so, he is entitled to raise it, but he is not entitled to propose seriatim a series of omissions which would be equivalent to a negative of the Bill.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I am afraid I do not understand that ruling at all. I am proposing to leave out only very small Subsections of a Clause. If you rule that I may be permitted to move the deletion of one of these Sub-sections, but not all of them, then I will at once make a selection of the one I think the most important.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will recollect that I have always declined to allow in Committee a Motion to leave out the first Sub-section of the first Clause if that contains practically the whole purpose of the Bill. That is equivalent to a negative of the whole Bill. The hon. Member may select a paragraph to leave out.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Thank you, Mr. Whitley; then I will select the one marked (b).

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Have you passed over my Amendment to insert after "any man" the words "unless he has been twice medically rejected," so as not to bring under this Bill those who have been already twice medically rejected?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think may previous ruling applies to that.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
This deals with the case of men who have been discharged from the Army as disabled. It is a matter which has been before the House on former occasions. A Clause was inserted in the first Military Service Bill excepting those who had been previously discharged from the Army or Navy on account of physical incapacity. The House felt so strongly 825 that the case of these men demanded their passionate consideration, that, although the second Military Service Bill took away a great many of the exceptions which bad been operative in this first Bill, this, by an Amendment in the House, was still retained. The cases which come within this category will, I am sure, meet with the sympathy of every man. We have been told repeatedly, in the course of these discussions, that already more than 100,000 men have been discharged from the Army as disabled. If this Sub-section is operative in the Bill, all those men will be liable at any time to be recalled for medical re-examination, and they will be liable not only to be called once, but to be called at periods of six months. This, I think, would not only be an outrage to those men—it would be a cruel and, I might almost say, a wicked thing to do in regard to men who have been disabled in the service of the country—but it would be also a waste of time and a great expense. These men have had painful experiences—many, no doubt, being nerve-shaken—and then a great many, if not totally disabled, have no doubt settled down in life, and it would be cruel to move them. The thing is so palpably one that ought to appeal to our sympathies and compassionate consideration, that I do not think it necessary to argue it at any length.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to press this Amendment, because it really strikes at the main principle of the Bill. Everybody feels the greatest sympathy with the man who has been discharged from the Army on account of wounds or on account of disease in the course of his military service. Those are not the only men who will be affected by this provision. The Committee will bear in mind the fact that, before the War, men were discharged from the Army or Territorial Force on account of disability which was held to justify the course then, but which would not in these days be held to justify their discharge from the Service. And even in the earlier days of the War itself men were discharged from the Army on grounds which no longer could be held to justify their discharge. We have reason to think there are very large numbers of men who, since their discharge, have again become physically fit for service, and in the critical circumstances in which we stand to-day it is necessary to secure the 826 services of these men. I feel every sympathy with the object which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has in view, and nothing but the paramount necessity of the time would move us to bring in a provision of this kind. It is, however, absolutely necessary, and I hope the House will not adopt this Amendment.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I am tired of hearing of the sympathy of the War Office which never results in anything. I have already brought forward the statement made by the Leader of the House as; regards the action taken by the French. Government, in which he said that this was a similar Bill to that adopted by the French Government. But the French Chamber of Deputies refused to pass the Bill. There was a proposal calling up the men who had been discharged, and the French Chamber of Deputies refused to sanction it. I think it is a most cruel thing that men who have done their bit, and who are perhaps struggling toward recovery, should have the proposal hoisted over their heads that as soon as they have got back to health they would be dragged back again to undergo the same perils while there are hundreds of thousands of men in this country who have endured nothing. It is hard to deal with a point like this in Committee when one has not had the opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading, because the impression goes forth that we are trying to prevent the War Office getting men, although they could get them by increasing the age limit. We know that the War Office in relation to non-commissioned officers does not propose to restore them to their previous rank or give them any guarantee.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
Yes; that is dealt with in Clause 2.

§ Mr. HOGGE
It says as far as possible.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman that no guarantee was given that they would be restored, and he said that there were some that would not be restored to their rank.

§ Mr. FORSTER
If the hon. Member will read Clause 2 he will sec that the case is fully dealt with.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Then the Leader of the House quite misinformed us. What is the interpretation of the concluding words of Clause 2"unless the Army Council otherwise direct"?

§ Mr. FORSTER
It obviously means that you may have a man who is wholly unfit, and there are exceptional cases.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Then the men have no guarantee that when called up again they will be restored to their former rank. In fact, the Army Council intend to take this opportunity to revise the question of efficiency. I think that is a minor hardship, but at any rate, if he is not restored to his former rank he should be restored to his former pay. This is a very cruel proposal, which inflicts great injustice, and I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think this is really a monstrous proposal in the Bill, and the defence offered by the Financial Secretary to the War Office only covers a very small proportion of the men proposed to be dealt with. It may or may not be true that prior to the War members of the Territorial Force were discharged through disablement or ill-health upon a standard which was very much above the standard of the medical examination now. It may also be true that at the beginning of the War a certain number of men were discharged on account of either of those two causes, because a higher standard of disability obtained than we have adopted now. But when you have dealt with the two replies given by my hon. Friend, namely, the men who have been discharged from the Territorial Force prior to the outbreak of war and the men who have been discharged from the Army at the beginning of the War, there still remains the large bulk of this class of men who have been discharged from the Army for ill-health or disablement. This Clause proposes to re-examine those men.
I have had in the course of my dealings with pension cases an example which will illustrate the hardship of this Clause. I know an officer who lost one of his eyes in the War. He was discharged on account of that disability. He was awarded a gratuity of £250 as a result of that disability. This man was very keen to get back to the front, and he persuaded the medical board to again accept him as fit. He went back to the front, and was killed, and the War Office now refuse to pay the £250 to the relatives of that man for the loss of his eye. I hope the two hon. Gentlemen representing the War Office are listening to that case. That man went back voluntarily into the Army because of his super- 828 patriotism, and his relatives are denied the money because he has been killed. Every man under this Section is obviously at the moment in receipt of a pension be cause he has been discharged on two grounds, ill-health or disablement. The War Office propose to recall the men who have fought so well in this War that their disability, either through disease or wounds, is such that they are in receipt of a pension. Those men are to be given one year in which to recover from their wounds. A great part of that year has already gone. Every man wounded at the end of 1914 has already passed that twelve months' period, and they will be called up to be re-examined medically the moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent. When they have been a year out of the Army this Bill gives power to re-examine every one of them at the end of six months. The same period is coincident with the reexamination of that man from the point of view of pension. Does my hon. Friend really seriously mean to put men who have fought and are in receipt of a pension to the embarrassment of a re-examination after six months to find out whether they are fit to go back to their positions in the Army?
If the War Office had pursued a common-sense course there are many men now out of the Army whom they could have had in the Army. I have a friend of my own, a young officer, a graduate of St. Andrews University, a trained civil engineer, a man who has done an extraordinary amount of hard work on the East Coast of Scotland, who was thrown from a horse and had his left arm so badly hurt that it had to be amputated. He did not want to be put out of the Army. I went to Lord Derby myself and put his case to him? I said, "Why are you putting this man out of the Army? There are thousands of jobs which he could do. He is a young, able man, and he docs not want to go out of the Army." They would not retain him in the Army, and when he is recalled and re-examined under this Kill there is no security that that young fellow, with a university training and a keenness to get into the Army, will be restored to the commission which he held prior to being refused by Lord Derby, who is supposed to have charge of the subject. I feel so strongly upon the point that I hope my hon. Friend will divide the House. It is a case where I think the House cannot stand up against public opinion, and certainly cannot stand up against the sacri- 829 fice that these men have made for us. The shame of it is enough to prevent either of my hon. Friends from making any defence at all of the proposition that men who have served in the Army and have suffered disability, either from wounds or disease, and who are in receipt of a pension, should be subject under Act of Parliament to come up compulsorily at intervals of six months to find out whether they can be used again in any circumstances at all and in any rank. Let this House of Commons say that men who are in that position, and who have done their bit, and made their sacrifice, shall not be required again to submit themselves to any medical board while there are others in many of our Government offices all throughout the country who are perfectly fit to go and take their places. Let the House say that until that is done it will not suffer the shame of asking any of those men to submit themselves again for medical examination.

§ Colonel Sir C. SEELY
Might I make an appeal to the Government to consider this point. Everybody must see the strength and the force of what the Financial Secretary to the War Office has said with regard to men who were discharged from the Army years ago or men who were discharged after only a few days service, because the physical strength then required was greater than it is now; but there is a very strong claim to be made on behalf of those who have been out to the front, who have been wounded, or have been poisoned or have had dysentery, or who have suffered in the many ways that men do suffer at the front. They should not be called up again while there are so many strong active men who have never been out at all. I do not object to it. I think it is quite right. Men have had to be kept at home in the mines and in shipyards and in agriculture, and for many purposes. We have within the last few minutes agreed to exempt all men who are engaged in agriculture. At the same time men who have done their bit at the front really have a claim not only to be exempted, but also not to be worried any more. A man who has been seriously ill ought not to be called up again and subjected to an examination by doctors. The present Prime Minister once said on another subject, "You cannot trust the doctor." A doctor cannot see inside you, and a man quite possibly may have no definite 830 organic disease, though his whole constitution may have been so shaken by wounds or illness that he really is not fit for the rough and tumble at the front. I would suggest that the War Office should accept some kind of Amendment excepting from the provisions of this Clause men who have been discharged on account of wounds or illness incurred on active service at the front. Unless I am very much mistaken the number of men that would be lost would not be really serious, and the Clause with that alteration would really give them what they require. It would obviate what I cannot help thinking would be the very great hardship of calling up again and sending once more to the front men who joined the Army early in the War freely on their own account and who suffered, some of them, terribly, whilst other men who have never done anything at all remain at home perfectly comfortable and earning very large wages indeed.

§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS
I am very sorry to separate myself from any purely humanitarian argument, but I am bound to say that we have other things to consider beside that kind of bearing on the Clauses of this Bill. We are not fighting a humanitarian enemy, and we cannot beat him and we shall not beat him by humanitarian means.

§ Sir C. SEELY
Yes, we shall.

§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS
Well, not by purely humanitarian means. We shall not meet him and beat him by means that put humanitarianism over every other consideration.

§ Sir C. SEELY
Yes, we shall.

§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS
I know of cases of men who have been discharged from the Army and who have become and are now perfectly fit for active service. I will not say that I have met many or known of many such cases, but I have known of some in my limited experience, and if you take the aggregate experience of all the Members of the House I think the people they know to be in that position would represent a considerable number. That fact is perfectly well known to the men now on active service, and we all of us know many instances where men have been wounded badly once, twice, three times, and sometimes four times, and who yet have no hope of release from active service. They come 831 home suffering from their wounds. They remain in hospital, and they come out of hospital as soon as they are passed by a board and have to go back again to fight, leaving men here who are fit for active service, but who happen to have been discharged from the Army. You must take a broad view of a matter like this in the interests of the Army and in the interests of winning the War. I know that this case has only a limited sphere and is only a point of detail, but when you come to sum up all the cases you will find they make an important contribution to the active forces, and we must rely upon the efficiency and care of the medical examination to secure that no injustice is done to individuals by calling them up.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
The last speaker said that this Amendment is a matter of humanitarian legislation. It is not a question of humanitarianism at all, but a question of business and public policy. Before we pass this Sub-section we ought to know what advantage it is going to be to the country. What is the number of men that you are going to bring back into actual useful military service by this proposal, because unless we are going to obtain something useful from it, we are taking a very dangerous step in still further straining public opinion outside this House. The action of the War Office and of the military authorities has been loyally backed up by the country up to the present time, but I know quite well, from my experience in London, that there is a strong public opinion rising against what seems to be the practice of the War Office in taking advantage of cases which, to the ordinary mind, ought to be excepted from military service. Together with that there is a feeling, which I have heard expressed over and over again, that these particular men ought not to be taken back into the Service as long as you can find other men who are perfectly capable of going into it. An hon. Member can say that he knows hundreds and thousands who could be taken into the Service that are not taken into it. I know for a fact that in one of the munition factories there are some hundreds of men who have been debadged for weeks, and who have not yet been called up. That in itself provides a ground of serious complaint against the War Office. When you say that you are so hard up that you have to force back into the fighting line men 832 who have served, who who have been wounded and disabled in the service of their country, the answer is, "Why do you not fetch up the other men first?" I am informed, and I believe it is the fact, that there are in our munition factories a number of men of military age who are doing work that elder men or even women could learn in a very short time. What effort is being made to get those men into the Service?

§ Mr. BOOTH
The trade unions are opposing it.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
Whatever the trade unions are doing, public opinion at the present moment is not prepared to justify the War Office in calling up disabled men the second time and putting them back into the Service until they have far more reduced the resources they have elsewhere. This is an extremely impolitic proposal to put forward at the present moment. It is not going to give us any real advantage, and the best thing the Government can do, if they do not drop this Sub-section, is at any rate to accede to the excellent suggestion made, that they should except men who, in ordinary parlance, have done their bit and who the ordinary man outside thinks ought to be left alone.

Mr. T. WILSON
I admit that there is a number of men who have been to the Front who have been wounded and discharged from the Army and who are now-well, but they are only a small percentage of the men who have been discharged from the Army. There are tens of thousands of men in the Army who are not performing military duties at all. They are hanging around the camps doing all kinds of menial work. If the Government is going to take into the Army more unfit men, they will only increase the number of non-combatants already in it. I suggest to the representatives of the War Office that they should withdraw the Clause for the time being and, on Report, introduce it in an amended form, making it quite clear that men who are cripples now should not be called up for re-examination. I admit that if it were left to the two hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to decide which men should be called for re-examination, there would not be a very large number called up, but the people responsible for the administration of this Bill will call up every man discharged from the Army, and every man medically rejected before, without any consideration of the reasons 833 why they were rejected or discharged. Some protection ought to be given to these men and it should be put in the Bill. I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have introduced this Bill at all, because instead of being an advantage it will show the enemy the weakness of our postion now.

§ Brigadier-General CROFT
There is a great deal to be said for this Amendment if any alternative could be provided. Although we have heard a great deal of criticism with regard to the Bill, we have heard no proposal made to meet the difficulty. I have the greatest sympathy with the men to whom reference is made. It is a perfect scandal, when we know that there are millions of men in this country who could fight, that we should be recalling to the Colours men who have been invalided out. The House of Commons is really to blame for that. It has shown no real determination that the age limit should be raised or that we should provide other people to replace the enormous number of fighting men who at present are engaged in essential industries. Until the House shows some unanimity and the trade unions come forward and say they are prepared to help to comb out all fighting men and put other people in their places, it is essential that something should be done, and done quickly, to fill the vacancies in the Army. The only possible reason which leads me to support this Bill, which I hate, is the fact that if the offensive starts shortly, as we hope it will, and if it is to be continued during the summer, so that it may be possible to get a decision as to whether the War is to be completed this year or carried on into next year, who must have the men. Many men who come under this Sub-section have been in the Army for a very short time, some only a few weeks, and they have gone out again, and in those cases there will not he a great deal of sympathy. Again, we have to remember that they are trained men. Unless the House of Commons makes up its mind to deal with this whole question courageously, we must find the men in the next three months. All these men who are now fit again are trained men, and we must not allow any consideration to come between us and filling the Army at that vitally decisive point, which may be at the end of July or at the end of August, which may make all the difference to the campaign. 834 Therefore, although I dislike the whole Bill, I intend to support the Government on this Sub-section.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I hope my hon. Friend will give some consideration to the suggestion which has been made. There is considerable distinction between a man who is disabled in consequence of an accident at home of a more or less slight character, possibly involving only temporary disablement, who has been discharged from the Army, and the ease of the man who has served in one of the theatres of the War at the front and has had all the nerve-racking trouble and danger of serving in the face of the enemy, and who has been disabled and discharged from the Army after being wounded or in consequence of disease. Would it not be possible for the Government, while accepting this Sub-section, to have an Amendment a little lower down exempting from its operation those whose disablement is caused or aggravated by military service in one of the theatres of war, so that they may be exempted from re-examination? I entirely sympathise with the last two speakers when they said they would like to see other means provided, besides those which have been adopted in this Bill, for getting more men to serve. I firmly believe that, although you will no doubt get a certain number of men to the Colours through this Bill, it will be nothing like enough for us if we intend to bring the War to a speedy termination this year. Therefore, I hope the Government will be moved by the protests which have been made in all quarters of the House, whether by raising the age or by other methods, to get men into the Army, so that this may not be the only means on which we rely to get further men for the Colours. If they will give an assurance and will make the exception which has been suggested by my hon. Friend as regards men who have been wounded at the front, I think the Subsection might be passed.

§ Mr. FORSTER
This is not an occasion on which one can debate the general question of compulsory service, but I fully share the views which have been expressed by my right hon. Friend opposite, that it is not the fault of the War Office that we have not wider powers for obtaining men for military service than we have at present. The hardship inflicted upon men who have fought and have been discharged from the Service being called 835 upon to come back to the Colours is great, but so is the hardship of the men who have suffered as much and who may have endured more and who return at the end of convalescence. In this matter we cannot allow sympathy, however genuine or sincere, to decide the question. The question is, Are the men fit? If they are fit, they are needed, whether they have been discharged or not. My hon. Friend offered the suggestion that we should make an exception in the cases of men who have been wounded or disabled on account of services in one of the theatres of war. In France, at any rate, much of the service is no more arduous, no more dangerous, no more meritorious than the service of the vast number of men at home, and I do not think you could make an exception in such wide terms as that. With regard to the question of men who have been actually wounded by the enemy, their case, however hard, is no harder than that of men who have been wounded but have not been discharged. The thing we have to bear in mind is, Are the men fit? If they are fit, it is their duty to come back. I am sorry, indeed, that we cannot exempt them from service, but the need of men is paramount. We expect to get a considerable number of men under this provision, and, hate it as we may, and as we do, we are bound to ask the House of Commons to support us.

§ Colonel Sir C. SEELY
My right hon. Friend has made a strong appeal about the number of men he is going to get and about the men who have been convalescent and sent back. There is a perfectly distinct difference between men who have been wounded and discharged and men who have been wounded but not discharged. After all, when a man is discharged from the Army he is discharged not because he has a bullet through the point of his finger, but because his wounds are serious and grave. And I think the case of a man who has been wounded and discharged, or has been sick and discharged, is in a different position altogether from a man whose wounds were not so serious as to call upon him to be discharged, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter very carefully. I should be very glad if he could tell us what number of men who have been wounded and discharged he expects to get. The Prime Minister said they expect to have a million men examined, and hope to get a hundred thousand out 836 of them. There are three classes. It includes those Territorials who were not taken for foreign service. They will get a considerable number out of that. I should very much wonder whether he can say that out of his 100,000 men more than 3,000 or 4,000 at the outside will be men who have been wounded and discharged, and is it worth while, for the sake of that very small number of men, to do what I consider is a very cruel and a very unfair act, and call up a man after he has already done his bit and has been seriously wounded? I press this matter before the War Office, the House and the country, that it is not fair, when such a considerable number of men have done nothing, that men who have been badly wounded—I put pressure on the word "badly" because no man is discharged unless he has been badly wounded—should be asked to go out again. There are numbers of men like oneself because one is rather older and the War Office would not take one. I would much sooner go out myself than that these men who have been badly wounded should go out again. I think I speak the feeling of every one of the older men in England, and everyone of those who are in the works where they are obliged to stop. It is not fair to ask these men who have been badly wounded to come up for examination again, and if they have recovered and some doctor can be found to pass them and say they are all right, they should be sent back again to be exposed to the same risks which they have already undergone and which ought to have spared them from further examination.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I desire to support the argument which has just been put forward by the hon. Baronet. I think that before passing this we should receive from the Government some estimate of the number of men who will be obtained from it. Up to the present nothing of the kind has been suggested. Indeed, it has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Page Croft) that the passing of this paragraph may make all the difference between winning the War this summer and going into the next year. Could there be anything more absurd coming from a Gentleman with presumably some professional experience? You can only call up under this paragraph men who were discharged before this time a year ago—men who are sufficiently recovered to resume service. How many can there be of such men? Obviously they 837 must have been badly wounded or suffering seriously from illness, otherwise they would never have been discharged I say it is not right to draw a comparison between men who have had slight wounds and have been in hospital but a short time and those who have been discharged from the Army on account of their wounds. The two classes are not in the same position. Remember, the majority of those discharged are drawing pensions on account of their disability. Why should the authorities have passed these men for pensions if they were likely to be again fit for service? It seems to me that this is not only a useless but a dangerous provision.
4.0 P.M.
It is within the knowledge of every member of this Committee that large numbers of officers and men have been discharged from the Army on account of nervous breakdown. These are cases where it is most difficult for any medical man to determine whether or not a man is fit. A man may apparently be absolutely fit for service and yet break down again immediately he is subjected to a renewal of the strain. Could there be anything more dangerous to the efficient conduct of the War than to put men in this condition in the Army again One of the greatest tragedies in this War has been due to an incident of that kind. Hon. Members will remember the shootings which took place during the Dublin rebellion. Why did those shootings take place? Because a man who had had a nervous breakdown was put under certain conditions which brought back his former trouble, and there arose incidents more tragic in their effect upon the relations between this country and Ireland than has happened during the last bun dred years. This may happen again, and it may happen in one of the theatres of war. Unless the Government can prove some great advantage to be obtained, I think they ought not to allow a proposal so dangerous to be embodied in the Bill.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
I should like to reinforce what fell from my hon. Friend, and ask the Government to tell us clearly the numbers they expect to get under this Sub-Clause (6). I can understand that after the concession my hon. Friend made in the early part of this discussion he may find it difficult to grant a second concession so early in the Bill. But if the number of men he expects to get under 838 this Sub-section is small, I would ask him] is it worth while resisting the feeling which is evidently prevalent in the House at the present moment? Could he not make an exception in respect of the men who have already suffered for their valour and for the services they have rendered to the State? So far as I am concerned, I should feel much easier if I knew what sort of medical examination these people are going to be subjected to, and in what condition of health they are going to be sent back to the Colours. I would urge the Government to tell us the number of men they expect to get under this Subsection, and if it be small, as many hon. Members seem to think it will be, I would urge them very strongly to make an exception in response to the prevalent opinion of this House.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I wish to refer again to the statement made yesterday as to what occurred in the French Chamber, and I want to ask why we should be more severe to our wounded soldiers than the French appear to have been?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I have been requested to state the numbers we are likely to get under this particular Clause. I have made inquiries, and I am told we expect to get about 50,000 or 60,000 men.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Out of the 1,000,000 that come up for re-examination? Do you suggest that 50,000 or 60,000 will be drawn from that source?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Yes.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Then it is to be assumed that only 10 per cent. of them will be acceptable?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
No; I understand that we actually expect to get under this Clause 50,000 or 60,000 men.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Then will my hon. Friend say how many men of this class will come within the scope of this examination?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am told, nearly half a million.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Nearly half a million men discharged from the Army!

§ Mr. McKENNA
My hon. Friend has to take the numbers that existed a year ago, and it really cannot be that anything like half a million were discharged from the Army at that time. I should think his 839 figure of 60,000 covers all discharges, does if not? The figure we want to get at is what is the number of men who would become available under Sub-section (b)

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I gather that the number of men available for re-examination will be quite half a million I am informed now by my officials that that half-million is the number of men who were discharged in all categories in the first eighteen months of the War, and my estimate will include the number we are likely to get now at this moment and within the next year. I do not think 50,000 or 60,000 is an over-estimate, and seeing that nearly three divisions are likely to be obtained after careful re-examination, I do suggest that this Clause is not so unreasonable as some hon. Members would make it out to be. I would remind Members that some of those who oppose this particular Clause were the very men who wished the Regular soldiers to go out to fight for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] They were the men who resisted the Act, making the Regular soldier go out time after time, and not making other men go out once. I think, therefore, it would ill become them to come forward and oppose this particular Clause. I am speaking after considered judgment, when I say that we believe these men would be capable under this Clause of giving us nearly three divisions of trained soldiers, and I hope the Honse will pass it.

§ Colonel Sir C. SEELY
The hon. Member has not answered my question as to how many men have been wounded in this War. I am not surprised in the least at the large number he has given. I am sorry I did not say it before, but I knew he had a large number of men who have been discharged. What I want to know is how many men have been discharged because they were badly wounded in this War? He spoke about the Regular soldiers who vent out. This applies to the Regular soldiers who went out, and who were badly wounded during this War, and then discharged. I am afraid he has not seen my point. Nobody has any wish to prevent men who have been discharged being reexamined, but we want to know the number of men who have been badly wounded and discharged, not the men who, for various other reasons, were discharged; and the number of men he expects to get from those who have been discharged in 840 consequence of bad wounds or serious ill-ness incurred in actual fighting during this War?

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think we ought to get this matter cleared up before we go to a Division. The hon. Member has said there are half a million men in all categories discharged.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
All classes.

§ Mr. HOGGE
In that half million there is bound to be the type of man from whom these men will be drawn. Those of us who have not had access to the War Office cannot arrive at the real estimate of how many men there must be, but you can get at it from a number of men who have pensions or who have applied for pensions. My hon. Friend knows that there are not many thousands of men at the present moment in receipt of permanent pensions. There are not 100,000 men in receipt of temporary pensions, and there are about 100,000 men who have been turned down because they are broken soldiers. That makes roughly 250,000 men. Where does the 500,000 come from? The Pensions Minister is on the Front Bench—both Pensions Ministers are here, and they could give the House figures of the number of men who have been permanently pensioned, the number who has been temporarily pensioned, and the number who have been turned down because their disease is not attributable to the War. I think the Committee is entitled to know those figures. The Ministers are here. Let them tell us.

§ Colonel YATE
I think if we begin counting the number of men and making little exceptions of this sort, we shall go far to destroy the whole Bill. None of us like the Bill, but I think that we might trust the case of these men to the medical board. They are all trained men. If they are fit to go out, they will be able to go out at once. We all know the large number of men who have not yet been called up, and all those other men, now tied up by trade unions and badges, will have to go too. This is only a preliminary thing in order to get a certain number of trained men at once, and I do not feel inclined to pick holes in the Bill as to whether you get 1,000 men here or 1,000 men there. Then, with reference to gratuities and pensions, they should be dealt with promptly and should be paid to the men before they go out. In the case of the officers, I would ask that they 841 should be treated liberally. If men have been invalided out and have gone back to civil life, they should be given a uniform and outfit again. I do not wish to make any small criticism upon the Bill, and trust that it will be allowed to go through.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am afraid that we must press the hon. Gentleman to deal, as I have no doubt he will, with the very specific point which has been raised. After all there is no use in our being impatient in discussing these matters. An half an hour more or less is not going to make any great difference in Parliamentary convenience, and it may make a great difference in the lives and fortunes of large numbers of men who have been fighting for us and who must be protected. It is very easy to brush these matters aside, with the result that afterwards there is a great injury to numbers of humble persons. I must ask the question which the House desires to have answered. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has suggested that, as a modification of the exclusion of the whole of this class, men who have been discharged seriously wounded from the Service should not be called upon to come up. We have asked what is the number affected by that. I should have thought that the representative of the War Office would have had all these figures. I know how carefully my hon. Friend does his work, but he must make his Department feel that when he comes down to pilot a Bill through the House of Commons he has a right to be supplied with all the necessary figures. There is no use in his coming here unless he has those figures. We ought to know exactly how many men were invalided out of the Army since the beginning of the War for wound casualties. I should imagine that that is one of the simplest figures, and that it could be obtained almost immediately by the hon. Member if he has not got it with him. A very good check on that is provided by the pensions. May I point out, assuming the number is not a large one, that the probabilities are that this class who have been discharged from the Army will not be a class which will yield any large number of fit soldiers, because the need has been very great and men have been sent back to the front who have received terrible wounds, again and again, and they are hardly ever discharged if there is any prospect whatever of 842 getting other duties out of them. I cannot imagine that it is a very fertile field for gleaning, and if the total number is not a very large one, only amounting, as I expect it does, to 40,000 or 50,000 men at the outside who have been discharged, probably only 10 per cent. of these will be available, and the number will be very small, and then it would be open to the Committee to press upon the Government this exemption. It is all very well to compare these exemptions with those of men who have gone back. The form of comparison which should be made is with persons who are fit to fight, and have never been out at all. In dealing with this matter partially many injustices may be caused, not only actually but relative hardship inflicted, and where the hardship is relative there is a sense of injustice. Let us know exactly how many men have been invalided out of the Army through battle casualties. It is a perfectly simple figure to obtain.

§ General IVOR PHILIPPS
I wish to ask this question: If any men are called out who have got pensions or are entitled to pensions, or who have received a gratuity or are entitled to a gratuity, will they be allowed to get the pensions and gratuities; in other words, will they be allowed to get the pensions and gratuities in addition to their pay? Unless I receive an answer to that question, I certainly shall have to vote against the soldiers being called up.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I can at once tell my hon. and gallant Friend that all the men who are entitled to pensions now will continue to be entitled.

§ General PHILIPPS
During the time of service?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think so.

§ General PHILIPPS
I want to be certain.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I assume that a man who has been in the Service, and has been invalided out of the Service, and who comes up for re-examination and has got his pension, or is entitled to a pension—

§ General PHILIPPS
Not entitled to it, but will he receive it, will the man who has got a pension or a gratuity receive it in addition to his pay?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The point is one which will have to be dealt with rather carefully. I should think that a man who has been invalided out of the Service, when 843 he comes to be re-examined and is passed, then, prima facie, that man is fit, his disablement has all gone. I am only looking at it from that point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Order, order!"] I should have thought the three Members in that corner, who occupy so much of the time of the House, would listen.

§ Mr. HOGGE
We tell the House facts.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
If it is a conditional pension, and the man is re-examined and his disablement no longer exists, I imagine the pension would cease. If it is a disablement pension which the man has got for life, I should imagine that he had been very carefully examined, and on reexamination he would not be passed as fit for service; therefore the pension would continue, and he would not be called up. The question is a purely abstract one, and it will have to be argued out very carefully. It depends on the nature of the pension, and whether it is conditional or absolute. Those, however, are questions for my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister. With regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, I quite agree that I should have been provided with figures, but it was largely my fault that I am not so provided, for I did not ask for them, nor did I think this point would be raised. But I think there is a great deal in what he says and that the House should be apprised of the approximate, if not the actual, numbers of men discharged from the Army on account of battle wounds. I think that those men are in a very peculiar and exceptional position, and on the Report stage I hope to be able to give my right hon. Friend as accurate a figure as I can. I cannot promise it will be definitely accurate, but I will give an approximate figure.

§ Mr. BILLING
If a man is receiving a pension for the loss of an eye or some other injury, is his pension to be cancelled if he is called up again? There is the case of officers invalided out of the Service. I know of many cases in the Flying Corps of what is commonly called cold feet or loss of nerve, where men have not been able to go to the front and have been suffering from general disability. It is quite possible some friction may have occurred in leaving. Are those officers, who have been invalided out and with nothing definite against their characters, to be called up as private soldiers, without 844 the opportunity of resuming their position? It has been suggested that they should have the opportunity of appealing to some military authority.

§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes)
It has been suggested that I should reply to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member (General Philipps) as to the case of a man who is entitled to a pension or gratuity in the event of his being called up. In the event of a man being entitled to a gratuity, it is quite obvious that the man would get his gratuity in any case.

§ General PHILIPPS
And not refund it?

§ Mr. BARNES
And not refund it. In the case of a conditional pension, it depends on when he is called up. There are men who get conditional pensions running for twelve months. If a man in nine months is fit, in the opinion of the medical gentlemen under the new provisions for medical re-examination, three months of the pension has to run, and of course that three months would still run and he would get the pension for that three months. In the event of such a man being called up after the expiration of the twelve months, there is no question of a pension, because he would not be any longer on pension.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The important point is, if a man is receiving a permanent pension for some physical defect, such as the loss of an eye. If such a man is called up for service will he get his pension?

§ Mr. BARNES
Certainly.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Certainly!"I will give him a case which I have had for a month or six weeks before his Department, and which has not yet been decided. It is the case of a man who had a permanent pension for service in the South African War of 7s. 6d. per week. At the outbreak of the War, Lord Kitchener made an appeal for volunteers. It was expressly stated in that Bill that if an old soldier in receipt of a pension volunteered, he would not be in any way prejudiced. What has happened? That man, who volunteered, is being discharged again, as a result of wounds, and he has lost that pension of 7s. 6d. and is now given a pension of 5s. I want my right hon. Friend to deal with that actual case.

§ Mr. BARNES
If my hon. Friend had read our new Warrant with his usual care, 845 he would find that that case is expressly provided for. Up to now a service pension has been taken from a man's new pension; it will no longer be so taken. In regard to the general question as to whether or not a man given a permanent pension and called up will obtain that pension, the answer is in the affirmative. That is to say, if doctors are foolish enough to call men up who have permanent pen-

§ Sir MAURICE LEVY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in such manner"["for examination in such manner and within such time"], and to insert instead there of the words "by a Medical Board of not less than two doctors, one of whom should be his own doctor if he so desire."
The fact that there are so many men in the Army at the present time who ought not to be here I think justifies one in asking that there shall be some Amendment of the kind I propose. A further reason to justify a change is, I think, that at the present time, we are told, there are a million men, many of whom ought to be in the Army and are not there. It may be said that it is not necessary to have a Medical Board such as I propose, because, at the present time, there is an appeal to the Central Medical Board. Everyone recognises the great difficulty that involves. Therefore, I want what may be called a court of first instance upon which the people can rely. I want, if possible, to get two questions answered by my hon. Friend in charge of this Bill. Are we to understand that everyone who has been rejected is to be re-examined? I also want to know whether there are any definite instructions in reference to the present system of calling up men to be re-examined. I gave yesterday an instance which came under my own notice of a totally unsuitable man having been placed in the Army just recently. I read last night in the "Evening Standard" of further men totally unfit being called up. The paragraph was as follows: Halt and maimed called.—Among the men rejected last year under the Military Service Act in the Bromley (Kent) district who have now received notices ordering them to go before a medical board again are a man with one arm, another who has lost both arms, and a third with only one leg. The notice seems to presume that some who receive it are likely to prove queer recruit?, for it reads. "If, owing to the state of your health or permanent disablement, it is impossible for yon to attend the medical board at Maidstone, please return this notice with certificate from your medical attendant certifying your inability to travel. If, under the existing system—"in such manner"—such a occurrence as that is likely to recur, then I think I am justi- 848 fied in asking that there should be some system whereby those men who are examined, and are proved to be thoroughly incapable, shall not again be called up. This, I hope my hon. Friend will realise, is not a controversial matter, and does not really in any way infringe on the principle of his Bill. It is merely a question of whether, if you are going to call up these 1,000,000 men for re-examination, the medical staff is adequate to do it under the existing circumstances. The Bill provides no finalty as to the number of times a man may be called up, but, under my proposal, I believe, you would establish a system whereby a military authority would not call up again a man who is found by the board, which I suggest, to be a chronic invalid. It would save a great deal of trouble, the country would be saved a great deal of expense, and there would he no possibility of unsuitable men being drafted into the Army.

§ Mr. T. DAVIES
I wish to press this point upon the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for more reasons than one. My chief reason is because we want those men in the Army who are fit, and we want to leave those who are unfit outside the Army. We were told by a very high military authority amongst the Government that the last thing the Government wished was to get unfit men in the Army, because they caused more trouble than anything else in the Service. I suggest that if a thorough medical examination is made such trouble will be saved in the future. I have a case which only came into my hands yesterday which shows how careless the examinations have been in many cases. I think it is worth while reading a paragraph or two from what I have here. On the 12th of February a farmer wrote to me saying that his son. who was rejected in March last, had been again suddenly re-examined and called upon, although he was totally unfit. He gave as his reason that three doctors had said that the boy was totally unfit to serve at all, and his physical unfitness was set out in which it was stated that he was delicate from birth, could not take proper school- 849 ing, and was allowed to stand at the back and learn what the could; his physical weaknesses were: suffering from pneumonia and a weak nervous system, nearly blind in one eye, a weak heart, extremely tender feet, and other physical infirmities.
In January last he had pneumonia, and the week before this letter was sent to the War Office he had to undergo inoculation twice, and within nine days of that and on the 12th of this month I received a letter from the father saying that nothing had been done for his boy, who was totally unfit. Yesterday I received a letter saying that the boy was admitted to the military hospital at Cannock Chase, Rugeley Camp, suffering from spinal fever, and he died on the 6th. Six days before that I received a letter from the War Office saying this young man was quite fit to serve in the Army, and yesterday we received the letter I have read. I do not want that kind of thing to occur over and over again. What good was that young man in the Army, blind with one eye, his lungs bad, and, as a matter of fact, he has never done any service in the Army all the time, and eventually he was sent to the hospital, and the following day he died. If we had a proper medical examination, as suggested in the Amendment, cases such as this could not occur. We had a promise from the Leader of the House that a very careful examination would be made in these cases, but I think it would be far better to see it in the Bill, and, therefore. I hope the Government will meet my hon Friend in regard to this Amendment.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am afraid that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. It would mean, of course, on the face of it, that a man would have a statutory right to be examined by his own doctor.

§ Sir M. LEVY
The proposal is that his own doctor should be one of a board. You may make your board two, three, four, or as many as you like.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The proposal is that he should be examined by a board of not less than two doctors, of whom one should be his own doctor, if he so desires.

§ Sir M. LEVY
You can make your board as large as you like, and your own people may have the majority of the votes.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am coming to the question of the largeness of the board, 850 but I am now dealing with the question of making it a statutory right that a man should be examined by his own doctor

§ Sir M. LEVY
In consultation with your own men.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I know. It seems to me that would be quite impossible. In the first place, many doctors might decline to serve; and there is the other point, that most of the civilian doctors are now in the Army—some of them in Mesopotamia, some in Egypt, and some in other theatres of war. If, therefore, you gave a statutory right to a man, if ho so desired, to be examined by his own doctor, it would mean in many cases that men would never be got into the Army by this Bill. I can assure my two hon. Friends, who have spoken very fairly, that the assurance we gave yesterday that the medical re-examination would be very thorough is a definite assurance. If I take sixty-three medical boards at random all over the country, we have a proportion of about two to one civilian practitioners upon them, and in future a man will not be examined by any individual doctor, but by a board. In view of that assurance, and in view of the fact that it will be quite impossible, as I think I have shown, in every case for a man to be examined by his own doctor, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

§ Sir M. LEVY
I will not press it; but is the board to be a similar board to that of which I gave particulars, a travelling board which went to a certain town and examined something like seventy men in an hour and twenty minutes? One man who came under my direct notice was called up at twenty-four hours' notice. Within a week he was in hospital. He was in hospital eight weeks, and has now been rejected. He was totally unsuited for any work in the Army, and any man who had any knowledge of medicine or of human beings would have known at a glance that he was totally incapable.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Of course, I cannot guarantee that any board will be absolutely infallible, because the human judgment of doctors sometimes goes wrong, like the human judgment even of lawyers or of politicians; but I am giving the assurance, which I believe to be an absolute and definite assurance, that we shall constitute the boards with the very best civilian doctors. At the present time the country is denuded of most of its 851 doctors. They are fighting strenuously in all the theatres of war, and it may be that the best medical talent is not available in the country, or at any rate in the country districts. I think we are doing the best we can; we are guaranteeing that in future a man, particularly when he comes up for re-examination, shall be carefully examined. Of course, it helps a doctor a great deal if he is told that a man has been discharged for a certain definite complaint. He at once attempts to diagnose that complaint. In view of that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. E. HARVEY
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the system he proposes will provide any method of appeal where the civilian medical evidence is contrary to the finding of the board? If he could give an assurance on that point, I am sure it would give great satisfaction to the country generally.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I do not think I can give any assurance, but I think my hon. Friend's point is met. I would remind him that of the boards referred to, taken at random, two-thirds of the members are civilian doctors.

§ Mr. WING
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not favoured this Amendment more than he has done. If he objects to the word "shall," I am sure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would agree to the insertion of the word "may." That would be an advantage to the Army itself, because the Army is not always wrong, and even its medical officers are not always wrong. I had a case in my Constituency in which a certain decision was given, and the man afterwards asked that he might have his own doctor present. That was granted by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He said it was a fair proposition on my part. It was a matter in which a medical board had given a certain decision, and there was great dissatisfaction with it. I asked if the War Office would have any objection to a further examination in the presence of the man's own private doctor, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office quite agreed with the suggestion.

§ Mr. FORSTER
No, Sir, I am very sorry I cannot accept that.

§ Mr. WING
I will send the hon. Gentleman particulars of the case, and he will remember it at once. When the ex- 852 amination was made and the man's own doctor was present the result was in favour of the previous decision. It would give confidence in the country if the Government accepted the proposal that the men should have their own doctors present if they so desire.

§ Mr. HUDSON
I would ask the hon. Gentleman one question with regard to men who were discharged from the Army at the latter end of 1915 and the early part of 1916 because they were too short for the Service. There is a great number of cases of that character in which men have been with the Colours for two, three, and even six months and then discharged on the slight ground that they were about a half-inch too short. What is the intention of the Army authorities with regard to that class of men? I know of one case where a man was trained for six months and then a wonderful discovery was made by some person that he was not fit for a soldier. Although he was in excellent health and had no physical complaint, his discharge papers say Half inch too short. He had lost his business, of course. He was a single man in business on his own account. He was turned out of the Army and had to find his way back into civil life, in which he still is. What is the intention of the Army authorities with regard to that class of men?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That hardly arises on this Amendment.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I am sorry that the War Office has done nothing to advance some little way towards the spirit and intention of this Amendment. There is a whole range of cases in which it would be very desirable indeed that there should be a closer consultation between the Army doctor and the man's own private doctor. There are cases that require the skill of a specialist and with which the War Office doctor is not necessarily quite competent to deal. There are eases of nerve trouble, and so on, and a doctor may be the most skilful in many ways in the world, but if he is only brought face to face with the man and speaks to him for a few minutes I defy him to diagnose the real physical condition of the man. I believe any doctor would be something of a quack who would pretend that he is able to state the exact physical condition of a man by a cursory and perfunctory examination lasting a few minutes.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
He could not do so.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
And yet thousands of men are passed into the Army on the strength of something which the Under-Secretary for War admits cannot be done You are now not dealing with the ordinary class of case. The assumption was at first that you were dealing with men who were physically fit. The assumption now is that the men you are calling back before the doctors are physically unfit, because in most cases they have already been examined and have been turned down by the doctors, and in a great many cases the troubles were chronic and very often they were troubles of a specialist character. Why should it be impossible for the War Office to call in the special aid of the man's own family doctor, if he is a doctor of repute who has attended the man, not for a few months, but for years, and knows his exact condition? I believe in many cases Army doctors were asked to see men for a few minutes and are often harder and sterner than they would be, because they are afraid a man may be pretending to have an ailment that he really has not got. What could be more valuable as a check upon that, in regard to getting the right thing done, than to have in the family doctor who knows the man, who has been attending him for years, and who can consult privately with the Army doctor, and tell him what the real condition of the man is? Surely it is not impossible, even if you cannot go quite as far as the Amendment goes, to find some check and to get some middle way, at any rate, in regard to the matter.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think I can meet the hon. Member. I think we might very well give a direction to the medical board in every case to consider a medical certificate which might be submitted to them from the recruit's own doctor.

§ Sir W. BEALE
Will that be retrospective in cases which have already occurred of that kind?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I cannot see very well how it could be retrospective. It will meet the case of any man who has been examined and comes up again.

§ Mr. HUDSON
Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question with regard to short men?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That does not arise on this Amendment. It is a general question on the Bill.

§ Colonel GREIG
I have had some experience of the operation of the ordinary medical boards that come round to examine the men, and my experience has been this: Although mistakes are made, there is a very small percentage indeed. I have been in contact with the medical officers who compose these boards—not one board alone, but several—and in my opinion they are all men who take their duties seriously to heart and very carefully examine every case that comes before them. They usually nave sitting with them an officer not of the unit to which the man belongs who comes before them, but an officer, usually the commanding officer, of another unit. Something of that sort might be adopted under this general revision. The tribunal need not be confined entirely to medical men. It should have on it men with general experience of the kind of material chat has come before us during this War to be taken into the training units. The suggestion which has fallen from the Under-Secretary for War is, to my mind, a very sound one, because, with regard to these men whom you are re-examining, men who have been disabled and have been discharged from the Army for that reason, or for ill-health, there will be the record on the papers connected with their discharge, and that will be an indication to the officers on the medical board of the nature of the man's complaint. At present it is constantly the case if a man can produce a document from someone who has attended him in the past that the medical board pay attention to it, and there is no reason at all why that should not continue to be done so long as due care is taken. As to the men bringing their own private medical attendants, I do not think that a very practical suggestion, because, in many cases, these doctors are now away, probably over the sea, or somewhere else, and it would be in very few cases that the men would be able to command their assistance. On the whole, I think the suggestion of the Under-Secretary will meet the case perfectly fairly.

§ Sir M. LEVY
I am satisfied with the statement of my hon. Friend, and beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. KING,
I beg to move, in Sub-section (c). to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-one"
This Amendment raises the question of the amount of time that ought to be allowed between the posting of the notices and the man having to present himself. I have put down a rather long period of time, but I should be very glad to compromise on fourteen days. I have stated my terms, but I am willing to bring them down. Obviously, at the present time the postal service is very disorganised. I constantly find that letters from London do not reach my country home, which is less than fifty miles from London, under two days, and there is no certainty of getting a letter in a shorter time. Further than that the Whips sent to me, which formerly were delivered by the first post in the morning do not now arrive until the afternoon, two or three hoars after I have been in attendance at this House. The postal arrangements of this country are in a state of complete disorganisation, and will be still more disorganised before we have done with this War. Then many of the men who will be called up will have changed their residences. Especially if this scheme of National Service is to become operative, and men are to be drawn from one part of the country to the other, where labour is most required, men will tend to change their places of abode and to go to work in other places as they are required, and where they will go at half-an-hour's notice. Therefore, I think that there is very real ground for extending the period from seven days to at least fourteen days. There is another reason, and it is that apparently these notices are not to be sent by registered post. I have an Amendment on this point later. I have already approached those who are acting with the hon. Gentleman to see whether we could have it provided in the Bill that these notices, which have to be sent by post, and on which so much depends for the men, should be sent by registered post, but the answer I got was a clear non possumus. Apparently the War Office are going to refuse to send these most important notices by registered post.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member desire to discuss all his Amendments in one?

§ Mr. KING
No, I will conclude by moving this one.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think the Committee will agree that seven days is a reasonable notice, and I would ask the Committee to say that that should remain as the notice.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
I would like to urge upon the hon. Gentleman that seven days is not adequate. Suppose a man is a commercial traveller. A letter takes a couple of days to get to his house, and then it has to follow him somewhere in the country, and he has to make his arrangements to get back. There are a great many cases of that sort, in which seven days is not a reasonable notice, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to fourteen days.

§ Mr. KING
Or even ten.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Another reason why my hon. Friend should give way is that if a man does not comply with the notice he is liable to a fine of £5, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Somerset, everybody who is receiving letters to-day whether personal or business letters, knows the state of the post from time to time. I think a man who is recalled ought to have a fair chance of complying with the Order, and I should imagine that it is not beyond the ability of my hon. Friend to arrange for an extension of the period of time.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I will agree to fourteen days.

§ Sir M. LEVY
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
"Provided that no man shall be required to submit himself for re-examination within six months of his previous and last rejection or discharge."
The object of my Amendment is to make paragraph (c) correspond to the latter part of the Bill, which gives a man six months notice prior to being called up for re-examination. The Bill provides that he can have six months after he has been re-examined before being called up again, and I take it to be an omission or oversight in the drafting of the Bill that 857 the same provision should not be applicable to the man in the first instance. The words "and last" which I desire to insert in my Amendment are important, because the man may have been up two or three times, as I know many men have been. I also feel that to bring this Amendment into harmony with the other parts of the Bill, there should be added the words "or discharged." A great many men probably in the Reserve have only recently been discharged.

§ Mr. SHAW
The intention of the hon. Member is to effect the Amendment which I had down at a later stage on the Paper, and I think that it is also the intention of the Government. I gathered, and I know that some other Members of the House gathered, from the words which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that men who had been rejected by the board a few weeks or months before the passing of this Act, were not to be unfairly discriminated against. I think that that intention is not carried out as the Bill stands. The short effect of the Amendment is to make the period of grace, which a rejected man has without being harassed, date in all oases from the time of his rejection whether it was before or after the passing of the Act. The effect of the Clause as it stands is so absurd that I am sure the hon. Member, who is noted for his commen sense as well as for his Highland fervour, would not have tolerated it if he had understood its true purpose. The effect, as the Clause stands, is that if a man is rejected to-day, then next week, when the Bill is law, he may be called upon to present himself again, and he has hanging over him this contingency, which will hamper and embarrass all his thoughts and business plans, whereas if a man is rejected next week by the same board in exactly the same circumstances he will be able to go back to his business with an easy mind, knowing that he cannot be harassed for at least six months.
I cannot imagine any cause for this inequality of treatment. No one has been shown or suggested, and if it is fair to give six months' grace to the man rejected next week, the same argument must apply to the case of a man rejected now or a month ago. I can only imagine one defence. That is, that some vital change has been made in the constitution or authority of the medical boards, and that after the Act is passed these medical 858 boards will suddenly—though I do not see how they are affected—become so good that six months' freedom from harassing may be given to the man whom they reject. Now my hon. Friend's theory is that they are so bad that their deliberate and final rejection of a man during the last few weeks or months, and the document on which they reported, should be treated as waste paper. That is the only defence in logic which can be put up. If that is the only defence, what is the amount of confidence which the hon. Member and his colleagues in the War Office place in the decisions of their own medical body, and how can they expect this House to accept the eulogies which they are so fond of showering upon them whenever their conduct is called in question?
I do not for one moment share the view that the medical boards, those who conduct these examinations, do other than conduct them with the utmost care and circumspection. I believe, as has been repeatedly said by my hon. Friend, that they have made very few mistakes considering the enormous amount of work they have to do, and the great pressure under which they have to do it. This Amendment affects only a very small fringe of the men, and the effect of the Clause, even if allowed to remain as it is in the Bill, would add a very small contribution to the Army. It causes what I consider to be a grave and unjust discrimination between man and man. I feel bound to add that this is one of those things which are so apt to creep into War Office legislation and cause infinite trouble in the Army—one of those things on which the House of Commons should keep, perhaps, a friendly but at any rate a cautious and watchful eye. I oppose the Clause as it stands, because it is anomalous, and I venture to say almost ridiculous, and because it is unjust between one man and another. I do hope the hon. Gentleman whose courtesy and fairness are a very great asset to the War Office which he represents in this House, will think twice before inflicting on a considerable number of men in this country this great anomaly and very gross injustice.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I accept the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend, and so ably seconded by my hon. and gallant Friend. We quite realise that it might be a reproach that men who are actually rejected on medical grounds are to be re-examined, but the 859 men we want to get at are the men who have been rejected either by fraud or by good fortune. If the House agrees to the Amendment, we might be able to suggest means whereby we could get at those men who have been rejected on medical grounds, either by fraud or fortune, and I should think we ought to be able to devise some form of words. I would like to alter the wording of the Amendment, if possible, on the Report stage.

§ Sir M. LEVY
Do you accept the Amendment as it stands now?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Yes.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
On the Report stage it will be brought up again?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Yes.

§ Sir M. LEVY
The hon. Member accepts my Amendment, and on Report he will put in the words which he wishes to insert?

HON. MEMBERS
"Agreed, agreed!"

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
May I ask the Leader of the House how long we are going on? We have had a very fair discussion carried on in the best of spirits on both sides, and I suggest that six o'clock at least would not be an unreasonable hour to terminate the work.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
When I put the Motion down I had no intention of keeping the House late, and I adhere to that, but I hope we will be able to rise, if not precisely, at the hour named by the right hon. Gentleman, yet somewhere about that hour. What I suggest is that the House should let us have the Committee stage, if it can, to-night. May I take this opportunity of stating that the taking of this Bill on Monday will make an alteration in the Adjournment. I had hoped to get all the stages to-day, and in that case we could have had the Adjournment on Tuesday. Now it must go through another place, and that being so we cannot have the Adjournment before Wednesday, assuming that this Bill goes through all its stages. We propose to take the Education Estimates on Tuesday and the Adjournment on Wednesday, on the assumption that this Bill goes through.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I had some cases brought to my attention which this Bill 860 will meet, and I understand that on Report the hon. Gentleman will introduce words so that there shall be no mistake. Amendment agreed to.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have received a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) providing that the Bill shall not apply to a man who is forty-one years of age prior to notice served under this Bill. I think that case is already dealt with.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I think not. Paragraph (c) states: "a man who has been previously rejected on any ground either after offering himself for enlistment or after becoming subject to the Military Service Acts, 1916."Those words seem to me to be very wide and to bring in men who may have offered themselves for enlistment prior to the Military Service Acts. I think therefore, in view of that, we require some statement from the Government as to whether there is any intention of applying this to men who are forty-two or forty-three at present.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will move the Amendment, so that he may get an explanation.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
"Provided that the Section shall not apply to a man who has been rejected and has attained to forty-one years of age prior to having notice served upon him under this Act."

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I hope my hon. Friend, his Amendment being in the nature of an inquiry, will not press it. The answer to his question as to whether a man is or is not under the Bill depends on the circumstances of his rejection. If his rejection has not amounted to a discharge, he is within the present Act.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Many men who were rejected never got any evidence of discharge, or any reasons for their rejection. Many men have got nothing to show that they were rejected, although they were, and many certificates of rejection were torn up by the recruiting authorities and are not now in existence.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I do not think that the statement of my hon. Friend leaves the matter perfectly clear, and I think that in: a matter of this kind we should be clear Under the last Acts the date for determining the age at which a man should come 861 in was known as the "appointed day." If he reached the age of forty-one before that day he was not accepted. In this case we have men who may have been rejected on very good grounds, and who have now attained the age of forty-one. I do not think there is much good in taking into the Army men who were forty years of age and who were discharged on the ground of disability. I think the words which my hon. Friend proposes, to limit the age, are to the advantage of the Bill, because they make it clear that if a man reaches forty-one before receiving a notice that then no notice will be sent. I should be inclined to lower the age, and I think that if a man has been suffering from a disability it would be advisable to have a lower age fixed than forty-one. In the French Bill, while forty-five is the usual age, for men rejected or discharged the age is forty, on the grounds that such men are likely to be of less physical efficiency.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I think we cannot leave the matter where it is, because if anyone will read the Bill again they will find the words are very wide—
"A man who has been previously rejected on any grounds, either after offering himself for enlistment"—
apparently at any time, even under the Derby Scheme, or before the coming into operation of the Military Service Acts—
"or after becoming subject to the Military Service Acts, 1916."
Under that provision there might be men forty-five years of age, or more, who are now going to come in under this Act, and I think that we ought to get some definite assurance as to whether there is going to be a limit, and, if so, what the limit will be.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
As my hon. Friend knows, the age limit in the Act still applies. I can state explicitly now that a man must be under forty-one thirty days after receiving notice.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
Under this new Act?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Certainly.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Will you put it in the Bill?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
It is not necessary.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I am afraid we must get something more than this, because we 862 have so often had assurances that it was not necessary to put something into a Bill, and then, later on, men whose cases we were advocating in this House have found themselves let down by the fact that it was not in the Bill and that the War Office could make its own arrangements. I am quite satisfied with that statement, but I want it put into the Bill, and if it is I will at once withdraw any further opposition.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I think it is in the Bill. If the hon. Member will look at the first part of Sub-section (1) he will see that the Act applies to any man who is, for the time being, excepted from the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916. Consequently, the whole of the rest of the Clause applies only to men who are at present excepted from the operation of those Acts.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Yes, but these men who were excepted did not attain the age of forty-one before 30th June or 15th June, 1916, which is quite a different thing. A man may attain the age of forty-one at any period after this. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that the date is thirty days after receiving the notice. In my reading of this Act it is not so. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. McNeill) referred to words in the beginning of the Sub-section: "Any man who is for the time being excepted from the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916."A man excepted on these grounds must not have reached the age of forty-one before 15th June, 1916. That was the date which applied to the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1916. That is the only date which can apply, and I ask how can the date of thirty days after receiving the notice be reached in view of that?

§ Major ROTHSCHILD
It seems to me that this is a dispute about a needless matter, because it is quite clear that a man is not under the operation of the Military Service Act until thirty days after receiving notice, as stated by the Under-Secretary. What has not been understood by this House is that in case of a man receiving a pink notice form the age limit is 1st October, and not, as possibly might have been imagined, July or June. It is recognised that a man who was forty-one years of age on 1st October is out of the measure. If the War Office recognise that, I think they can be trusted to recognise similar circumstances in the measure which is now before the House.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The point in the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow has been covered, I think, in the discussion we have already had on medical re-examination.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I do not want to reopen the question of medical re-examination, but I submit to you, Mr. Whitley, that the point my hon. Friend raises is a different point. It does not supersede the existing machinery, but as a safeguard, provides an appeal from that machinery. I do not wish to enter into argument, but my object in wishing to move this Amendment is to Fay this: we have received assurances from the Under-Secretory that the examination is to be made. I have no doubt that as far as he is concerned, he will do his best to see that that is so. I am, however, constitutionally sceptical of Ministerial assurances, and I think it-is always advisable, so far as possible, to obtain statutory safeguards. The safeguard which is put into this Amendment seems to me to be a valuable safeguard. I do not press my hon. Friend to accept it now, but I think the least the Committee can ask of him is that he should consider, between now and Report stage, whether it is possible to give the safeguard of appeal. I do not desire to discuss the matter, but I move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend to give an opportunity to the Under-Secretary to tell us how the matter stands.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am grateful to by hon. Friend for his conciliatory attitude. In a previous discussion I repeated an assurance that we were going to do our level best to get the best possible board to meet the case. As my hon. Friend knows, no doctors are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Hon. Members know perfectly well what I mean—I mean good doctors are not available in sufficient numbers. I have 864 spoken so much to-day that I wanted to cut it short. In view of those facts, I think my hon. Friend will realise that, if I cannot arrange anything, it is quite impossible.

§ Mr. KILEY
I would like to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary of Slate for War that there should be an appeal of some kind or other from the ordinary medical board. It has been my duty for the last twelve months, as chairman of a tribunal, to deal with medical cases, and I can assure the House that no more dismal task has ever been put before a body of men. The reports coming to us from the various medical boards have been so puzzling, so bewildering, so much against the other evidence, that we have been time after time at our wits' ends to deal with the matter. I will give two illustrations which, I think, show the need of an Appeal Board of some kind or other. One individual was passed for general service, although he produced evidence that he was suffering from internal ulcers, was unfit for physical work of any kind, and was living on a special diet. We thought that was a case for re-examination. He was sent to be re-examined, and, in spite of the evidence which was placed before the re-examining board, they confirmed the action of the first board. The result of their action was that the man went to military service. He was fourteen days in the Army and four and a half months in the hospital at Salisbury Plain. Owing to inability to feed him through his throat the man had to be fed through his back. I thought it a glaring case, and communicated with the senior medical officer at Scotland Yard, calling attention to the need of some punishment being inflicted on the second medical board who had thus acted, in spite of their attention having been called to the possibility of a mistake. I received a letter back regretting the needless agony inflicted on this man—

§ The CHAIRMAN
Really we must not have a general discussion on this matter. We had that earlier in the afternoon. It is only permissible now to deal with the special case raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.

§ Mr. KILEY
It is, of course, only to show the need of there being an appeal of some kind or other, but if I am out of order I will cease.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I think this is a most important point, and if it could be 865 cleared up now it might determine the attitude certain Members of the House take with regard to this Amendment. There are Amendments further on the Paper to get for these re-examined persons the right of appeal to tribunals against the decision of the examining authority, and if we could get to know from the Government what their attitude is going to be to those Amendments, we might afford, I think, to let this Amendment pass, but not otherwise.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have looked at those Amendments to which the hon. Member refers, and I understood that all rights of appeal to tribunals were preserved.

§ Mr. NIELD
It is not so, because the Amendment I have put down is for the express purpose of asking the Government to meet in the Statute the promise they often gave that the attested man would be no worse off than the conscript. The attested man has never been allowed to make the question of health a ground of appeal. In the moment of patriotism men attested without regard to health, and from that day onwards they were told they would have all the rights of tribunals when tribunals were set up. They were never permitted to raise the question of health, because it was held that they were precluded by their attestation, and the promise was broken that such men should be no worse off than conscripts. In practice they have always been worse off, and so I have put down an Amendment—it is too wide, I know—that when a man, upon re-examination, is brought in after his rejection, that man, whether attested or conscript, shall have the right of appeal to a tribunal.

§ Sir F. LOWE
I understood you to say, Mr. Chairman, that this Amendment is out of order?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, Sir. With regard to the point which the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) has just referred to, I think the best way to deal with the matter would be to dispose of the present Amendment and then get on with the other.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The manuscript Amendment handed in to me by the hon. 866 Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), to leave out Sub-section (2), I am afraid will kill the Bill.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
May I point out that this Sub-section goes much further than is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill simply proposes a review of exceptions, and this Sub-section withdraws exceptions and provides that a man to whom a notice is sent is deemed to be a soldier. Under the original Act he was excepted for all time from service. Consequently, if you say that sending him a notice is sufficient to deem him a soldier, that is withdrawing the exception without the review. I think these words go much further than the title of the Bill requires.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think the Bill would have that effect without this Sub-section. However, the hon. Member may move his Amendment.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I beg to move to leave out,
"(2) Any man to whom a notice is so sent shall, as from the date of the notice, be deemed to come within the operation of Section one of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), and not to be excepted there from as being un-suited for foreign service, or as being a disabled man, or as having been previously rejected, as the case may be; and the Military Service Acts, 1916, shall apply accordingly."

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
Is it not extremely desirable that we should have a Law Officer of the Crown present to explain the effect of these words. Just now we had a question as to how long a man of forty-one was liable to service and there was nothing authoritative given to us on that point. I respectfully submit that it is much too bad that there is not somebody here to answer questions of interpretation.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I have hot seen this Amendment.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I handed it to my hon. Friend, and I afterwards went to his advisers. It seems to me to be an extremely important point to determine the date at which a man is to be a soldier. If he is deemed to be a soldier and does not comply with the conditions then he becomes a deserter. That is why I wish to have the date made clear and not depend upon notice being sent by the War Office. There is a penalty in Sub-section (3) to the 867 effect that if a man fails to comply with the notice he shall be liable to a fine of £5 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. If a notice is sent to him, whether he receives it or not, he is a soldier. I do not think this should depend upon notice in the slightest degree, because whether a man is to be a soldier or not should depend upon whether there is some examination. The receipt of the notice seems to me to be a totally illusory method of determining whether a man should be a soldier in the Army or not. It is entirely on account of the penalties that I object, and on these grounds I think my hon. Friend should offer some explanation.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My hon. Friend asks me the date when a man becomes a soldier. He becomes a soldier thirty days after his receipt of the notice, and if he has not received the notice he does not become a soldier.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I must protest against that interpretation. It is contrary to all common sense—
"Any man to whom a notice is so sent shall, as from the date of the notice, be deemed to come within the operation of Section 1 of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2)."

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
If the view of my hon. Friend is correct would he be prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), making the Subsection read: "Any man by whom a notice has been received"? If he would, it would do away with some of the objections put by my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Let me make the point clear. Section 1 of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), says that "a man is deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve as from the appointed day." What is the appointed day? The appointed day is thirty days after he comes within the operation of that Section; that is to say, thirty days after he has been served with the notice.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
He has been served with a notice, but he has not necessarily received it.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Quite; unless he has received the notice he is not deemed to be enlisted.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
Unfortunately, in the present confused state of the post, 868 there is a difference between having a notice sent to him and actually receiving it.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
We are dealing with that later on.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
If a man is sent a notice, he is liable to the pains and penalties of the Military Service Act, 1916, and, amongst other things, he may be deemed to be a deserter, and be punished as a deserter.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
That Amendment is coming in its due course. My right hon. Friend is anticipating a point which is to be raised very soon. When we come to that point, I think I can make it perfectly plain—I intended to dp so—that a man will not be subject to any pains or penalties if he can show that he has not received that notice.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I cannot understand how, the hon. Gentleman can maintain the position which he has just stated in view of the wording of this Clause. It is quite evident, at any rate to the lay mind, that this Clause overrides that provision in the Military Service Act which the hon. Gentleman has just read out. It is quite true that the principal Act says that a man is deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve as from the appointed day, but the appointed day has long since gone by except in the case of boys who reach the age of 18, and they are still entitled to 30 days' notice before they can be deemed to be soldiers. The Clause as it now appears in the Bill is not capable of that interpretation. It is capable only of the interpretation put upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). A recruiting officer can at any time decide when these men shall be deemed to be soldiers. At the present time these men are exceptions to the Act. They are not subject to it. They are men who have already been deemed to be soldiers by the operation of that Clause in the principal Act.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I quite see the hon. Member's point, and I have no doubt in my own mind at all that it is met, but I will engage to see that his point is made perfectly clear on Report. I cannot go any further than that. I think we all mean the same thing. I am quite clear in my own mind that a man is deemed to 869 be transferred to the Reserve the thirtieth day after notice. I think the hon. Gentleman means the same thing, too.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I want it to mean that, hut it does not.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I can assure him that it does. I will look into it, and if I can make it clearer on Report, I will engage to do so.

§ Mr. G. THORNE
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is possible under these terms for any man who becomes forty-one before the passage of this Bill—

§ The CHAIRMAN
We dealt with that point an hour ago.

§ Mr. HOGGE
The difficulty that is confusing my mind is how can a man be deemed to be a soldier under this Bill until he has been examined and passed into the Army. What we want to make quite sure of is that within the period of receiving the notice and being called up for examination he is not to be subjected to any of the pains and penalties of the Military Service Act. I hope that will be made quite clear.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Are we to understand that the point of the hon. Gentleman is that the words cornea within the operation of Section 1 of the Military Service Act, 1916, mean that he comes within the provision of the principal Act, which says that he will be given thirty days before he is called to the Colours?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
That is the point.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
It is a legal point which I cannot decide, and upon which I should like to have a competent ruling.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "to"["any man to whom a notice is so sent"] and to insert instead thereof the word "by."
This continues the discussion of a matter which has just been before the Committee by taking up a very definite point, namely, the sending of the notice. The effect of the two Amendments which stand in my name is that, whereas the Sub-section now begins
"Any man to whom a notice is so sent,"
870 It will read, "Any man by whom a notice has been received." This is a vital and important matter, because the Under-Secretary himself has admitted that any man to whom a notice is sent will automatically become a soldier thirty days after the sending of the notice. It is quite clear that it will be possible, and probably of frequent occurrence, that a man may have a notice sent to him and know nothing about it, and that he will find, some days after, that he has been a soldier for some days, that he is an absentee and that he is arrested. Take the case, for instance, of a man who leaves his home and goes to a place like Liverpool or Hull and becomes a sailor. That man may, as soon as he returns home from a voyage, find that he has been a soldier a good number of days and that he is an absentee. As far as I can make out, the obvious course in a case like that would be that he would be arrested as an absentee and would be taken before a Police Court, or, if under the alterations that we sanctioned in the Army (Annual) Act this week, he voluntarily submits himself as a deserter, he will find himself in difficulties and trouble as having been a convicted or a self-confessed deserter from the Army. That is a probable case, and we ought to make the notice have effect on condition of having been received and not merely because it has been sent. I referred just now to an Amendment I have later, which is also important in this connection, that I would have all these notices sent by registered post. I understand the Government is going to refuse to have them sent by registered post. In these day's when postal arrangements are so uncertain, when so many young girls are performing the duties of postmen, unless the Government will accept something in the nature of this Amendment we shall have a great many cases of absentees and a great feeling of irritation, and probably the Government itself will have a great deal of trouble in searching after men whose notices have been lost. If they send registered letters or receipts which have to be returned, or something of that kind, they will get the information; but as the arrangements are now in the Bill I expect thousands of notices will be lost in the post, men will be assumed to be deserters, and we shall have a great deal of irritation, trouble, loss and expense to the War Office.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think it will save time if I say I will move later in the Clause to add the words,
"If a man fails to comply with a notice under this Section, he shall toe liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. A man shall not be liable to a penalty under this provision if he shows that he did not receive the notice or that owing to the loss of a limb he is permanently disabled from active military service."

§ Mr. KING
That is not quite the same. It throws the onus on the man of proving a negative. Admittedly that is a very hard thing for a poor man to do. It is a very difficult thing for a rich man in a Court of law, with K. O. 's and juniors, to prove a negative, but when a poor man who is totally ignorant has got to prove a negative in a Court of law against a military representative, he has no chance whatever. This is not quite good enough, and if I can get any support I shall press my Amendment. I do so really on the ground that it will give less trouble in the end to the War Office if they say. "We are not going to act upon this Bill, which we admit to be harsh and which we hate ourselves, unless we know that the man has received notice." I certainly shall press it to a Division if I can get a supporter.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am sorry my hon. Friend proposes to press this Amendment. I think it would be impossible for me—certainly it would be most difficult to do all he desires

§ Mr. KING
I admit you have gone a little way.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I can quite see my hon. Friend's difficulty. It is a common practice that the onus of proof should be on the man who is supposed to have received the letter.

§ Mr. KING
Yes, when you send it by registered post. If you do that, I will agree.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I can assure the hon. Member we did consider the question of sending notices by registered letter, but we had to bear in mind the work which it would cast upon a Department which is already under-staffed, largely because of the drafts made on it by the Army. It is not a question of avoiding 872 trouble. The trouble put upon our men in keeping watch over sending these notices will be infinitely greater than it would be if we merely handed them over to the Post Office. I hope, under the circumstances, the hon. Member will not press his Amendment further.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think this Amendment ought to be pressed, because of our experience in the past. In my own Constituency, a man was lifted out of his business premises, marched through the streets between two policemen, and put into the Army, because he could not prove he had not received a certain letter, which he never did receive. I brought the case to the notice of the War Office, and the man was got out of the Army and was apologised to. It is all right when my hon. Friend gets up and makes these promises. We know perfectly well, if it were left with him personally, the thing would be done properly, but it is left to machines after it passes from his office, and the machines break down over and over again. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset wants to provide that any hardship arising from the breaking-down of the machine shall not fall on the poor man, and that I submit is a very simple request. It is not as if we are dealing with men who are perfectly fit in health and entitled to be put under examination. We are dealing with a special class of men, and it is not fair that should they be unable to prove they have not received the letter, they should be subjected to these penalties. If my hon. Friend persists in pressing his Amendment I shall be happy to go into the Lobby with him. We do not want men, because of the breakdown of the machine, to be subjected to injustice.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
I have agreed with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in many things he has said during the course of this afternoon, but I rather vary from him now. I think the proposal put forward by the Government is a fair proposal, and it goes a long way to meet our contention. I would like to point out to my hon. Friend I do not think the substitution of these words would have prevented his constituent from undergoing the indignity which he did suffer. What was done by the War Office in that case was illegal, it would be equally illegal under this Bill, and an apology would be necessary in each case. It could only be after he had been marched through the 873 streets under an escort. That is the kind of thing we want to prevent. I think the proposal of the War Office is a fair proposal, and, so far as I am concerned, although I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied, I am satisfied.

§ Mr. MARTIN
Under this Clause a man becomes practically a criminal without having received a notice. What the Government propose to do is to say that he has incurred this criminal liability, and he is to be brought up and punished for not presenting himself for re-examination in regard to which he has not heard a word. That seems a very strong course, especially after the Government refuse to allow the notice to be sent by registered letter. If a registered letter were sent there would be a very fair chance of the man getting it; at any rate, you might assume that he would get it; but in regard to a letter of this kind which is to be sent, you do not know that he will get it. How do you know his address? You do not know it. The record is there, but it is the record of long ago. In these times a great many people have changed their address, but according to the Government view a man is to be assumed to have got the notice whether he gets it or not. You can take any address you like, there is no limit, and the military authorities can make a mistake. We may fairly assume that they are liable to make mistakes, and the result may be that a man at once becomes a criminal, and he is charged with these pains and penalties. There is no relief for him under the Bill. The Bill says that he is liable if he does not present himself, and that is whether he has had the notice or not. The hon. Member proposes to help that a little, but I am not going to vote for the Clause as it stands, seeing that a man is to become criminally liable under a Statute when there may be nothing to show, but where the inference is strongly the other way, that he ever received a notice and could not possibly have presented himself for examination.

§ Mr. BILLING
Would it not be possible to serve these notices by registered post?

§ Mr. SHORTT
I am not quite satisfied with the words suggested. It is a question of onus, and in our county we have never allowed onus to be on the accused person. It is a question of proof that the man who is accused of being an absentee 874 received the notice, because clearly if he has not received the notice he is not an absentee. Suppose a man is charged and he comes before the magistrate, or whatever the tribunal may be, and he swears that he never got the notice. He has got no other proof. What other proof could the man have to prove the negative? They may not believe him, though he may be speaking the truth. That is not a fair position under what is in practice a portion of the criminal law. I suggest that we might very well put in such words as these: "He shall be liable, on proof that he received such notice, to summary conviction." The result would be that you would prevent an injustice. You have got the man or you could not bring him before the Court. Therefore, he has clearly got his notice by being before the Court. It would only mean giving him time to come up again; and if he did not, when you had brought him before the Court the second time his defence that he had not had notice would not avail him. The effect in regard to getting men would be very small, and at any rate you would prevent some grievous injustice being done.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I have pressed upon the Government many times—and I am glad to have made a convert of my hon. Friend—that they must not bring in these phrases which assume something and then put the onus of disengaging a man from a tangle upon the head of a poor person. My hon. and learned Friend is quite in error in thinking that this is new. I have fought the late Liberal Government time after time, and have been regarded by them as an obstructionist, on meddlesome little Bills like the Bee Diseases Bill, the Herring Fisheries Bill, and so on. Certainly, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as he then was, when I made the point to him, admitted that so far as he was concerned he was convinced, and he altered his Bills on that principle. I have had fight after fight on this, but none of them answered to the true Liberal democratic ring except the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend could not have been in the House at this particular time, or else he would have backed me. I am glad that he is doing it now. I appeal to the Government to give way on this matter. It is one of these small points by adhering to which they will not get any more men into the Army, but will simply cause questions to be put on the Paper here, and will add 875 to the correspondence which we get. It is not right, and it never can be right, to put the onus of proof upon some poor man of clearing himself. It is a vicious principle. When my right hon. Friend gave way on behalf of the Government at that time and agreed that that was not the kind of legislation which should be introduced I thought that the battle was won, and that this point would not crop up again.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
In reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Somerset I may say that, although it will cause a lot of work, which will have to be performed by a greatly depleted staff, I am willing to agree that those notices should be sent out by registered letter.

§ Mr. KING
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. E. HARVEY
I beg to move, after the word "sent," to insert the words "unless he shall lodge an appeal before his local tribunal within a period of seven days from the receipt of such notice."
I move this Amendment in order to have a statement from the Government because I think that it is of vital importance that men coming under this Bill should have an adequate opportunity of bringing whatever claims they have be fore their own tribunals. The two particular cases which I have in view are in the first place those who have entered into business obligations on the strength of the assurance which the Act of Parliament gave them, and that constitutes a claim which should be put before the tribunal, and I am sure that the Government would not wish them to be debarred from that. The other class is the difficult medical cases. The tribunal can ask for a special medical tribunal to be set up to give an opinion, if they cannot accept the findings of the medical tribunal in view of the strong medical evidence in another way. Both those cases are very important, and I am sure that, if the Government can make it quite clear that all men coming under this Bill will have a right to place their cases before the tribunal, it will give very great satisfaction, and make the passing of the Bill very much easier and its administration very much smoother.

Mr. RUNCIMAN
Before the hon. Gentleman replies will he inform the House how far he expects to get with the Bill to-night. I understand the Leader of the House suggested the time at which we might rise, and it would facilitate business if we could know how far the hon. Gentleman wishes to proceed to-night, and up to what time to-night.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I would like to get the whole Committee stage of the Bill, but I realise that the House has been very patient, and as it does not appear possible to get the whole of the Committee stage, I would like to get down to the end of Sub-section (2), which would include a number of Amendments. I do not think the other Amendments are of any very great interest.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
May I point out that it is absolutely impossible to take the Committee stage and the Report stage on Monday, because there would not be time after the Committee stage on Monday to put down Amendments for Report.

Mr. RUNCIMAN
We have not seen the Amendments on Report, and it would greatly facilitate our procedure if we could see them, because rather important topics may come up later. There is no desire on the part of the House to prolong the proceedings, and if we get to the end of Subsection (2), that may satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Would it not be better to print the Amendments on Report, not necessarily in the usual form, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing them before the Report stage?

Mr. RUNCIMAN
If it is possible to print the Government Amendments in Report form, as suggested by my hon. Friend, it would greatly facilitate our procedure.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I will endeavour to see that they are printed for Monday morning, if that is possible. With regard to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Harvey) it is really unnecessary as it is already covered by the Bill under Sub-section (1), where a man has thirty days from the date of notice within which to make application in the ordinary way to a tribunal.

Mr. E. HARVEY
There is one point on which the House would like to have 877 an assurance, though it would be more satisfactory if it appeared in the Bill that this is the intention of the Government. There are a number of ignorant men who know nothing about the intention of Parliament, and who would not know of this right of appeal, unless they have a clear statement on the notice, that if the man who receives the notice wishes to bring an appeal, he could bring it within thirty days. If the Government will consent to put into the notice some words which would bring the attention of a man to the fact that he has that right, it would entirely meet my point, and I believe would obviate any hardship on this matter. I hope my hon. Friend will give us some assurance on that point.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I will see to it.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Harvey) seems to me to restrict the ground of appeal to the question of physical health, but there are other important matters associated with this question. It has been a very common practice of the tribunal to act like this: A man goes before them having claims for exemption on a number of grounds, such as business, domestic hardship, or conscience. The man is told to submit himself to medical examination, and he is rejected. The tribunal then says, "It is no use considering the other grounds, because you are exempted." What is going to be the position of that man? Can he revive his former claim upon the other grounds than that of physical condition. It is most important that that right should be reserved, because he might be able to establish a clear for exemption on one of the other grounds. I have an Amendment later on dealing specifically with that wider aspect of the question.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the answer given was that all the rights of the principal Act were reserved under this Act with regard to appeals to tribunals. That is what I understood the answer to be.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Can the claims under business, or domestic hardship, or conscience, under the existing law, be revived?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Surely where a man is brought in by the operation of the Act he starts anew with all those rights.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
That is so.

§ Mr. NIELD
Whenever it has happened that a man has been moved into a superior category he has always been given the opportunity to raise domestic, or business, or conscientious grounds. That is what has happened in my tribunal, and I believe in many others.

Mr. HARVEY
I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and am glad that the hon. Gentleman will consider sending out some words with the notice to bring this right to the attention of the man.

Division No. 20.]	AYES.	[4.28 p.m.
Anstruther-Gray. Major William	Gibbs, Col. George Abraham	Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)
Archdale, Lieut. E. M.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Peto, Basil Edward
Astor, Hon. Waldorf	Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)	Phiilips, Sir Owen (Chester)
Baldwin, Stanley	Haddock, George Bahr	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pratt, J. W.
Barnett, Captain R. W.	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund
Barrie, H. T.	Haslam, Lewis	Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)
Barton, William	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Henry, Sir Charles	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Rothschild, Lionel de
Bellairs, Commander C. W.	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Rowlands, James
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hewart, Sir Cordon	Salter, Arthur Clavcil
Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton	Hills, John Waller	Samuels, Arthur W.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Shaw, Hen. A.
Boyton, James	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Shortt, Edward
Brace, Rt. Hon. William	Kellaway, Frederick George	Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Larmor, Sir J.	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Broughton, Urban Hanlon	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Brunner, John F. L.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Bryce, John Annan	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burdett-Coutts, William	Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Stewart, Gershom
Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald
Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick	Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert(Herts, Hitchin)	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Tickler, T. G.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Mackinder, Halford J.	Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Macmaster, Donald	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cory, James H. (Cardiff)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire. Crewe)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Whiteley, Herbert James
Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)	Macpherson, James Ian	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Craik, Sir Henry	Maden, Sir John Henry	Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page	Magnus, Sir Philip	Williams, T. J. (Swansea)
Currie, George W.	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M. (Beth'l Green, S. W.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wolmer, Viscount
Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward	Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza	Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.
Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)	Morgan, George Hay	Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)	Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Younger, Sir George
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Nield, Herbert	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Fletcher, John Samuel	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Forster, Henry William	Paget, Almeric Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Foster, Philip Staveley	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Gardner, Ernest	Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Primrose.
NOES.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Dillon, John	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.
Arnold, Sydney	Donelan, Captain A.	Holt, Richard Durning
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Doris, William	Hudson, Walter
Bliss, Joseph	Duffy, William J.	John, Edward Thomas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Essex, Sir Richard Walter	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Field, William	Joyce, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Keating, Matthew
Cosgrave, James	Gilbert, J. D.	Kiley, James Daniel
Crumley, Patrick	Hackett, John	King, Joseph
Cullinan, John	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.	Hazleton, Richard	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crieklade)
Lardner, James C. R.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Outhwaite, R. L.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lundon, Thomas	Partington, Oswald	Watt, Henry A.
Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Whitty, Patrick Joseph
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Pringle, William M. R.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Martin, Joseph	Reddy, Michael	Wing, Thomas Edward
Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Yeo, Alfred W.
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Molley, Michael	Scanlan, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Nolan, Joseph	Snowden, Philip	Anderson and Mr. Hogge.