Lords Sitting of 24 February 1916

LORD RHONDDA.
David Alfred Thomas, Esquire, having been created Baron Rhondda of Llanwern in the County of Monmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord De Freyne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Evictions (Ireland)—Return of Evictions in Ireland for the Quarter ended 31st December 1915:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
National Debt (Savings Banks and Friendly Societies)—

1. Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement at 6th August 1817 to 20th November 1915, inclusive: Of the aggregate amount of the separate surplus fund of all savings banks at 20th November 1915, and of the gross amount of all sums transferred to or paid out of such surplus fund in the course of the year ended 20th November 1915: And of all expenses incurred by the said Commissioners for salaries of clerks or other incidental expenses during the year ended 20th November 1915;

2. Account of the several transactions which have taken place, during the year ended 20th November 1915, in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies, &c.;

3. Statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively at 20th November 1915, &c.:

Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Urban District of Sutton-in-Ashfield and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within the said Urban District:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders declaring areas described in the schedules thereto to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914, numbered—

D.I.P. 358, dated 15th February 1916;

D.I.P. 359, dated 16th February 1916:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CANADA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
FERNDALE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
HORNSEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
YEADON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 7th of March next.

WOMEN FOR THE LAND.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the registration cards of women registered under the National Register of last year can be made available for Women's War Service County Committees.
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, owing to the great scarcity of labour in agricultural districts the Presidents of the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board have said how desirable it would be if women could be found all over the country to take the places of the men who have gone to the Front. In certain districts it has been easy to do that, but in other districts with which the noble Lord is acquainted as well as myself—namely, in the West of

187
England—there has been great difficulty in getting the registers made and finding women ready to come forward and undertake the agricultural work in the place of their husbands and brothers. My suggestion, which I hope the noble Lord will realise has some force in it, is that the cards of women who under the National Registration Act had to make a return exactly in the same way as men saying whether or not they were willing to undertake any war service should be made available for the purposes of the Women's War Service County Committees, which I believe the Government recognise. Through the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade the National Register cards, as far as men were concerned, were put at the disposal of the chairman of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee in every constituency in the country for the purpose of canvassing recruits under the Derby scheme. My suggestion to the Local Government Board is that in the same way women's cards, under proper restrictions, should be made available for the purpose of making a register of women who are prepared to offer their services upon the land to make good the present great scarcity of labour.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the question to which the noble Lord has called attention this afternoon is one in which your Lordships are all deeply interested. The President of the Board of Agriculture has by every means in his power notified to the people of the country the extreme necessity of supplementing by women's labour the great losses that agricultural labour has sustained by the men having gone to the Front. On January 19 last the Board of Agriculture issued a circular to the War Agricultural Committees which have been set up in each county under the auspices of the Board showing the arrangements made, by which canvassers acting under the recognised local committees can obtain, on application to the local Labour Exchanges, information of the names and addresses on the National Register of women who have stated their willingness to undertake agricultural work, and the Board believe that this arrangement will give to the local committees all the information they need. The President of the Board of Agriculture will be in his place in a moment, and I have no doubt that if my noble friend wishes to address to him any question relating to the Board the
188
noble Earl will be ready to answer it. General access to the National Register I am afraid cannot be granted. I may point out that when the Bill for the drawing up of the National Register was in Parliament great emphasis was laid on the fact that the information supplied would be treated as confidential and only employed for official purposes; and under Section 13 of the National Registration Act it is expressly laid down that the communication without lawful authority of any information acquired in the compilation of the Register is forbidden. A large amount of information is given on the registration form which would have no value for the War Service County Committees, and in view of the provision to which I have referred it is not possible to give free access to the National Register cards to the representatives of the various voluntary committees which the war has brought into being. At the same time I am sure that the Local Government Board in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture will be only too anxious to meet the wishes of the noble Lord and others interested in the matter and supply any information they legitimately can in regard to women's willingness to work on the land.
LORD STRACHIE: Now that the President of the Board of Agriculture is in his place perhaps he might support the application that I have made to my noble friend Lord Hylton, who I do not think quite understood me. I quite realise that these cards are confidential. But so were the cards that were filled up and returned by the men; yet those cards were put into the hands of the voluntary committees. I myself, as chairman of a Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, had the whole of those cards affecting my district placed in my hands; and I am asking the Local Government Board to do nothing more in the case of women than has been done in regard to men in the case of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committees. It is surely as important to get recruits for the land as it is to get recruits for the Army. As I say, I am only asking that the same treatment as has been given to the Parliamentary Recruiting Committees should be meted out to the Women's War Service County Committees with regard to women. For the life of me I cannot see what possible objection there can be to that course; on the contrary,

189
there must be the greatest possible advantage, because on the cards it is stated whether the women are willing to undertake work as well as what work they are willing to undertake. It would be a great advantage that we should know what women are ready to work, and if we knew that there would be a great saving of time in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, the question about which the noble Lord has spoken has been very carefully considered, not only by my Office, but by the Local Government Board and by my noble friend behind me, who has done so much to co-ordinate the different departments in respect of the use of the National Register. As the noble Lord knows, the National Register was confidential and its use was only put at the discretion of certain Departments for obvious public purposes. The purpose that the noble Lord has in his mind is an obvious public purpose, and I certainly understood that those who are responsible in this matter had agreed that the lists of what I may call potential women workers on the land—women who, in reply to the question what their profession was or to what war service they could turn, had entered "agriculture" —should be put at the disposal of the War Agricultural Committees and of t he Women's Committees that are now working under them. That, I think, is what the noble Lord wants.
LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If he will be good enough to write me a private note to the Board of Agriculture I shall be able to put the whole thing right, because I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Departments on this particular point.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there has been any extension of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the farm of the Somerset County Lunatic Asylum at Wells; and further, if there has been none, when the area of restriction will be reduced.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the President of the Board of Agriculture the Question standing in my name I desire to say that I should be the last person in the world to urge upon him to remove these restrictions until it is absolutely safe. At the same time he is, of course, aware that the sooner the area of restriction can be reduced the better it is for the agriculture of the area. I understand that up to the present moment there has been no further outbreak, and that all the animals affected or which had been in contact have been slaughtered for a week or more.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of condoling, first of all, with the noble Lord, because I know that his own park has been affected by the order which the Department has had to make, although I am glad to say there has been no disease in connection with his stock. I should also like to take this opportunity of making a statement on the subject, because I think it is just as well that the farmers should know exactly the extent of the danger incurred by this second outbreak, which so far, I am thankful to say, is of a very different kind from the one with which we had to deal at the close of last year and the beginning of this, although in the same county.
This has been the second outbreak in the County of Somerset within the last few months, but it has been confined so far to the Somerset and Bath County Asylum Illness was first observed amongst a lot of nine cows ultimately affected on February 6. On the 10th a local veterinary surgeon was called in by the Asylum authorities who diagnosed foot-and-mouth disease, all the animals being affected. His diagnosis was confirmed by the Board on the following day. The disease spread to the cattle at the home farm premises and entailed the slaughter of one bull, nineteen cows, ten calves, and thirty fatting pigs there. Two sows and their litters on the adjoining farm in the occupation of the Asylum were also slaughtered on account of their having recently been moved from the home farm premises, also two other cattle, the property of another owner, on account of the fact that they had been moved along a road over which the diseased cattle were known to have passed. On the home farm six cows and seven heifers pastured in fields were left, as well as fourteen heifers on the

191
adjoining farm premises. These animals and a small number of animals of adjoining owners in comparative proximity to the outbreak have been kept under observation and remained healthy up to the present time. Two calves were found to have been moved from the Asylum premises on January 25 and disposed of by a dealer to another dealer who conducts his operations both at Banbury in Oxfordshire, and at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire. In connection with the tracing of these calves, two calves were found on February 13 on the home premises of the Warwickshire dealer which showed symptoms suspicious of foot-and-mouth disease. These were not the calves which had been moved from the Asylum, but had been disposed of at a later date (February 10). In consequence of this suspicion an order was made prohibiting the movement of animals out of, or the holding of markets within, a wide area round Banbury and Stratford, and the tracing of all calves sold by the dealer between January 27 and February 10 was undertaken. No fewer than 140 calves were concerned which had been sent by this dealer in Somersetshire to the dealers in Warwickshire and in Oxfordshire. The destinations of 131 of these 140 calves have been traced, but no suspicious symptoms, I am glad to say, have been found on the premises to which they had been taken. In the meantime the calves on the dealer's home premises had been kept under daily observation, and the Superintending Veterinary Inspector reported on the 22nd instant that he was now satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease was not present on those premises, or in a calf (one of the lots sold by this dealer) which had died on premises near Leamington. In consequence the precautionary restrictions imposed were removed on the 22nd instant. I want to call your Lordships' attention to this because it shows how complete is the machinery which my predecessors at the Board of Agriculture devised for dealing with this terrible disease so dreaded by farmers.
A number of other animals removed from Somersetshire have also been traced to their destinations in various parts of England, and no suspicious symptoms have been found. As regards the outbreak at the Asylum the fact that two sows had been moved from the Glastonbury district, where they had been during the recent outbreaks in October and November last,
192
gave rise to a suspicion that they might have been the means of introducing infection into the Asylum. That would have meant, of course, that this second outbreak was the direct result of the first one which we thought had come to an end. Full investigation of the facts, together with an examination of all the animals on the premises at Butleigh from which the sows came, has disposed of this suspicion. No further report of suspected disease had been received up to the 22nd instant in respect of any premises within the Somersetshire scheduled district, and no further outbreak of the disease has been confirmed. The restrictions in Somersetshire imposed on account of this outbreak were modified as from the 21st instant in respect of that portion of the scheduled district distant more than approximately ten miles from the disease centre. In the ordinary course if no further outbreaks occur the restrictions will again be modified as from Monday next, the 28th instant. If the position appears entirely satisfactory it is proposed to remove all restrictions affecting those parts of the scheduled district more distant than ten miles from the Asylum, at the same time modifying the restrictions in respect of all the remaining portions of the district distant not more than approximately five miles from the Asylum. In spite of the most careful investigations, no origin can be assigned for this outbreak. It seems clearly unconnected with the previous outbreaks, and all that can be said is that infection must have been conveyed to the Asylum premises by some medium which it has not been possible to discover.

THE CALF-SLAUGHTERING ORDER.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I further wish to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Calf-Slaughtering Order has been to the detriment of the producer and the consumer owing to the maximum price being too low. I am asking this Question at the request of one of the War Agricultural Sub-Committees in Somersetshire. The reason why they are grieved at the maximum price of 30s. is that it has the effect of making a "ring"—that is to say, in the markets in the northern parts of Somersetshire calves are always knocked down at 30s., I am told, to a "ring," and then afterwards the butchers have a "knock-out" amongst themselves. The consequence of there

193
being this maximum price of 30 s. is that the consumers suffer a great deal. The farmers are actually now doing what I am sure is wrong from the point of view of the consumer, as I think the noble Earl will agree. The calves are actually being sold a few hours after birth and certainly after three or four days, and the House knows as well as myself that those calves cannot be weaned properly if taken away so early. Therefore one of the objects of the noble Earl in making the Order—to increase the number of useful cattle in the country—defeats itself in the maximum price being too low; and I hope that the noble Earl, both from the point of view of the breeder and the man who wishes to retain the animal for rearing, will carefully consider whether it may not be desirable to increase the price to a larger figure. If he did, it would be an advantage all round. I can assure him that at the present moment it is prejudicial to the farmers in the dairy counties that they can get only 30 s. for calves; and it is to the prejudice not only of the dairy farmers but also of the rearers, who do not get the calves they otherwise would if they were sold at a higher price, because calves taken away from their dams so early are generally of a stunted nature.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like with your permission to answer this question at some length, because the matter is of great importance to all farmers, and, indeed, to the public, and I should like the present position to be understood. The noble Lord represents the south-western dairy district of England. Really the only volume of protest against these Orders which has reached the Board of Agriculture has come from the two western dairy districts, the south-western and the north-western; these Orders have always been disliked by the farmers of those districts, and are greatly disliked at the present moment. But, of course, my duty is not to try and please everybody, but to consider the interests of agriculture as a whole and to form the best judgment I can on the facts presented to me from all parts of the country.
I would remind your Lordships of what the objects of this particular Order were. They were, in the first place, to prevent the slaughter of cows and of sows that were visibly pregnant; in the second place, to restrict the slaughter of calves under six
194
months of age so as to increase the store stock in the country; and, in the third place, to restrict the production of prime veal to a minimum. The reason, of course, was this. We are at war, and it is part of my duty to safeguard the food supplies of the people so far as I possibly can. The importation of meat is much less than it was before the war, and it is a matter of the utmost importance that our meat supplies should be preserved to the greatest possible extent. Had there been no danger of an undue depletion of our meat reserves in England and Wales, these Orders would not have been necessary. The Orders became necessary because a great number of farmers, influenced by the high prices offered in the summer of last year, were so short-sighted as to send to market large numbers of cows in an advanced state of pregnancy and to sacrifice thousands of calves which ought never to have been sold or used for veal, but were of good rearing breeds and ought to have been kept to be turned into beef.
I do not act on my own judgment alone, I need scarcely say, nor on the advice only of my colleagues at the Board of Agriculture. The Orders which are the subject of criticism were the result of the advice of the Consultative Committee over which Sir Ailwyn Fellowes presides, which is about as strong a Committee of representative agriculturists as could possibly be formed. They are not only men admitted to be great authorities on agriculture, but the Committee contains men in a large proportion who are not only great authorities on agriculture but who have been exclusively engaged in farming for their livelihood; therefore it cannot be said that they do not represent the farmers as well as agriculture all through England and Wales. The Order in question was made on their advice; but after it had been in operation in one form or another for six months or more, I thought the time had come to have it reviewed, and I sent all the facts which I had been able to collect to this Committee in January last. The facts with which I was able to furnish them were the statistics showing the effect of the Order on the slaughter of calves and on the stock in the country, all the protests which had reached the Board of Agriculture, and all the information which I had been able to collect otherwise. I circularised all the local authorities to find out from them how the Order was

195
working in the markets, and how far it was being observed or how far evaded. I also wrote to all the 200 honorary agricultural correspondents of the Board of Agriculture and asked them for their opinion and the opinion of farmers and agriculturists in their districts on the working of the Order, on its success or on its failure. The local authorities stated that there was evasion. It is impossible without most expensive and elaborate machinery to avoid evasion, and therefore it was no surprise to me to learn that there had been evasion. But they also stated that evasion was the exception, and that on the whole the Order was being observed throughout the length and breadth of the land.
The 200 correspondents of the Board of Agriculture are not salaried officials; that goes without saying, because they are called "honorary." Therefore I have no sort of control over them. They are only of value because of the respect in which their judgment and character are held by farmers all over England and Wales, and because of their life-long experience in all matters agricultural. I do not think it would be possible to find 200 men more qualified to focus the opinion of farmers generally than these honorary correspondents of the Board of Agriculture. There is no doubt whatever as to the nature of the answers they have given to my questions. They have said that the Order is being in some places evaded; that in the dairy districts of the West it is very unpopular, but that the great majority of farmers are strong supporters of the Order; that in their judgment it has effected the purpose for which it was made, and has done great good to a agriculture. With those facts before them the Consultative Agricultural Committee, presided over by Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, sent me their answer. I must tell you that when they first advised me about these Orders they were not unanimous; there was a division of opinion among them, and the advice on which I acted was the opinion of the majority. But now quite unanimously they have answered that the Order has had excellent effects and should be maintained in its full integrity. The only suggestion they have made for the amendment of the Order is that the exception that was made in favour of certain dairy breeds should no longer exist, because they say that the bull calves of these dairy breeds are
196
provided for by the maximum price of 30s., of which the noble Lord complains. In these circumstances it is quite impossible for me to consider seriously any suggestion for the repeal of the Order.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not ask for its repeal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord did not, but other people have. I have only to-day received a deputation from Cheshire asking me to do so.
LORD STRACHIE: I know.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But I am always willing to consider suggestions for amendment put forward as reasonably as the noble Lord has put forward his suggestion. His suggestion is that 30 s. is too low a maximum price. I quite admit that it is a purely rough standard. There is no virtue in 30 s. any more than in 25 s. or 35 s. or 40 s. I adopted 30 s. as on the whole a sum which seemed to represent the maximum value of a calf which could not possibly be worth keeping to rear and be turned into beef. I know other people think that the value is higher, that prices are so high to-day that a calf which no farmer would think of trying to rear may be worth as much as 35 s. or 40 s.
LORD STRACHIE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite admit that is a fair argument, and I am perfectly prepared to consider it on its merits. But I must again allude to the distinction between a calf that is worth rearing and a calf that is not. A great number of these calves are not worth rearing. It is possible that at the present moment some of those may be worth more than 30 s., but my withers are quite unwrung if the farmer loses money over those calves, because it means that he is one of those who take no kind of interest in the sort of bull they use. He is a propagator of bad stock; he is a bad friend, in fact, to the agriculture of England, and I take no interest in his losses. The man for whom I feel sorry, if he exists—and I think he does exist—is the man who produces a good calf which ought to be reared, but which is bought by a butcher for 30 s. and slaughtered and never passes into the hands of another farmer to be reared.

197
It is alleged that the butchers are making "rings." I am not in a position to prove it, and therefore I do not state it. But it is alleged by farmers and by the noble Lord opposite that the butchers are making "rings" and only offering 30 s. for calves whatever their true value may be, whether they are calves worth rearing or not, and that having secured them at 30 s. they divide the plunder among themselves. The farmer who has reared this presumably good calf is defrauded, and I am defrauded because it does not go into the hands of the rearer and become beef. Nobody profits except the butcher, and the consumer gets a very inferior article because of the age of the animal. Well, that certainly ought not to be. But is the fault mine, or does it really depend on the limit of 30 s.? Surely what it means is this, that there is a want of reasonable organisation amongst the farmers. There is no doubt a market for every calf in England to-day that is worth rearing, a market of over 30 s., amongst farmers who want to rear calves. It requires a little organisation—but it can be done—to bring the farmer in one part of the country who wants the calf into contact with the farmer in another part of the country who has the calf to dispose of; and why does not the farmer, if he can reach the market, go and outbid the butcher? Or if there is no local farmer whose practice it is to buy calves to rear, why does not the breeder with the good calf keep it for fourteen days instead of selling it in twenty-four hours and then send it by train to a market where there are plenty of farmers who would buy it at a good price? It is not possible for me or for the Board of Agriculture to do the farmer's business for him; that is really the farmer's own business. If it can be shown by the War Agricultural Committee of Somerset-shire or any other body representing farmers how the Board of Agriculture can help breeders who have good calves to dispose of to sell them to farmers who want them, I can assure the noble Lord I will do my very best to co-operate. But farmers must try and do their own business for themselves, and do what is done in all other industries—that is, when there is not a local market for their goods get them to a market at a distance where their goods are in great demand.
I wished to say this, because it really represents the position which we have now reached. There would be no complaint
198
against this Order that could be supported by any responsible body if there were not good calves being wasted on the butcher. The cure for that evil—and it is a real evil—is not to be found in altering the price, because a butchers' "ring" is just as easy at 35 s. as it is at 30 s., but in better organisation among the farmers themselves for the disposal of their calves. I will nevertheless consider the point which the noble Lord has made, because I quite admit that there is no special virtue in any one figure such as 30 s. I should like in conclusion to say this, that although there has been evasion and although there will continue to be evasion by unprincipled butchers and farmers, and although this Order is profoundly unpopular in the two great dairy districts in the West of England to which I have referred, yet it has succeeded far beyond any expectations I had when it was first framed in preserving in this time of war an enormous number of calves to be reared into beef that otherwise would have been used as veal.

RE-EXAM1NAT1ON OF REJECTED MEN.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name—

1. What is the position under the Military Service Act of a man who has offered himself for enlistment and has been rejected since the 14th day of August, 1915, in a case in which the man either has not received any document proving the facts, or has not such a document.

2. Will such a man receive an armlet without any further examination, or will he be required to undergo medical examination; and what is the justification for requiring a further medical examination before issuing an armlet.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers the Question put by the noble Duke I would ask the leave of the House to read a letter which was sent to me a week ago upon the same subject. It is from a gentleman in charge of the books in my own estate office, and will show your Lordships more particularly what has been done. The letter runs—
"On Wednesday the 24th of November, 1915, I presented myself to the doctor appointed by the military authorities in this district for examination, as a recruit under Lord Derby's scheme, and was rejected as medically unfit. The doctor

199
told me that my name would be sent by him to the authorities in Ayr, and that I would receive a certificate from them stating that I had been rejected, but so far I am without any tangible evidence to that effect. As the time is drawing near when the authorities may choose to call upon me under the new Act feel it my duty to acquaint your Lordship of my position. I called on the doctor to-night (February 16), and he informed me that rejection certificates had been issued in Kirkcudbrightshire and other districts long ago, but none have been received here. He also informed me that my name and address and particulars of grounds of rejection were included in his list and sent to Ayr at the end of November, and again included in his quarterly list sent on December 31 last."
On February 21, four days after his first letter, I received a further communication from this gentleman in which he says—
"The doctor has informed me to-day that the military authorities are now ignoring first rejection entirely. He referred in particular to two cases rejected by him, and in both cases the men have been called up. One man is suffering from chronic tuberculosis, and the other has very defective sight."
My Lords, I think that what I have read shows that there must be something wrong in the system which is being carried out. Here is a man who was rejected in the month of November, but up to this moment he has received no armlet or notice from the authorities at Ayr that he will not be called up.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Derby informed me yesterday that he was anxious to reply to this Question at length, but he is apparently unable to be present this afternoon. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke opposite will take the answer from me, although it may not be of so full a nature. I think the inquiry which has just been made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches is entirely covered by the Question which stands in the name of the noble Duke opposite.
There seems to be some misapprehension as to the conditions with regard to these medical certificates, and the difficulty arises from the confusion that apparently exists in people's minds that there is any connection between the medical certificate as providing exemption from the Military Service Act and the granting of an armlet. The two are quite distinct. The Act clearly lays down that where a man has been medically rejected subsequent to August 14 the production of his medical certificate shall secure him exception,
200
but it is obvious that the recruiting officer must be satisfied as to the genuineness of his medical rejection paper. He has to satisfy himself on these points—(1) that the man bringing the paper is the man to whom it was issued; (2) that it was given to him by a doctor duly authorised by the War Office to examine recruits; and (3) that it was issued to him subsequent to August 14. If the applicant can prove these three facts to the satisfaction of the recruiting officer the claim for exception under the Act will be held to be good. On the other hand, if he cannot prove them he will be notified accordingly by the recruiting officer and be required under the Act to substantiate his claim to exception before a Civil Court.
In answer to the second part of the noble Duke's Question, a man who can produce no evidence of having presented himself for enlistment and having been rejected on medical grounds would not receive an armlet. The conditions under which armlets could be obtained by men rejected by a recruiting officer were published in the Press of December 27 last. These conditions are as follows—(a) men who have been rejected on account of organic disease are given an armlet, and their names are registered; (b) men who have been rejected on account of eyesight or some slight physical defect are also given an armlet on condition that they will attest and be passed to the Army Reserve. In both cases if the man can produce Army Form B 2505A or Army Form B 2515A showing date and cause of rejection, or other certificate issued by a doctor duly authorised for the purpose by the War Office, no further examination is necessary; but if the cause of rejection is not stated on the certificate it is necessary to re-examine the man to decide whether he belongs to category (a) or category (b).
After receipt of an armlet men of both descriptions are free to return to their civil occupations, but they will be liable to be called up at any time for medical examination and for immediate service in any occupation for which as soldiers they may be liable and for which they may be considered suitable by the military authorities. There is no obligation on any man to submit to a second medical examination unless he is desirous of obtaining an armlet, but to obtain the armlet he must be medically examined unless his rejection certificate shows the cause of his rejection. In order

201
to obtain an armlet a man must undergo this examination and run the risk, if I may put it in that way, of being thus taken for some kind of service. Now as a matter of fact I believe that there are many men who are quite prepared to give this particular kind of service.
The War Office has had brought to its notice the fact that in some cases the recruiting officer has destroyed the original blue paper. That, of course, is an obviously wrong course, and in cases where it has happened—no doubt under a misapprehension—instructions will be given for a fresh issue of a medical rejection form, and the man's position will he ascertained in the manner I have stated.
I am afraid that the explanation I have given sounds somewhat involved, and may convey an impression that excessive formalities are necessary for men claiming exemption. But I think I can take upon myself to assert that if there are many formalities to be fulfilled in this case, they are fewer than prevail in any other belligerent country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just sat down will allow me to point out that the ease brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Galloway, is not exactly covered by the Question of the noble Duke. I think we now understand that anybody who wants an armlet must appeal a second time, and it is perfectly reasonable that this condition should be laid down. But that is not the case to which my noble friend on the Cross Benches called attention. His was the case of a man who was told by the medical officer that he would receive a certificate from the military authorities. He was examined by the doctor and rejected, but was never given this certificate. It is no question of coming again and asking for an armlet. And there is the further allegation in the second letter which the noble Earl read that there were other cases of a similar kind in which men had not received the certificates to which the doctor said in his opinion they
202
were entitled. Of course, I fully appreciate the difficulty. Probably the noble Lord knows nothing about the case except what he has just heard from the reading of the letters. But perhaps the noble Earl will hand the papers to him, and he will look into the matter.
LORD NEWTON: I thought it was covered by the Question put down by the noble Duke. But if there is any doubt on the subject and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches will put a Question on the Paper I will obtain an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did I understand from the noble Lord that in the case to which Lord Beauchamp has just referred the applicant would have to satisfy a Civil Court that he had been already rejected and did not receive a paper? That is what I gathered in the earlier part of the answer.
LORD NEWTON: That applied to the noble Duke's question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But does my noble friend think that it also applies to Lord Beauchamp's question?
LORD NEWTON: I should be sorry to reply off-hand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a considerable degree of complication, and it is not surprising that other people do not understand when so intelligent a member of your Lordships' House as the noble Lord fails to make it absolutely clear.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Marquess has paid me an undeserved compliment. I am prepared to admit that the circumstances are extremely complicated, and that it requires rather a bright intelligence to understand them.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.