Sitting of 24 February 1916

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

NEW WRITS.
For Borough of Bolton, in the room of Thomas Taylor, Esquire (Manor of North-stead).—[Mr. Gulland.]
For County of Hertford (Eastern or Hertford Division), in the room of Sir John Fowke Lancelot Rolleston, Knight (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill (by Order), Beighton and District Gas Bill (by Order), Cardiff Railway Bill (by Order), City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Colonial Bank Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Folkestone Gas Bill (by Order), Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order), Northwich Urban District Council (Gas) Bill (by Order), Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill (by Order), Saint John's Church, Kingston-upon-Hull, Bill (by Order), South Metropolitan Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Uxbridge Gas Bill (by Order),
Wakefield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, TRADE UNIONS, ETC.
Order [26th January, 1916) that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged. Paper withdrawn.
NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Annual Account presented for the period ended 20th November, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 28.]
LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
Copy presented of Return I. of Eviction Notices filed under Section 7 of the Act, and II. of Actual Evictions under the Act during the quarter ended 31st December, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Urban district of Sutton-in-Ashfield [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

INDIA OFFICE (RETIREMENT).
Address for "return of Copy of Minute by the Secretary of State for India, stating the circumstances under which three Members of his Permanent Establishment have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of sixty-five."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    DARDANELLES (GREEK OFFER).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact

    783
    that three successive Prime Ministers of Greece have indicated that Russia opposed the offer made by the Greek Government to participate with a land force in the proposed attack on the Dardanelles; and can he state at what date the Russian Government refused assent and the grounds of objection?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer returned on the same subject to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 5th ultimo.
    Mr. KING: Does my right hon. Friend observe the great amount of capital that has been made out of this question in neutral countries, notably in America, and can he consider whether we may not have some elucidation of the point?
    Sir E. GREY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice of that question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the public statement by the present Prime Minister of Greece that Russia objected on the ground that the Greek force was not to come within fifty miles of Constantinople? Can he confirm or deny that statement?
    Sir E. GREY: I am not prepared to add to the answer I gave last month.

    BLOCKADE OPERATIONS.

      LORD FARINGDON'S REPORT.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the use that has been made of Lord Faringdon's secret Report on German trade through Denmark, whether he can state how many days Lord Faringdon spent in investigation in Copenhagen; what other Danish ports he visited; and whether he visited the port of Aarhus, the capital of Jutland?
      Sir E. GREY: I am not prepared to answer questions on selected details of Lord Faringdon's journey or of his investigations, nor do I consider that such answers are necessary. Lord Faringdon was quite capable of judging of the value or amount of information at his disposal.

    CONTRABAND COMMITTEE.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the members of the Contraband Committee; and of what services are they representative?
    Sir E. GREY: The Contraband Committee consists of a chairman, who, as I have already stated, is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leamington; of Captain Longden, R.N., representing the Admiralty, assisted by Lieutenant Arnold-Forster, R.N.V.R.; one representative of the Foreign Office, Mr. G. S. Spicer; one representative of the Board of Trade and Customs, Mr. H. Booth; and one of the Procurator-General's Department, Mr. Shearman.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Does the Committee fall under the jurisdiction of the new Minister of Blockade?
    Sir E. GREY: Certainly it is one of the Committees—it will continue to perform its functions in the same way—whose executive action will be supervised and co-ordinated with that of other Committees by the new arrangement.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Will it be exempt from the condemnation of the new Minister of Blockade, who said a few days ago that he loathed all Committees, and if there was only one Committee in the world it would be one Committee too many?
    Sir E. GREY: We are already committed to the machinery of Committees for dealing with these questions. Each one, as far as I know, is performing its functions extremely well, and it would be very undesirable, and I believe that is the opinion of my Noble Friend also, that a Committee now in existence and performing its duties as well as it does should be disturbed.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Lieutenant Arnold Forster, R.N.V.R., as making two representatives of the Admiralty. Is it the case that Lieutenant Arnold Forster is the secretary and not a member of the Committee?
    Sir E. GREY: I was asked what the composition was and it was given me in this form. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that, I will inquire whether there is anything in that point.
    Mr. KING: Is the Mr. H. Booth the hon. Member for Pontefract?

    BRITISH CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVE (BALE).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the nationality of our Consular representative at Bâle?
    Sir E. GREY: The officer in charge of His Majesty's Consulate at Bâle is a member of the salaried Consular service, and is a British subject.

    PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMIES).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he is now in a position to state the aggregate amount of economies which the Government have decided to effect in Irish administration, as compared with the aggregate expenditure in the last pre-war financial year?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It is not possible to answer the hon. Member's question until the Estimates for the year 1916-17 are ready for presentation to Parliament, and I must therefore ask that that presentation should be awaited.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to seize this occasion to make real economies which would be of advantage to the conduct of the War and also to Ireland permanently?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I shall be very glad to seize these occasions when they offer.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Prime Minister the names of the persons composing the Committees appointed by the Government for the purpose of safeguarding expenditure and effecting economies in the three great spending Departments of the Government; what are the functions and powers of the Committees;
    786
    how long have they been acting; and the names of the chairmen of the three Committees?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): If my hon. Friend will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 6th, 13th, and 18th January last, he will, I think, find the information for which he asks. I should add that Mr. S. H. Lever is the chairman of the Committee which has been set up in the Ministry of Munitions. This Committee reports to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry.

    GRANTS TO AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary what amount of money has been, or will be, obtained for Ireland from the Treasury by way of special Grant to agricultural institutions to meet loss of income during the War, corresponding to the £145,000 granted under this head in England; and how the money is to be allocated in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have been unable to trace the Grant of £145,000 to agricultural institutions in England to meet loss of income during the War referred to by the hon. Member. Grants amounting to £7,900, on account of the War, appear, however, to have been contributed to such institutions in England and Wales, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical. Instruction inform me that the matter of a corresponding Grant to that Department is under consideration.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RECRUITING IN IRELAND
      Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the Congested Districts Board will ascertain how many of the 2,500 men in casual employment upon their works are of military age and issue instructions that, having regard to the urgent need for recruits for Irish reserve battalions, employment under the Board shall be restricted to men who are not eligible for military service?
      Mr. BIRRELL: To ascertain the information referred to in the first part of the question will involve a census on some particular day of the men employed by the Congested Districts Board on their works. The advisability of taking such a census and issuing the instructions suggested by the hon. Member will be considered by that Board at their next meeting, which will be held on the 14th March.
      Sir J. LONSDALE: Will it be considered by the Congested Districts Board?
      Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state for each of the counties of Ireland the number of men who have enlisted in the Army and in the Navy since the outbreak of the War, and the number of men of military age still remaining?
      Mr. BIRRELL: It is not considered to be in the public interest that the recruiting figures for Ireland should be given in greater detail than they were in the Lord Lieutenant's Report of the 14th January. According to the returns furnished by the police, the numbers of men who have enlisted in the Army and the Navy since the outbreak of war up to the 15th instant are as follows:

      Army.

      Navy.

      Total.

      Ulster

      50,515

      1,397

      51,912

      Leinster

      27,816

      1,370

      29,186

      Munster

      14,458

      732

      15,190

      Connaught

      3,741

      198

      3,939

      An estimate, based on the National Register, of the numbers of men of military age still remaining is as follows:—

      Ulster

      …

      …

      …

      159,640

      Leinster

      …

      …

      …

      167,492

      Munster

      …

      …

      …

      133,237

      Connaught

      …

      …

      …

      80,330

      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the figures supplied in the Lord Lieutenant's recent Report on recruiting in Ireland were incomplete and referred only to Infantry; and if he will state how many men have been raised in Ulster, additional to Infantry, for the Royal Army Medical Corps, Divisional Train, Royal
      788
      Engineers, Cavalry Squadron, Cyclists, etc., connected with the Ulster Division, and how many men were enlisted in Ireland for the corresponding units of the 10th and 16th Divisions?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I have no sources of information which would enable me to give the figures asked for in the second part.
      Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has been publicly stated since that the figures which were given in the White Paper issued by the Lord Lieutenant only contained the numbers regarding Infantry regiments, and did not include the Cavalry?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I say that is not right.

      ZULUS AND BASUTOS.
      Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take into consideration the practicability of giving the warlike Zulus and Basutos of South Africa the opportunity of volunteering for service in the German East African campaign?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This matter has been considered, but it is not considered practicable or desirable to employ these natives in the manner suggested.
      Mr. C. WASON: Is this not a matter which is almost entirely and practically in the hands of the South African Government?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

      MARRIED MEN.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a man (single) forty years of age who married on 2nd November, 1915, is within the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): My hon. Friend is much better able than I am to express an opinion on a rather nice question of law. I should myself be inclined to give the man to whom he refers the benefit of the doubt.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on 17th February four men subject to the Military Service Act applied to the clerk of the local tribunal at Cwmavon (Port Talbot) for forms upon which to claim exemption, and that the mayor, who is chairman of the local tribunal, refused to provide such forms on the ground that the applicants had not attested; and whether, having regard to the provisions of the Military Service Act, he will say what steps the Local Government Board propose to take in this matter?
      Mr. LONG: I am in communication with the local authorities on the subject, and will let the hon. Member know the result.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman making this communication to all authorities? Is he aware that similar refusals have taken place in many places, and that a great number of people have been told that they can only claim exemption after attestation, and some have been induced to attest on this ground?
      Mr. LONG: I am not aware that this has happened in many cases; but I have given the clearest instructions, and it is to be hoped that the instructions issued will stop its recurrence.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Have the instructions been general, or only to certain authorities?
      Mr. LONG: Certainly.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received a letter from Colonel Conran, through the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division, protesting against the constitution of the local tribunal set up by the Bridlington Town Council, in which special exception is taken to the inclusion on the local tribunal of Mr. T. D. Fendy on the ground that, when the Military Service (No. 2) Bill was introduced, he wrote a letter to the Press against compulsory military service; will he say if the military representative is entitled to interfere with the discretion of a local authority about
      790
      the constitution of a local tribunal; whether the fact that a man has previously expressed views against Conscription is to be regarded as a disqualification to sit on a local tribunal; and, if so, will all members of local tribunals who have expressed themselves in favour of compulsory military service be regarded as disqualified to exercise their powers in a fair and judicial manner?
      Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think that a military representative is precluded by his position from calling attention to such a matter. In reply to the last part of the question, as I stated in this House, I do not consider that the mere holding of views for or against compulsory military service need disqualify a man from sitting on a local tribunal. The important question is whether he can bring an impartial mind to the determination of the cases which come before that body.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if, seeing that many local tribunals are expressing the view that they have not the power to grant absolute exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916, to conscientious objectors who establish a case, he will call attention to that part of the instructions which says that in certain cases absolute exemption can be granted to conscientious objectors?
      Mr. LONG: On the evidence before me I do not think it necessary to take action. If any case is brought to my notice in which there is misapprehension, I will be prepared to consider it.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn; to the statement of the Chairman of the Wands-worth Tribunal that they do not intend to grant any exemptions? Will he have a tribunal set up there to administer the Act and not the views of the chairman?
      Mr. LONG: I have not seen the statement referred to.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: What action will the right hon. Gentleman take in the case of tribunals that refuse to administer the Act and not to grant exemptions?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a number of local authorities are not carrying out the instructions of the Local Government Board in the constitution of the local tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916; that in the majority of cases there is no representative of labour on the tribunal; that in hardly a single case has a local authority carried out the instruction to consult the body representative of labour in the district; that women are not being appointed on the tribunals; and particularly that no regard is being paid to the instruction which requires the local authority to remember in constituting the tribunal that cases of conscientious objection will come before them, and that the tribunal should be so constituted that such persons will feel that their case will be justly considered; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to enforce upon local authorities the carrying out of the instructions of his Department and the Regulations issued by His Majesty in Council?
      Mr. LONG: I have no reason to think that generally the local tribunals which have been appointed do not command general confidence. I have received a certain number of representations that labour is not properly represented, and, where necessary, I am communicating with the local authorities. Local authorities are not required to appoint women on the tribunals; the matter is left to their discretion. I do not feel that I could properly go further than the advice given in the circular letter of the 3rd February. It is necessary to distinguish between directions contained in the Regulations and the advice contained in the circular letter. The appointment of the tribunal has been left to the local authority as containing the elected representatives of the people. I do not think it would be right for me to interfere with their discretion unless there are very strong reasons for doing so.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what action he proposes to take in
      792
      regard to the constitution of the local tribunal for the Pickering (Yorks) Rural District Council, which is composed of eight members all of whom are farmers, the council having refused to follow the instructions of the Local Government Board by making the constitution of the tribunal of a representative character?
      Mr. LONG: I am making inquiries in this case.

      MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1916.
      Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he has official information to the effect that shortly after the publication by the "Labour Leader" of their intention to agitate against the Military Service Act, 1916, that portion of the paper dealing with the proposed campaign was translated into Roumanian and reissued broadcast in Roumania, with an introduction to the effect that industrial England was in revolt; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take?
      Sir E. GREY: The attention of His Majesty's Government was drawn by His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest to the use which was being made by enemy agents in Roumania of the article from the "Labour Leader," and steps were at once taken to make it clear in Roumania that that journal has not the representative character attributed to it by enemy agencies.
      Mr. PETO: Do the Government propose to take any steps to prevent the publication in this country of matter in the Press which is bound to be of use to the enemy in neutral countries?
      Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to give me notice.
      Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister what Departments are responsible for the lists of the multifarious trades and occupations exempted from the operations of the Military Service Act, 1916; and if these Departments consulted with the War Office and with each other before settling such lists?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The lists of exempted occupations referred to were drawn up by the several Departments

      793
      specially concerned. Thus, the Home Office arranged the coal-mining list, the Agricultural Departments the list of farm servants, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Munitions were responsible for the lists of workpeople essential to the manufacture of ships and munitions of war. The remaining exemptions were recommended to the War Office by an Interdepartmental Committee sitting at the Board of Trade. A representative of the War Office has served on this Committee for some time past. In all cases the consent of the War Office was obtained.
      Mr. FELL: Will the Ministers representing the different Departments answer in this House questions referring to matters with which they have to deal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I should think they would.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce legislation with a view to suspend the operation of leases and other existing contractual obligations entered into by men of military age during their period of service with the Colours in cases where the fulfilment of such obligations would be rendered impossible by their enlistment, or where such existing obligations might afford a ground for claiming exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce legislation on this subject. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the 19th January to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the number of cases of hardship—great hardship—which have already been brought before the tribunals in relation to this matter, and is the Government taking no action whatever?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is being very carefully watched.

      APPLICATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS.
      Mr. DICKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether single men of military age who, before 15th August, 1915, had applied for a commission in His Majesty's Army and had been rejected on grounds of physical unfitness, are now being called up for re-examination, and, if found to be fit, will be compelled to serve in the ranks under the Military Service Act; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made to allow of such men obtaining commissions, as they would have done had they not been rejected on their first medical examination?
      Mr. TENNANT: The category of persons mentioned does not fall within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule of the Act. As I have stated to the House, the normal method of obtaining a commission now is through the ranks. Quite apart, therefore, from the provisions of the Military Service Act, the general channel of approach to all ranks in the Army, commissioned and other, is through the ranks. I do not, therefore, think that such individuals, if physically fit for service, have any grievance in having to enter the Army in the same manner and on the same footing as everybody else.

      VOLUNTARY ATTESTED MEN.
      Mr. MORTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of paragraph 14 of Form R. 48 (Instructions to tribunals as to voluntarily attested men), he will say, if an employer makes an application for exemption of an employé on the ground of indispensability, the employé is thereby precluded from making an application on personal grounds to the tribunal of the area in which he resides?
      Mr. BOOTHasked whether, if an employer makes an application for exemption of an employé on the ground of indispensability, the employé is thereby precluded from making an application on personal grounds to the tribunal of the area in which he resides?
      Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friends to the full explanation I gave

      795
      yesterday on this matter in reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
      Mr. MORTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that apparently his reply yesterday only applies to cases under the Military Service Act, whereas we want to go a little further than that?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that that is so. I think it applies to both cases of men attested and men under the Military Service Act.
      Mr. MORTON: I will put down another question on the subject.
      Mr. PRINGLE: A great many of us did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's answer yesterday. Can he reply to the question actually on the Paper?
      Mr. TENNANT: My reply was to that effect—and I will repeat it substantially—that any man who desires to be exempted and wishes to appeal to the tribunals, if he has a private reason and a reason in relation to the employment in which he is engaged, he should confer with his employer and make up his mind which is the most governing reason. That is what I said yesterday. It is the perfectly natural and proper course to adopt. There is no good in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Having made up his mind whether the most important reason is that which is personal or that relating to his employment, he can go forward to the tribunal with the governing reason.

      RECRUITING (COUNTY LEITRIM).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the services of Mr. George Hewson, land agent, of county Leitrim, as recruiter have not been continued in that county; where he is now recruiting; with what military rank and pay, seeing that he has never been in the Army; and whether he will be given leave of absence to execute the sixy-seven ejectment decrees which he now holds against Leitrim tenants?
      Mr. TENNANT: Captain Hewson does not hold, and never did hold, the post of recruiter. He is stationed at Clandeboye
      796
      Camp, Newtownards, county Down, and holds a captaincy in the 18th Battalion, Royal Irish Rifles. The question of leave is a regimental matter, to be dealt with by the commanding officer.

      MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF REJECTION.
      Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men who attested and were rejected since the 14th August last, but who were not supplied with a certificate of rejection although marked in the register as medically unfit, are now being called upon to undergo a further medical examination; and whether such action is contemplated by the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: A man who has offered himself for enlistment and has been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, is excepted from the operation of the Military Service Act, but obviously to claim that exception he must prove that he comes within the description. If a man has no properly authorised certificate of rejection, it is difficult to see how he can prove that he has offered himself and has been rejected. If he has no evidence to support his statement he must be considered prima facie as subject to the provisions of the Act.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Was the certificate of rejection given to all applicants for attestment who were, as a matter of fact, rejected?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, a certificate was not given in all cases, but in many cases something was given which he could show.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If there are a number of cases where the applicant was rejected, but where no certificate of rejection was given, will it not be necessary for the War Office to take other evidence than the certificate of rejection?
      Mr. TENNANT: He must have something to show, and some evidence to show that he has been rejected.
      Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that there is a large number of questions on the Paper.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has issued instructions to recruiting officers in which he has corrected the answer given by him to the hon. Member for Derby on 27th January; on what date the new instructions were issued; and whether he will state the terms of the correction contained in these instructions?
      Mr. TENNANT: In my correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow I made the necessary correction. Detailed instructions were not issued at that time, but I am causing instructions to be sent out at once. A communiqué to the Press was issued yesterday.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Prime Minister take steps to see that my right hon. Friend is not always made the butt of the divergent views of Ministers? It is very unfair to him.

      MEN DISCHARGED FROM NAVY OR ARMY.
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men discharged from the Army or Navy since the outbreak of war are liable to be called up under the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to the Military Service Act. He will observe from that paragraph that men who have left or been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown in consequence of disablement or ill-health (including officers who have ceased to hold a commission in consequence of disablement or ill-health), and, subject to any provision which may hereafter be made by Parliament, men who have been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown at the termination of their period of service are not subject to the provisions of the Act. Men who have been discharged for other reasons than those stated are not within the exceptions.

      UNSTARRED SINGLE MEN.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
      798
      the circular letter signed by the Director-General of Recruiting, dated February, 1916, and addressed to all unstarred single men, is being sent to men who have been rejected as unfit since 14th August last; that in several instances the letter has been followed by a yellow Army form, warning the person addressed that he must present himself for military service on 2nd March next; will he say why this is being done; will he also say whether men who have been given a blue form, No. 2,505a, stating that they were not accepted and giving the cause of rejection, are obliged to come up the second time before the medical officer; if this is the case, will he explain the object in giving out the blue form, No. 2,505a; will he also state whether it is possible for the War Office to make one statement covering all unfit men; and, if so, will he make if?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is quite possible that the circular letter signed by the Director-General of Recruiting, dated February, 1916, has been sent in some cases to men who have been rejected by the military authorities as unfit since the 14th August, 1915. This would occur where the military authorities had no record of the man having offered himself for enlistment. In such a case, if a man were a person primâ facie liable to the provisions of the Military Service Act, he would no doubt receive an Army form under the Military Service Act requiring him to present himself for military service. If a man has offered himself since the 14th August, 1915, and is rightfully in possession of an official form stating that he was not accepted and giving the cause of his rejection, he is not subject to the provisions of the Military Service Act, and if he is not willing to enter the Army there is no obligation upon him to come up for further medical examination. The general conditions relating to unfit men have been already stated in Parliament and elsewhere, so far as it is possible in one statement to cover all cases.

      MERCANTILE MARINE.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact

      799
      that officers and men of the merchant service are being served with yellow notices calling upon them to join the Army on certain dates; whether he can state what instructions have been issued by his Department that these men should be exempt or excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act, and what steps he proposes to take to carry out the undertaking given to this effect?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I understand that in some cases officers and men of the merchant service have been served with notices to join the Army. They are, however, included in the list of certified occupations, and the Board of Trade are already in communication with the War Office as to the most effective means of dealing with the matter.
      Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that all these officers and men of the mercantile service should attend before the tribunals in exactly the same way as everybody else before they can get any exception or exemption from the Act?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is one of the questions upon which we are now in communication with the War Office. I cannot make any statement on that at the moment. It was certainly not my intention that officers and men of the mercantile marine should necessarily appear before the tribunals.

    NEW INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he was in a position to name, as the result of the eighteen years' technical instruction of the Department, the new industries introduced in Ireland since the beginning of the War corresponding to industrial development in this country in that time; the places where such industries are situated; and the approximate number of persons engaged in them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Department are not charged with responsibility for industries other than rural industries, and are not in a position to give statistics as to the num-
    800
    ber of new industries introduced into Ireland since the beginning of the War or the number of persons engaged in them. The Department are aware that new industries have been introduced, but the success of the education they provide is to be tested not by the number of such new industries, but by the progress of existing industries.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that during the eighteen years of its existence the Department has not founded a single new industry in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, but they have contributed very much to new industries being introduced into Ireland.

    ALLIED CAPTURE OF CAMEROONS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies if he could make any statement with regard to the operations in the Cameroons?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): A telegram was received from the Governor-General of Nigeria on 18th February, reporting that the German garrison at Mora in the north of the Cameroons, had capitulated. This completes the conquest of the Cameroons by the Allied Forces, and I have telegraphed my warm congratulations to Major-General Dobell, to Brigadier-General Cunliffe, and to the forces under their respective commands.

    RAILWAY DIRECTORS' PASSES.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the arrangement among the railway companies by which the directors of the various companies travel without payment, not only over their own lines but the lines of other companies; whether, in view of the railways being under Government control, this practice is still continued; and whether, in view of the financial position of the country, it is intended to provide that railway directors should only travel after payment of the usual fares?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No alteration has been made in the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I do not think it is a matter in which any alteration is called for.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a great increase in this practice since the War began, and consequently a large amount of first-class carriage accommodation has to be provided, with considerable increase of expense in haulage and otherwise?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was not aware that the directors were travelling more than usual.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons in the Board of Trade have been offered these passes, and can he give any information upon that point?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. Persons in the Board of Trade have been offered these passes and quite properly offered them.
    Mr. KING: Has the President of the Board of Trade received one himself?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that we have a great many questions.
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on a suitable occasion.

    PLUMAGE (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with the view of preventing the importation of luxuries, he will take steps to prohibit the importation of plumage, with the exception of ostrich feathers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can add nothing at present to the replies I gave yesterday to the questions addressed to me by the hon. Members for East Edinburgh and the St. Augustine's Division of Kent.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this trade is mainly in the hands of persons of German name and nationality?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, that may be; but the only object the Board of Trade have had in restricting imports has been
    802
    to provide tonnage space. I am not aware that aigrettes occupy a very large amount of space.

    MAXIMUM PRICES OF NECESSARIES.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will resume the weekly publication of the maximum prices that should be paid by the consumers in this country for the necessaries of life for their guidance?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14th October last to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. The periodical issue of statements comparing the wholesale prices of leading commodities with those prevailing before the War, which was at that time in contemplation, has since been carried out.

    TOILET SOAP MAKING (AMERICAN COMPETITION).
    Major NEWMANasked the Presi-Prime Minister whether, with a view to aware of the handicap that is now imposed on toilet soap makers in competition with American firms; whether he is aware that, owing to the firms who used to supply nickel-plated tubes for holding shaving sticks of soap being how Government controlled firms, British shaving soap manufacturers have now to either send out their soap in seamed tin boxes or else unboxed, whereas their American competitors are at no such disadvantage; whether the Government is still purchasing glycerine from American firms at an inflated price and not from English suppliers; and whether it is the intention of the Government to put a heavy tax on the import of toilet soap, shaving soap, and dentifrices during the period of war?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I recognise that under existing conditions British manufacturers of toilet soaps are placed at a disadvantage as compared with their neutral competitors, but I am not at present able to say more than that the matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Departments concerned.
    Major NEWMAN: May I have an answer to the last part of my question, as to the importation of glycerine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The latter part of my answer also applies to the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. It is having consideration.

    LABOUR EXCHANGE CLERKS (BONUS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if an application by the lower-grade clerks of the Labour Exchanges for a war bonus has been considered and refused; and, if so, will he, in view of the small wages of this class, the extra work they are doing, and the increased cost of living, reconsider the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me to similar questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough and East Wolverhampton on the 22nd February.

    ARMY EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can make any statement of results achieved by the Committee appointed to consider possibilities of economy in Army expenditure?
    Mr. LONG: I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any statement at the present time of the kind suggested.
    Mr. KING: Has something been done or is it being attempted?
    Mr. LONG: It is being done.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (EDINBURGH).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General the terms upon which Edinburgh and district sub-postmasters are to be remunerated for transacting War Loan business; and whether it will be the same as those for bankers, brokers, and financial houses?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Nottingham, a copy of which I am sending him.

    MUNITIONS.

      FOREMEN INSTRUCTORS (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that many foremen in controlled establishments in Scotland have not shared in the rise in wages although they are training unskilled labour, which subsequently earns larger wages than the skilled men instructing such men; whether he is aware of the discontent this engenders; and whether he will take steps to have it remedied?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): It is within the power of an employer to raise the wages of individual foremen without reference to the Ministry. If an application in regard to classes of foremen were put forward by an employer to the Ministry under Section 4 (2) of the Munitions of War Act in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend, it would receive sympathetic consideration.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that discontent arises from the fact that skilled foremen who otherwise would earn very large wages are compelled by the necessity of training unskilled labour to abandon the possibility of getting those wages, while the unskilled labour is earning, in many cases, much more than those who are instructing it. Can nothing be done to meet that case?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am quite aware of the facts, but, as the hon. Member is well aware, that arises from the observance of the agreement by trade unions. I quite agree that some adjustment should be made in order that these men should not be penalised in their wages because they are skilled.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the case that in such cases the applications to the Ministry

      805
      of Munitions must only be made by the employer? Have the employés no right of access to the Ministry of Munitions?
      Dr. ADDISON: Applications can be made by either party.

      IRON FOUNDERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the Friendly Society of Iron Founders had 220 of its members unemployed at the beginning of February and in receipt of weekly sums varying from 10s. to 17s. 6d. from the society, and that moulders who have joined the Army are employed in munition works at Llanelly and elsewhere, the Government paying, in addition to their wages, separation allowances to their wives; and whether, having regard to the need for national economy and the maintenance of our military strength, he will take steps to send back the soldier-moulders at Llanelly and elsewhere to their military duties, and replace them by the moulders who are now unemployed?
      Dr. ADDISON: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 13th December last, in which I pointed out that the work of moulders is specialised to a very high degree. In spite of the facts quoted by my hon. Friend there is at the present time an unsatisfied demand for upwards of 400 moulders of different grades, although the vacancies have been circulated to every Labour Exchange in the country. Any of the unemployed men referred to in the question who are in fact capable of filling these vacancies and willing to do so can at once be placed in employment in them. In the circumstances it would clearly be undesirable to take the action suggested in the question.

      DILUTION OF LABOUR (CLYDE DISTRICT).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will give the terms of the agreement between Messrs. Beard-more and Company and the representative of the employés for the dilution of labour at the Parkhead Works, Glasgow?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have communicated with the Chairman of the Commissioners for dilution of labour in the Clyde district,
      806
      and am informed by him that the labour dilution scheme applied to the works at Parkhead of William Beardmore and Company, Limited, provides that:
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is there not a further condition providing for supervision over the scale by a committee of the shop stewards of the workmen?
      Dr. ADDISON: There was an arrangement of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am informed that it was not in the form of an agreement.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not in the agreement between the employers and the representatives of the workmen?
      Dr. ADDISON: According to the information which I have got it is not in the form of an agreement, though an arrangement was made.

      RIFLE GRENADES.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that during the end of last month and the beginning of this month a number of casualties were caused on the Western frontier by rifle grenades; whether he is aware that the Germans appear to have had an unlimited supply of these grenades, while our supply was strictly

      807
      Limited; and will he say when the importance of having large supplies of rifle grenades was first brought to his notice by the War Office?
      Dr. ADDISON: The importance of this matter is fully appreciated, but it would be contrary to the public interest to enter into details with regard to the supply of rifle grenades.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Why have we not got enough?
      Dr. ADDISON: There are a good many different kinds to be dealt with, which ought not to be considered in public discussion.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (USE OF ARMS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to give the House the text of the instruction issued to merchant shippers with respect to arming and their use of arms?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): AS I have already stated, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is engaging the attention of the Admiralty.

    AIR SERVICE.

      ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether the manufacture of anti-aircraft guns for Home defence has now priority over other ordnance; if so, on what date did he issue such instructions to the manufacturers of ordnance?
      The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Colonel Lee): Under instructions issued on 10th February the manufacture of certain anti-aircraft guns for Home defence was given priority over that of certain classes of field guns of which the existing and prospective deliveries were so large that it was possible to adopt the above course without detriment to military interests.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that we have so many field guns that these field guns are not necessary for the front?
      Colonel LEE: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman looks at my answer he will see that the existing and prospective deliveries were so large that it was possible to adopt this course without detriment to military interests. It was only to make provision for a certain number of guns of this nature, and there is no intention whatever of taking any action whatever that will be detrimental to the interests of any of our arms.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he took the ordering of ordnance and the design of guns out of the control of Lord Kitchener last autumn and placed the same in the hands of the Minister of Munitions, he will say whether he authorised Lord Kitchener to state that the construction of anti-aircraft guns for Home defence has now priority over other ordnance; and, if so, will he say what are the reasons which led His Majesty's Government to take this step to the detriment of the men fighting in the field?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The accelerated manufacture of anti-aircraft guns will not be to the detriment of the supply of the forces in the field. The priority given to the production of such guns, which was the result of a decision of the War Committee, will only effect certain classes of lighter ordnance with which the Army is already well supplied. Lord Kitchener made his view clear by a statement in another part of his speech:
      "The people of this country do not desire to give too great importance to these attacks or allow them to affect our military operations."
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions stated that anti-aircraft guns had been given precedence of field guns in manufacture, and that many field guns at the present time are very badly worn and at present require to be renewed?
      The PRIME MINISTER: That is not so.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: He
      said so.

      SIR, PERCY SCOTT.
      Major NEWMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Sir Percy Scott was relieved of the command of London anti-aircraft defences at 1 p.m. precisely on the 16th instant; whether he is now adviser in matters of anti-aircraft gunnery to the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces and of naval gunnery to the First Lord of the Admiralty; and whether it is intended to appoint this officer to some position where his energy and administrative ability will have some executive scope?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Sir Percy Scott's responsibility to the Admiralty ceased on the transfer of the Anti-Aircraft Defence of London to the War Office. He has accepted the appointment of Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in regard to gunnery matters relating to such anti-aircraft defence, and he is also, under an arrangement made in November, 1914, available for consultation in regard to naval gunnery when the Board of Admiralty desire his advice.
      Major NEWMAN: In view of the discrepancy between the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given and the answer given by the War Office on the 16th February I shall call attention to this matter in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

      JOINT NAVAL AND MILITARY COMMITTEE.
      Sir JOHN BETHELLasked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement with regard to the Joint Naval and Military Committee to deal with the Air Service?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to be able to announce that Lord Derby has accepted the Chairmanship of the Committee referred to, and that, with his accustomed public spirit, Lord Derby has volunteered to act without any remuneration.

    SCHOOLMASTERS (ROYAL NAVY).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, except in very exceptional
    810
    cases, schoolmasters who joined the Service since 1910 do not benefit under the 1910 concessions; that under the present Regulations only two promotions of men who joined in 1913 can take place within the next ten years; that several men who joined in that year will have to wait thirty years before being promoted, and are thereby prevented from ever becoming chief schoolmasters; that the Army and Royal Marines schoolmasters have recently been made warrant officers; and whether, in view of all these facts, he will consider the question of raising the status of the naval schoolmaster and giving further consideration to the question of promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained fully on 24th November to my hon. Friend the improvements in the pay and prospects of naval schoolmasters made in 1910. I regret that it is impracticable at the present time to reopen the general question. I might remark that warrant rank for Royal Marine schoolmasters after twelve years' service has been in existence for about thirty-five years.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those schoolmasters who have joined since 1910 do not participate in the concessions given in 1910?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has in mind, I think, the question of promotions?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They do participate in all the benefits, but I understand that my hon. Friend thinks that promotion is rather slow.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before 1910 the applications were very small, but since then they have been large.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I went with the greatest care through all these matters in 1910. I really cannot take any steps now.

    H.M.S. "ALBION" (RELIEF).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can

    811
    say how it happened that no relief has been given to the men on His Majesty's ship "Albion" since the beginning of the War; and, in view of the fact that the naval barracks are filled to overflowing, would it be possible in this and in some other cases to effect a change?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Reliefs for ships long abroad are arranged so far as military exigencies permit. Those longest from home are the first considered, and His Majesty's ship "Albion" will receive attention in her turn.

    S.S. "MAURETANIA."
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the steamship "Mauretania" is now under charter by the Government; if so, since what date was she chartered; what is the average total cost per month of running the ship; what was the date when she completed her last voyage; and what is she doing at the present time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA:The "Mauretania" is at present under charter to the Government. She has been on hire since 11th May, 1915; she completed her last voyage on 25th January, 1916. Since then she has been prepared for further service as a hospital ship. In view of altered circumstances, however, it has now been decided that she can be dispensed with and is being returned to her owners. It is not considered desirable to publish the cost of the ship, but the arrangements made with the owners were very favourable to the Government, the company having agreed to waive the rates payable under their agreement made with the Government before the War.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many of the 12,446 male and 10,500 female uninterned alien enemies are of German nationality, exclusive of natives of Alsace-Lorraine?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Technically, 7,350 of the males and about two-thirds of the females are of German nationality. It is not possible to state how many are natives of Alsace-Lorraine, but persons of French race from Alsace-Lorraine form only one of the several classes of friendly race or sympathies who are technically of German nationality. Of Germans and Austrians of military age, 6,756 males have been exempted from internment, and of this number the natives of Alsace-Lorraine, the Czechs, Poles, and Southern Slavs amount to a little over 3,000. I cannot give the figures as to other persons of friendly race or sympathies.

    AMALGAMATED UNION OF CLOTHIERS' OPERATIVES.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary the present position of the dispute between the Amalgamated Union of Clothiers' Operatives and the Employers' Federation on the question of the employment of women; whether a meeting between the two has been held, and, if not, why this has not been done, as was promised by the Home Office; and will he at once get into touch with the hon. Member for Loughborough, who is chairman of the Employers' Federation, and try to arrange the conference, in view of the fact that the ranks of the operatives are being rapidly increased by the introduction of women, for whom there are no recognised rates of pay?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet been able to bring together the representatives of the employers and of the workers affected by the dispute in the garment working trade at Leeds; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the matter, in view of the critical stage that has been reached?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): A conference with representatives from a number of branches of the Operatives' Society took place yesterday, and

    813
    conferences with the Employers' Association and with the executive of the Operatives' Society are being held to-day. It is hoped that a settlement may be reached.

    NORWICH PRISON.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that unrest has been created among the warders at Norwich Prison since the departure for active service of the governor, Lieutenant-Colonel Fowler, who held the respect and confidence of the men; that the unrest and discontent is due to the policy of the acting-governor, H. Wade, who subjects the warders to irritating petty persecutions and has revived the obsolete practice of fining officers for trivial offences; that one warder, after twelve years' service, has resigned and sacrificed his pension rather than accept the new conditions; and whether steps will be taken to inquire into these complaints with a view to a better feeling being restored?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Nothing is known to the Prison Commissioners of these allegations. On the contrary, the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, in his Annual Report, says of Mr. Wade:
    "I cannot speak too highly of the acting-governor. I attribute the general good conduct of the prisoners entirely to his tact and management."
    This good opinion is corroborated by His Majesty's inspectors. It is the fact that a warder has recently resigned after twelve years' service. The reason given by him in writing was that he meant to seek outdoor occupation, and that his eyesight was worrying him, and he could not concentrate his mind on his work. He also told the governor that he wished to better himself. If any definite complaint is submitted, inquiry will, of course, be made. I would deprecate the publicity given by means of a question in this House to charges against a member of the prison service before there has been time to investigate the charges and before even any complaint has been made to his official superiors.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SAILORS AND SOLDIERS).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether a Bill will be introduced at an early date to give effect to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Land Settlement for Sailors and Soldiers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given yesterday on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us have an early Debate on this question, on account of the interest taken in it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONS (OFFICIAL RECORDS).
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability in the public interest of issuing from time to time official Reports reviewing the history, position, and prospects of the various British Expeditions in France and elsewhere; and whether, having regard to the contradictory estimates of irresponsible military critics, the military authorities will follow the example of the French and publish at intervals a carefully and scientifically compiled estimate of the losses sustained by the enemy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, it is proposed to issue shortly the first of a series of descriptive accounts of past events written up from Official Records, as these become available for the purpose. It would clearly not conduce to the success of the various Expeditions to make public their actual position from time to time in greater detail than is done at present. In reply to the last part of the question, it is not thought desirable to issue any such official estimate of the enemy's losses.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hem. Friend say whether the Reports will be on a commercial basis, or as a Parliamentary Paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. L. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the increase in the number of courts-martial and the change in the character of the Army, he will take steps to simplify and modernise the procedure of these Courts so as to bring it into conformity with that of the ordinary Criminal Courts; to provide that at least one member of such Courts and every judge advocate shall be an officer who has had some years' experience in active practice as a lawyer; and to give to the accused a similar right of appeal to a military tribunal as is enjoyed by a person charged in the ordinary Criminal Courts to the Court of Criminal Appeal?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not considered desirable at the present time to make any alteration in the procedure of courts-martial, which is simple and with which military officers are conversant. Whenever possible the services of officers with previous legal experience are and will be utilised to the fullest extent. No alteration of the law with regard to the right of appeal is contemplated.

    AMERICAN DOLLAR SECURITIES.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to facilitate the transfer by trustees to the Treasury of American dollar securities, the Government propose to introduce legislation to enable any of the trustees to act independently of a co-trustee who may be absent abroad on military or other service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that so great an interference with the provisions of Trust Deeds as this suggestion involves would be justified. The Execution of Trust (War Facilities) Acts, 1914 and 1915, already provide consider-
    816
    able special facilities for the performance by trustees of their duties in the exceptional circumstances of the present time.

    NEW ZEALAND EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made in the New Zealand Parliament by the Minister of Defence, the Hon. J. Allen, on 7th July, 1915, that when the New Zealand Expeditionary Force was dispatched the British War Office undertook to provide relieving and stationary hospitals and a base hospital; that he, the Minister, being disturbed by a Report received from the Dardanelles as to the medical arrangements, cabled twice to the Army Council offering hospital accommodation and equipment but received no reply; that subsequently the Governor cabled to Lord Kitchener asking that New Zealand should be allowed to provide her own hospitals; and that, after a delay of sixteen days, a reply was received accepting the offer; whether he is aware that the New Zealand Cabinet on the following day took steps to dispatch hospital equipment; will he say who is responsible for the delay in replying to the offer of the New Zealand Government; and whether the person or persons responsible will be dismissed for their neglect in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the statement referred to. I find that the cable from the Minister of Defence, dated 10th March, was not replied to until the 26th March, when the personnel of the stationary hospital offered was accepted. It was necessary in the interval to consult the military authorities in Egypt before any proposals for bringing additional personnel were definitely confirmed. In the circumstances, I do not think the time occupied in these consultations could have been much reduced.

    NEW MILITARY MEDAL.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing the French

    817
    award the honour of the Croix de Guerre to numbers of officers and men for gallant services in the field, he is aware that a number of our officers at the front holding high rank feel that our sparse distribution of Military Crosses and Distinguished Conduct Medals in no way meets the justice of the claims of officers and men having regard to their gallant conduct and the size of our Armies; will he consider the desirability of instituting a new decoration so that immediate recognition could be given to officers and men who have done well at a critical moment in the presence of the enemy if the generals or officers commanding on the spot recommend such decoration should be granted; and whether he is aware that recommendations for honours made by lieutenant-generals, brigadier-generals, and commanding officers are constantly ignored owing to the limited number of decorations that are granted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The distribution of rewards of this nature has been made on a scale which compares favourably with that of previous wars, but I am in a position to state that by direction of His Majesty the King the institution of a new medal is now under consideration with a view to meeting the exceptionally large numbers of claims to recognition on account of bravery in the field.

    LONDON COUNTY HALL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount expended by the London County Council since the outbreak of the War on the erection of the new County Hall buildings in Lambeth; and whether it is the intention of the Government to permit further expenditure beyond the amount already actually due for work done upon this edifice?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The figure asked for is not readily available, but I will obtain it and inform my hon. Friend. All further work on the edifice has been suspended by direction of the Minister of Munitions.

    WAR EXPENDITURE (TAXATION AND BORROWING).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the costs of the War up to date has been raised by borrowing and what proportion by taxation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Any figures given at the present moment would be misleading, since a considerable proportion of the total tax revenue for 1915-16 is only now in course of collection. I hope to deal with the subject in my next financial statement.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Sir J. BETHELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the suggested increase of taxation, he can see his way to amend Section 38 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, by substantially increasing the Excess Profits Duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that my hon. Friend's question relates to the period for which Excess Profits Duty is already in force. I am afraid I am unable to adopt his suggestion.

    NERVE-STRAIN (TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what sum the War Office have paid to asylum authorities since last June in respect to the care and treatment of uncertifiable soldiers invalided through nerve-strain in the War; and are these asylum authorities responsible, during the period that this payment is continued, for the care and treatment of soldiers so invalided who still continue in the Army?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Soldiers so situated have not been placed in the care of asylum authorities, but certain asylum buildings have been taken over and are being conducted as military hospitals for

    819
    this special class of case. The whole responsibility remains directly with the military authorities.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements are now in existence for the care and treatment of uncertifiable cases of soldiers suffering from nerve disturbance and loss of mental balance; and whether he has yet been able to establish a special hospital for these cases in accordance with the intentions expressed by the Director of Medical Service on 12th February, 1915?
    Mr. TENNANT: The cases referred to by my hon. and learned Friend are treated in the neurological sections of the Territorial Force General Hospitals throughout the country, and in the Springfield War Hospital, Wandsworth, and the Red Cross Military Hospital, Maghull, near Liverpool. I have not been able to trace the expression of opinion referred to in the last part of the question, but I may say that no change in the present arrangements, which are satisfactory, is in contemplation.

    SOLDIERS UNDER MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that No. 16730, Private John M'Kail, is only seventeen years of age and is now serving abroad against his parent's wish, and that on 19th May, 1915, his adjutant wrote M'Kail's parent stating that he would not be sent to the front until he attained the age of nineteen; and whether the lad will now be brought back?
    Mr. TENNANT: I explained at length the method of dealing with these cases in a general answer I gave the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November, 1915. If this particular case is that about which I have had correspondence with my hon. Friend, perhaps he will allow me to refer him to that correspondence, to which I can add nothing.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have asked a Parliamentary question to which I desire to have an answer. May I ask when an adjutant
    820
    of His Majesty's Army gives a definite promise in the way he has done in the case in this question, and evidence of which I submitted to my right hon. Friend, whether the War Office is entitled to repudiate it, and, if so, do they take action with those officers who took this action of their own, which is ultra vires?
    Mr. TENNANT: Undoubtedly the War Office have a perfect right to overrule an adjutant. I am sure that will not be questioned. With regard to this special case, I really cannot say what action has been taken. If the adjutant gave that promise I will endeavour to see that the promise is respected. I do not think that would entail the bringing back of the young man to this country. He may perfectly well remain there while being trained.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware I sent him the actual letter, signed by the adjutant, and he has already seen it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am very sorry if that fact escaped my notice. I receive a number of letters.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that boys enlisted of sixteen or seventeen will not be sent to the front before the age of nineteen?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a general question, which does not arise out of this question.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (CHEMISTS' SECTION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the men who joined the Chemists' Section of the Royal Engineers and, in accordance with the terms of a written agreement, received the rank of corporal are to lose their chevron; and whether they are to be continued in making and projecting gas or used in any other way?
    Mr. TENNANT: The men who enlisted in special companies of the Royal Engineers and were given the rank of corporal on enlistment will retain their rank. These men are serving overseas under the com-

    821
    mand of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief British Forces in the Field, and they will be employed as he directs. Obviously it is not desirable to give public explanations as to the manner in which this class of personnel will, or will not, be employed.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of these men consist of graduates holding more than one degree from our big schools and universities all over the country and they are frequently employed on navvy's work at the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only say while it may be necessary so to employ some of these men I am sure such men will be the first to agree that they should be employed in the manner in which they can serve their country best.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in replacing civilian clerks of military age who are now required for military service, preference is given in all cases to the claims of men discharged from the Army for disability who are qualified to perform these duties?
    Mr. TENNANT: I imagine the hon. Member is not referring to civilian clerks who are in private employment, but is thinking rather of employment in Government, Record and Recruiting Offices. Instructions have been issued that soldiers on being discharged from the Army are to be invited to submit applications for temporary clerical employment in offices of the kind mentioned. There is no reason to doubt that the spirit of these instructions is being followed, though I cannot affirm that preference to men discharged from the Army from disability is given in all cases.

    ARAN ISLES (GALWAY) CABLE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is with the concurrence of the War Office
    822
    that the Director-General of Recruiting in Ireland is keeping the telegraphic cable between the Aran Isles and the mainland of Galway inoperative this season to impede the fishermen in marketing their fish and thus force them to enlist?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have inquired into this matter and have been unable to find any foundation for the allegation made in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not ascertained as the result of the inquiries?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have ascertained that there is no ground for the statement in the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the cable idle or not?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the cable is in normal use.

    SOLDIER'S DEATH (WEYMOUTH).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why Patrick Sullivan, a soldier of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, one of two brothers both wounded in, action, has been allowed to die of neglect in the workhouse at Weymouth, and buried in a pauper's grave there?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to inquire into the circumstances of this case, as I shall, of course, be glad to do, he must furnish me with further particulars, such as the regimental number, the number of the battalion, and the date of the alleged incident.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not inquired at the workhouse at Weymouth about this man who died suddenly there the other day?
    Mr. TENNANT: What was his name?
    Mr. GINNELL: Patrick Sullivan.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (LABOUR BATTALION).
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in

    823
    order to relieve the congestion at our ports and increase the carrying power of our mercantile marine, he will consider the question of engaging the temporary services of those willing to volunteer from the ranks of the Army at present stationed in England, for the purpose of loading and discharging vessels on Government account, on equitable terms as regards payment, and as supplementary to and after the whole of the civilians available are utilised?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which he will be glad to know has been anticipated by action already taken. A Labour Battalion is being formed by taking men from Territorial Force provisional battalions, and the formation of this battalion will probably be followed by the formation of other such battalions.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Corporal James Fraser, 6,244, 7th Cameron Highlanders, died at Cirencester on 23rd February of apoplexy; whether he had the Egyptian medal and clasp and seven first-class certificates; and whether he had been connected with the Army since 1876; whether on his last enlistment he was passed as medically fit; and what provision has been made for his widow and children?
    Mr. TENNANT: The disease from which this man died was not considered by the medical authorities to have originated during the four months when he was on active service, and pension was therefore not granted to the widow. But I am having the case again considered and will communicate further on it with my hon. Friend.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will further consider the possibility of
    824
    dispensing with horses, for which there is no military necessity under present conditions of warfare, in order to reduce expenditure, to set free thousands of trained soldiers now employed in attending to the horses, and to set free the tonnage required to transport hay and oats for their sustenance?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend assumes that there are with the Army thousands of horses for which there is no military necessity. If that were the case, I can assure him that there would be no hesitation in dispensing with them, but, as at present advised, the military authorities do not share his view.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, FRANCE (FIELD OFFICERS).
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of field officers at present employed on the lines of communication of the British Expeditionary Force in France who are in receipt of both retired and service pay, and the totals of both these classes of pay; and what would be the estimated saving to the country if the receipt by the same officer of both service and retired pay is discontinued?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret that I am unable to give these figures without much research, which would throw undue strain on an already overtaxed Department.
    Sir J. WALTON: Would not the saving of public money be considerable if my hon. Friend would investigate the facts?
    Mr. FORSTER: As my hon. Friend knows quite well, I said in answer to a question the other day that the whole subject-matter is under consideration.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

      DEMAND FOR, REPEAL (IRELAND).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it appears from minutes furnished to the Local Government Board that more than three-fourths of the rural district councils of Ireland

      825
      have within the last six months called for the repeal of the National Insurance Act so far as it relates to rural districts; whether he can mention any people in those districts desiring its continuance except those earning by its administration; and, in these circumstances, whether the Government still intend to disregard the wishes of the public?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 19th January, to which I have nothing to add.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that the Irish Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman is chairman, has received condemnation of this Act from nearly all the councils referred to?
      Mr. BIRRELL: No, I cannot answer to that effect because we cannot tell from the minutes whether they should have been entered as read, whether they have been discussed, or whether they have been passed. The hon. Member may take it from me that a considerable number of representative bodies have passed resolutions expressing disagreement with the Insurance Act.

      Irish Homespun Cloth.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what further steps he proposes to take in order to put an end to the sale of factory-made cloth as Irish homespun, in view of the recent successful prosecution undertaken by the Department against a firm for applying to a certain cloth which was not homespun the false trade description of "homespun"; whether he is aware that the genuine article is largely produced in certain districts of South Kerry, and that this industry, one of the most important cottage industries in the West of Ireland, has been threatened with extinction owing to the unfair methods which have now been condemned in a Court of Law; and whether the Department and the Congested Districts Board will act immediately in the matter?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The recent prosecution referred to in the question should, in the
      826
      view of the Department, have a useful effect in preventing the application of the description "homespun" to machine-made cloth. Should the Department, however, find machine-made cloth still placed on the market as homespun, they will not hesitate to take any further action open to them to prevent such misdescription. The Department are aware that homespuns are made in several districts in the North-West, West, and South-West of Ireland. The sale of machine-made tweeds as homespuns has undoubtedly injured the cottage industry.

      Larceny Acts (Consolidation Bill).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost of printing the Bill, introduced last year by the Lord Chancellor, for the consolidation and simplification of the Larceny Acts; how many copies were printed; and whether the type has been broken up or is being kept set up in view of a reintroduction of the Bill?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The total cost of printing the above-mentioned Bill was £22; 1,500 copies were printed; the type has been broken up.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the lengthy nature of this Bill and the totally unnecessary character of this expenditure?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I was not aware of that.

      Small Landholders Act, 1911.
      Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will restore to Scotland in this year's Budget the Grant of £200,000 to the Scottish Board of Agriculture for the purposes of the Small Landholders Act, 1911?
      Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. It has been arranged to repeat the provision made in the Estimates for the current year as regards the voted portion of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.
      Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the withdrawal of this Grant is being put forward as an excuse for not carrying into effect the Small Landholders Act?
      Mr. McKENNA: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on this subject.
      Mr. WATT: Did the right hon. Gentleman not make a definite promise that this sum would be suspended for only one year?
      Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the Prime Minister say what will be the business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad to have the question put to me by my right hon. and gallant Friend. We do not propose to ask the House to sit on Monday next.
  On Tuesday, we shall take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill;
  On Wednesday, the Supplementary Estimates;
  On Thursday, the Civil Service Vote on Account.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next.—[The Prime Minister.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

  NAVAL PRIZE PROCEDURE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): In a few sentences I desire to move the Second Reading of this Bill, dealing with a small matter which has arisen in practice, namely, the question of actions brought in the Prize Court against persons acting in the naval Service or in the employment of the Admiralty. As matters now stand, such actions can only be brought in this country. That is hardly convenient, because sometimes the cause of action arises elsewhere, and the facts are better known to the Court at the place where the question arose. We propose, therefore, to deal with the matter in two Clauses. The first Clause will repeal the
  832
  provision which requires the action to be brought in this country; and the second will give power to direct that the action, if brought here, be transferred to another Prize Court, which would naturally be the Court of the place where the question really arose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. REA (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House resolve itself a Committee on the Bill."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There is an Amendment which has to be moved to Clause 1, but I do not know that I wish to press it at the moment.
  Mr. REA: Then I will withdraw my Motion, and substitute for it, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly committed for Tuesday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: Before we adjourn, may we have an answer to a question which arises out of the Military Service Act, and in connection with the recruiting scheme? A great many separate statements have been made in regard to the men who are supposed to have been brought within the scope of the Bill, and who ought not to have been brought within it. Certain answers have been given as to what they ought to do. The latest answer, I am given to understand, was given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday to the hon. Member who represents York City. In that answer he said, in regard to conscientious objectors, that they ought to apply direct to the War Office. May I

  833
  ask my right hon. Friend this very simple question, to which I hope he can give an answer, because I assure him a very large number of men are very desirous of knowing the methods that they should adopt. Can he say that some complete scheme will be published widespread so that all these difficulties can be covered; the man involved may then know a direct and simple way out of his difficulties—if he has to set about stating his objections either to the tribunals or to the War Office direct? If my right hon. Friend can give me an answer I am perfectly certain he will relieve the minds of a very great number of men.
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to press the point mentioned, with his usual clearness, by the hon. Member who has just sat down, although he has not put the difficulty which appears to me to have grown up in connection with the tribunals. I think the statements we have had in respect to this matter and others from the Front Bench are most satisfactory. The lists of exemptions are quite sufficiently comprehensive; they certainly do not err on the side of not being comprehensive. But this is my point: What is to be done if the tribunals pay no attention to what is said on that Front Bench opposite, and disregard the list of exemptions? That is a question which is growing up. The tribunals are an unusual kind of tribunals in this country—quite unusual—and many of the members are not fully skilled even in the technicality of this single Act of Parliament which they have to construe. The result is that we have the anomaly, admitted to-day by the President of the Board of Trade, that there are large classes of merchant seamen whom it was intended to exempt, but who have received notices to come up. In many cases even the tribunals may not exempt them. We have had most specific assurances from the Prime Minister down to my right hon. Friend—or up to my right hon. Friend. Everything said from that bench has been conciliatory and satisfactory, but I press my point. The administration of the tribunals in London, at any rate, in some
  834
  cases, does not deserve the same epithets. In all parts of London men have been very hardly treated, and have found it quite impossible to obtain that consideration for their case which this House intended. Seeing the tribunals do not consist of skilled lawyers and deal with matters of the gravest importance, I do think the Government ought to take this matter into consideration. If my right hon. Friend can answer the question which has been put: Where the tribunal refuses—and I have heard them even speak slightingly of the War Office and of my right hon. Friend. These tribunals refuse to be bound by what is said from the Front Bench, and I should like to know what is to be done?
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should like to put a case to the Under-Secretary in regard to some of the cases that come before these tribunals. It is with respect to those who have been medically examined, but who have no certificates. I was going to throw out a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, which, I think, would possibly be satisfactory. In every case where a man has been examined officially by a doctor the doctor must keep a record of the physical condition of that man in his register. The doctor marks the register, or ought to do so. In the case of a man being medically entered as medically unfit the register ought to be placed before the tribunal. Where the man has not got a proper certificate, in such a case he would have the right to put in a claim for exemption. It may be impossible that there should be a record of all examinations, but if the record is in a medical register, or in a registered book written up by the doctor that such-and-such a man was medically unfit, that ought to be produced before the tribunal as evidence, and satisfactory evidence. I have had several letters upon this point—where in the rush of a number of men for attestation the doctors did not give a medical certificate. If this book is not to be brought before the tribunal—
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No, Sir. May I interrupt my hon. Friend. It is not the

  835
  case of a book coming before the tribunal, it is a question of the case coming before the tribunal.
  Mr. SAMUEL: How is a man, if he is called upon, to put himself right, if he has been medically rejected since 14th of August? How is he to prove his case without he has a certificate? Has he to tell the War Office or the local tribunal?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us if the position is not really that the man who has been rejected since 14th August is excepted from the Act, therefore he cannot be called upon to join? If, however, he is called upon to join he will tell the military authorities that he is outside the Act? If they do not accept that statement from him, then he has a remedy. The remedy, as I understand it, is to summon the man before a Civil Court and say that he is within the Act, and he will then have to produce before the Civil Court some evidence which satisfies the Court that he is outside the provisions of the Bill. The Act does not lay down what that evidence should be, but I understand, as in every Act of Parliament, it must be sufficient to satisfy a Civil Court that he has been rejected. The simplest evidence, of course, is the certificate. But there are certain cases where a certificate has not been granted, and I understand any satisfactory evidence that he has been rejected which satisfies the Court will be sufficient.
  Mr. WATT: I should like my right hon. Friend to elucidate the answer he gave to me yesterday.
  Mr. TENNANT: I shall be delighted.
  Mr. WATT: And I hope it will be something that will penetrate my mind. Yesterday his elucidation did not. This is a case, as my right hon. Friend knows, where the man has a double case—the question of employment, on which he has to appeal to one tribunal, and the question of domestic conditions, as to which he has to apply to another tribunal; the first tribunal being that in the district in which he
  836
  works, and the second that in the district which he lives. The right hon. Gentleman's reply yesterday was that whichever ground is subsidiary is passed by, and the main point is carried to the tribunal of that district.
  Mr. TENNANT: Both points.
  Mr. WATT: I want to know on whom the initiative lies. Has the man himself the choice first of all as to which is the subsidiary point, and then the tribunal before which he is to have his case decided? It would be most unfair to have half of the case tried before one tribunal and half before another. In each instance he might lose, whereas if cumulative he might win his point. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give instructions to tribunals to make some arrangements by which these cases are dealt with.
  Sir R. ADKINS: There is one point that has arisen since I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend on Tuesday, to which I should be grateful to him if he would give a reply. There are some cases of people who do not hold an actual medical certificate since 14th August, but who hold a statement "Rejected: not up to standard." I know one person particularly who is very uneasy as to whether he is now compelled to go before the tribunal or is in any way subject to military service. He has been summoned to attend, and he has, under advice, answered that he holds a certificate or statement that he was rejected as not being up to standard. I understand my right hon. Friend to say, and I am very grateful for it, that the real rule is that anyone who has been rejected at all since 14th August is not now liable for military service. But this particular point "Rejected: not up to standard" is one that actually arises, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend can specifically deal with that, if convenient to him, when he replies shortly. If not, I will put down a question next week, but my right hon. Friend will understand that time is short and these are practical points.
  Mr. RADFORD: I should like to put to my right hon. Friend a question about the

  837
  conduct of recruiting officers, for whom, I take it, he is responsible to this House. I will only mention one instance to save time. A Constituent of mine, who was in doubt as to whether he was liable to be called up under the Act or not, he having attained the age of forty-one on 15th November last, did perhaps a foolish thing: he consulted the recruiting officer as to whether he was liable. It is the business of recruiting officers, like commercial travellers, to lie in the course of their profession, but, as my right hon. Friend has said before, he does not necessarily support them in all their actions. This recruiting officer I have in my mind advised the inquirer that he had better go and attest. He knew he was not liable, under the law as a single man who had not attested, but he knew if he got him to attest he could secure him for the Army. I think my right hon. Friend will probably repudiate the action of the recruiting officer. I hope we shall not seek to recruit our Army by discreditable tricks, but that we shall take those men who are legally liable to serve and not attempt to cajole or trick men into the service of their country.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: I wish to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that my right hon. Friend will take opportunity to clear away as far as possible the misconceptions which exist, and I am sure the House will welcome an opportunity of having an authoritative statement from him on these points. With regard to one particular point, the difficulty has already been brought to the attention of the House by a question by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson). It was shown in that question that a case had arisen—and I have had four similar cases brought to my notice to-day from the London area—where men applied for exemption forms and were officially informed at the town hall where they applied that they could not have an exemption form unless they attested; and in some cases these foolish men have taken the word of the authorities and have attested in order to claim exemption. I
  838
  think it is very desirable that their position should not be worse through a mistake not due to their own fault, and that there should be some authoritative statement by the right hon. Gentleman that men who have been led into attesting by an official statement, either by the recruiting officer or by the officer of the tribunal, shall have their position in no way made worse by so doing, when their object in attesting was merely to bring a claim for exemption. It seems a strange thing that men should make a mistake of that kind, but undoubtedly quite a number of men have done it, and they have been induced to do it by direct misrepresentation made to them by the authorities. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would disapprove of any such misrepresentation, and one has merely to bring it to his notice to have the case corrected; but it is very important from the point of view of the proper administration of the law that his statement should be made as early as possible, and in as firm and clear a manner as possible.
  Mr. T. WILSON: There is just one little point to which I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. In December last I asked him whether soldiers had the right to affirm if they had conscientious objection to taking the oath, and he replied, "Yes, they have that right." I am getting letters now saying that the magistrates at certain recruiting offices are refusing to allow men to affirm and threatening them with all sorts of penalties if they will not take the oath. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was well known in the Army that men could affirm. It is not the military officers, but the magistrates attesting these men who are refusing to allow them to affirm. I want it made clear that a man has the same right to affirm for the Army as in the Civil Court, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this clear.
  Mr. HASLAM: I do not see why the slightest difficulty should arise. Surely the question is merely one of carrying out the law of the land, which is absolutely incontrovertible that men who have got the proper certificate after 14th August should not be enlisted. I have been in-

  839
  formed of a case, and I have sent the papers to the War Office, of a man who has been enlisted against his will when he had such a certificate, and I want to be assured that if such cases arise justice will be done to these men. If we wish to have the law altered that is another matter for which a special Act should be passed, but, as long as we have an Act of Parliament, let us carry it out honestly and to the letter.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I want to bring another case before the right hon. Gentleman and to support the plea of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford). I do hope that, in the strongest possible manner, the right hon. Gentleman will give the recruiting authorities to understand that we want this law carried out in a legitimate and honest manner. It cannot be said of some of us that we have stood in the way of recruiting. We have done our best, and therefore no prejudice in that direction can be urged against us. I have had a case sent to me to-day where one of my Constituents had attested in December last and had been given the Blue Form as medically unfit, and then he was written to to come and fetch his armlet. When he got to the place where he supposed his armlet was, not having applied for it, he was told that his papers were of mo use, and they were taken away from him, and he was given an armlet, although he is now an invalid on ambulance work. He may have been willing to enlist or otherwise, but he had been exempted and was forced into this position. I think it is disgraceful that such conduct should take place. One of the effects, if this kind of trickery goes on, will be to make it most difficult indeed in the recruiting work which some of us have carried on, and are willing to carry on still for the Army. I therefore ask that my right hon. Friend should, as strongly as possible, request recruiting officers to learn what is the sense, of the House on this subject.
  Mr. HINDS: I wish to raise the question of men being called before tribunals, especially in London. I know many cases where men have been before one tribunal and, after having had their case considered
  840
  by that tribunal, they have been called before a neighbouring tribunal. There is something wrong with regard to that, and I want to bring it before the Under-Secretary so that it may be remedied. With regard to employment in one place and residence in another, I see no reason why the two points should not be taken together and the whole case considered by one tribunal, wherever it is.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am very glad to have an opportunity of trying to settle in men's minds what undoubtedly are a certain number of difficulties. I have had already two essays at this, and I had hoped that I had made certain points clear in a speech of considerable length on Tuesday. When a new Act of Parliament is passed, undoubtedly its administration is not always a very easy and clear thing, and, although there have been a large number of cases where action has been taken, sometimes, I think, with folly displayed, not unequally perhaps, between the recruiting authority and the person involved—certainly I think very often a man has been very unwise in the action he has taken, and sometimes, of course, the recruiting authority probably has been to blame—in spite of those instances which have been given, I think, on the whole, we may claim there has been wonderfully little disturbance in the country over this Act. I gave an answer at Question Time this afternoon to the effect that I was issuing further instructions at once. I hope to get them out to-day, but I am sure the House will realise that I have been a little overwhelmed in the last few days, and I really cannot overtake everything, so much so that I had to send my letters in a trolley to-day to another office to have them answered. That will give the House some idea of the amount of correspondence with which we have to deal. The recruiting authorities have issued, through the War Office, this notice:
  "If a man who has been attested and classified in a group receives a notice paper (Army Form W. 3236) calling him up under the Military Service Act, he should return it to the officer who sent it to him.
  At the same time he should enclose the following information:

  1. His full name and address.

  2. Date of attestation.

  841

  3. Address of recruiting station as on his white card Army Form W. 3194.

  4. His group number.

  In the great pressure of work it is likely that such, cases will occur, particularly in respect of men only recently attested, or who are attested between now and the closing of the single men's groups."
  That gives some information, although I know it is only a small point. The main gravamen of the charge made against the Recruiting Department of the War Office is that the men have been cajoled into joining after they have been previously rejected as medically unfit since 14th August of last year. I would say that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred where that has been done it is not where the man has come forward at all for a certificate of exemption, but where he has come forward for an armlet. I have already dealt with armlets, and I do not think I need repeat my answer. What I promised to issue is recorded in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that will be issued to-day. I cannot quite carry the whole of the points in my mind, but they are, roughly, these: That a man who has been medically rejected since that date in August, and has produced proper evidence of that which can be accepted at once, is outside the scope of the Act. If he has been medically examined, and if the medical officer has got his name in the book for that purpose, that evidence will certainly be accepted by the military authorities as being quite sufficient, if it can be proved that he is the right person to whom it is applicable, and can show that he has been so medically rejected. On the other hand, if a man has nothing to show, and merely relies upon his own ipse dixit, we cannot, and I do not think the House can expect us, to accept that.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Whose fault is it?
  Mr. TENNANT: Really my hon. Friend must ask me a better question than that. How on earth is it possible to say whose fault it is? It may have been the man's fault, and he may have been hurrying to catch a train or something of that kind, and there are a hundred and one reasons. The man may have lost it, or he may have given it to the recruiting sergeant.
  Mr. PRINGLE: In the case I gave he was asked for it.
  Mr. TENNANT: Does my hon. Friend do everything that he is asked to do?
  Mr. PRINGLE: If I was asked to produce evidence of my rejection and I produced it, and the recruiting officer took it out of my hands and tore it up, I should not be responsible.
  Mr. TENNANT: That is a very unusual case.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It has been done frequently.
  Mr. TENNANT: I agree if that were done it would be very reprehensible, but I cannot think that it has been done often. I know what has been done. Occasionally a man has given up his certificate of rejection in order to receive an armlet. He has been given the armlet, and then the certificate of rejection has been destroyed in order that it might not be sold to somebody else. The armlet is quite sufficient evidence that a man has been rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) raised a point about conscientious objectors, and he said that different treatment was being meted out by different tribunals. If a man has attested under the Derby scheme I think that is primâ facie evidence that he could not have a very strong conscientious objection to killing. There is no ground for maintaining that a man who has attested, and declared that he is willing to fight for the King, has any strong conscientious objections against killing. It is conceivable that there may be an exceptional case, but where there was such a case it should be brought to headquarters at the War Office. Obviously we cannot deal with great blocks of men in such an off-hand manner, but what I am suggesting is only for a very small number.
  Mr. HOGGE: If a man addresses you in the ordinary way, will the case be attended to?
  Mr. TENNANT: If he makes an application to me I shall try and deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) asked

  843
  me to elucidate the point to which I gave an answer yesterday at Question Time. I quite agree it is a perfectly legitimate point, but I do not really think it is of great importance. A man who is trying to arrive at a conclusion on the point raised by my hon. Friend surely might consult his employer and by arrangement come to the decision which is necessary. They might produce the case on private grounds and public grounds at the same time, but we do not want to multiply appeals to the tribunals. With regard to the case of a man tried by one tribunal and then referred to another, I agree that that is a difficult point, but it is quite wrong, and this ought not to be done. I do not understand how the case cropped up, but if the applicant had asked the second tribunal whether he was being properly referred to them, having originally been brought up before the first tribunal, I think they would have said to him that he must complete his case in the first tribunal, and that would have been the right tribunal to deal with his case. One can quite understand, however, that in a new and novel set of circumstances such as those which now confronts us, there must be some difficulty of this kind crop up from time to time. That is the course which I should pursue if I were the man concerned, and I should say, "I do not want to bring this to another tribunal." I do not think it is really necessary for me to repudiate once more what has been said with regard to acts of dishonesty and so forth, because I have done this two or three times already.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point as to whether a person who has received a certificate that he is not up to the standard is in the same position as the man who has been rejected on the ground of medical unfitness; and whether that does not come within the fact that he has been rejected since 15th August, and is therefore not subject to the Act?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, that is a new point. The hon. Member who puts the question is a better lawyer than I am, but
  844
  I think it will be found that the phraseology of the Act provides for that case.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Then it covers my case.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think that would be the interpretation put upon it by any person learned in the law.
  Colonel YATE: Have any steps been taken to deal with men who were not up to standard in order to bring them up to the standard? I know a great many who were not able to join because they required a little training.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the instructions issued to tribunals?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think my right hon. Friend will do well in all seriousness to put himself in communication with the President of the Local Government Board, who will inform him of the actual steps which have been taken with regard to tribunals. My right hon. Friend opposite will realise that it is not any part of the function of the War Office to issue instructions to the tribunals. That matter is entirely in the hands of the Local Government Board. I am acquainted with the fact that the President of the Local Government Board has already issued some instructions, but whether they are of an official or unofficial character I would not like to say. I believe he has communicated with the Central Appeal Tribunal, giving them his views as to certain interpretations to be put upon alleged reasons for being exempted from the provisions of the Act. In fact, my right hon. Friend was good enough to let me see what he was going to say in order that the War Office could make any observations upon it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) need fear that the local tribunals are likely to disregard promises made by Ministers in this House. My information is rather that the local tribunals feel a little difficulty in dismissing appeals owing to those very promises. I understand that they have been greatly restrained. I am a little relieved to hear that what reaches my right hon. Friend is different from what reaches me, because

  845
  that looks as if we might get more men into the Army, and in point of fact, as I think the House realises, the number of men who are being exempted by the tribunals is very large indeed.
  Mr. LOUGH: Not in London.
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not say that it is improper for a moment, because I do not wish to make any reflection on the action of tribunals who are only carrying out a very difficult task imposed upon them for the first time under a new Statute. Of course, the object of the Act is to get men to serve in the Army, and that ought to be borne in mind.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am sure my right hon. Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy in the question which I ventured to put to him during his speech as to whose fault it was when an applicant had not got a certificate of rejection. The right hon. Gentleman, at an earlier stage in to-day's proceedings, definitely stated that in a number of cases, although applicants had been rejected, no rejection papers were given to them. That was why I asked whose fault it was that those applicants had no rejection certificates to show, and I repeat, whose fault was it? The fault surely was that of the Army officials who failed to supply them with certificates of rejection. What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman ask for in those cases? I. would suggest that in all cases of rejection records are kept, and, although an applicant may have no certificate because no certificate was given to him, it yet ought to be easy to check the fact of his rejection from the official records. Surely it is very unfair that such an applicant, who has been rejected but who has not been given a certificate of rejection, should now be told that he is subject to the terms of the Military Service Act and will become a conscript unless he again attests. Such a man ought to be protected from any such statement. For my own part, I very much welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman replies to points in connection with this Act. He has shown, if I may venture to say so, the utmost fairness in
  846
  the Debates in this House, and he has disclaimed, I believe with entire sincerity, any intention of or sympathy with any trickery or unfairness.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said. It is true that we have come into rather serious controversy with my right hon. Friend on this question, but I wish now most sincerely to assure him that whatever may have appeared there has not been the slightest intention upon the part of any Member of the House to throw any doubt upon his own good faith in this matter. Nobody who knows the right hon. Gentleman would for a moment think that he has been anything but straightforward throughout this transaction, and indeed in regard to everything connected with the administration of the War Office. Some of us, however, feel that there has not been quite absolute fair dealing on the part of someone in the Department, though we appreciate the chivalry with which the right hon. Gentleman has defended his subordinates, and we regret that inadvertently some blame may have been directed at his head. We appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concession in regard to the men medically rejected, but I should like to know what procedure will be required to be adopted by a man who is aggrieved in the way mentioned in order to obtain his rights under the Act. My right hon. Friend will remember that in the course of the last Debate he challenged me to bring any case before him, and he said that if I would do so he would deal with it. The result has been that a great many people in all parts of the country have been sending me cases, but I do not think that I am the proper vehicle of all the cases arising in consequence of this procedure, and it would be well if an intimation were made what course these men ought to adopt.
  There is a second difficulty in regard to evidence where for any reason the documentary evidence has disappeared. Some intimation should be given what nature of evidence is required to show that a man has been actually rejected. Nobody wants bogus cases to obtain relief by any

  847
  concession which my right hon. Friend may have made, but if a man can bring any evidence to prove that he has been medically rejected since 14th August, 1915, then, though the documentary evidence may no longer be available, he should be entitled at least to have consideration given to his evidence. There is another point in relation to the man who has a double claim for exemption and who resides in the area of one tribunal and has his business in the area of another tribunal. I quite understand the reasons which make it necessary that a man should go and present his whole case to one tribunal, but he should have liberty to choose the tribunal, and his choice of a tribunal should rot be taken as indicating the relative value of the grounds of his application. If a man by selecting one tribunal indicates that in his view one claim is stronger than another and the tribunal before which he goes thinks that his claim on that ground is invalid, they will be prejudiced in their consideration of his second claim, because they will say, "If your better claim is bad, we are not inclined to pay very much attention to the second." I say that a man should not only have free choice of the tribunal, but his choice should not be taken as indicating upon which claim he wishes mainly to rest his right to exemption.
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think that a man ought to have the choice.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If my right hon. Friend says so, I am quite satisfied. I will put down a question as to what procedure should be adopted.
  Mr. RADFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the Appeal Courts? It would be a great relief to many men contemplating appeal to know if the Appeal Courts have been set up, and, if not, when they will be set up.
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe that they are in course of being set up, but, if my right hon. Friend will put down a question, I will answer it on Tuesday.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins) on the subject of men who have been rejected as not coming up to standard? We have been able by a little training and by helping them to get voluntary drill to bring a large number of men up to standard. Some 800 came up for voluntary drill, two-thirds were made fit for enlistment and about one-third were enlisted. In Leicester we do our best to help to get men into the Service and not to help men to get out of the Service. It would be a great thing if those rejected were given some encouragement to try to bring themselves up to standard and to enlist.
  Mr. TENNANT: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the action which has already been taken. It seems to have been of great use. I do not know exactly what he expects the War Office to do in the way of giving encouragement, but I will express here every encouragement to such men and the hope that they will utilise the agencies which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned for the purpose, but beyond expressing pious sympathy I really do not know what I can do. I can only intimate to men who are anxious to improve their physique and to join the Army and serve their country the procedure to be adopted and the place to which to go in order to have this physical drill. That is one of the grounds why we welcome voluntary training corps. Beyond that, I do not really know what I can do.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentlemen consider the matter? Perhaps the recruiting officer could help, or some little allowance might be given to the instructors or to these bodies, which are entirely voluntary.
  Mr. TENNANT: I know, but I must not mortgage the public purse.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes before Five o'clock, until Tuesday next, 29th February, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

WAR.
  ARMY, NAVY, MUNITIONS (EXPENDITURE, 1915-16).
  ARMY, NAVY, MUNITIONS (EXPENDITURE, 1915-16).
  ROYAL NAVY (LOSS OF SIGHT).
  ROYAL NAVY (LOSS OF SIGHT).
  TRENCH-FOOT (PENSIONS OR ALLOWANCES).
  TRENCH-FOOT (PENSIONS OR ALLOWANCES).
  ARMY MOTOR-CAR DRIVERS.
  ARMY MOTOR-CAR DRIVERS.
  MUNITIONS.
    AEROPLANE ENGINES.
    AEROPLANE ENGINES.
    WAR MOTOR VEHICLES.
    WAR MOTOR VEHICLES.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  PAPER COMMISSION.
  PAPER COMMISSION.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

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.