:Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I wish to draw attention to a point which I omitted last night in the hurry of the moment. I indicated the provisions of the Review of Exceptions Act, and said that at least those provisions relating to wounded and disabled men should be retained, but I wish also to know whether those provisions will cover, first of all, men suffering from neurasthenia, and, secondly, men who have been re-examined and have received their final discharge as totally unfit for any sort of military service? I hope I may have an assurance from the Government before we part with this Amendment, that these men will have the statutory protection which they have at present under the Review of Exceptions Act.

:It is obvious to the Committee that we cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it appears upon the Paper, but I think it was really moved for the purpose of raising this point as to wounded and disabled men. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that we do intend to put in the Schedule words which will preserve the existing rights, certainly the statutory rights, of those men. It is not possible for me to state the words this morning, as I have not been able to obtain them, but hon. Members will see them on the Paper in time before they are reached. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) yesterday as to ministers of religion we want to consult the opinion of the House with regard to what should be done on that point, but I think it would be more convenient to take that matter when we come to deal with Sub-section (2).

What security have we that the Amendment to Sub-section (2) will be reached?

If we are all reasonable, and do not waste time it can be reached.

:I want to be perfectly clear on the point as to men coming under the Review of Exceptions Act. I understand that the Government have pledged themselves, either by taking the Amendment on the Paper or by putting down one themselves, that wounded men, suffering from shell-shock or from neurasthenia and discharged from the Army, are specifically excluded from the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I am not clear as to what safeguard is going to be provided for the men who have been discharged for disability, whether they have served overseas or at home. Is the Government going to make statutory provision that these men shall not be called up again for examination with a view to going into the Army if they are doing work of national importance? I press that upon the Government for their consideration, because I believe an assurance has been given by the National Service Department that there is no intention to bring those men to whom I refer within the Bill.

I put a specific question last night, which was not included by my hon. Friend, namely, the case of the time-expired man who has been wounded. That man is specially exempted by the pledge of Ministers to the House, and this makes a third class added to the two classes, namely, wounded men and men suffering from neurasthenia. I want to know whether these time-expired men who have been wounded will be covered by the words to be put into the Schedule, and that it is not intended to touch them? If an assurance is given upon that point I shall be satisfied. Can the Home Secretary say definitely, now, that all these classes which have been mentioned will be covered? Although he cannot accept the present Amendment, I should like, if he could, a definite assurance to the Committee.

:I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman says in regard to the Review of Exceptions Act, that the words to be introduced will apply to wounded men and men suffering from neurasthenia and others. Under the Review of Exceptions Act, men not serving in the forces at all are protected if they have received a certificate of total exemption from military service. Are we to understand that right is retained under the Review of Exceptions Act, and will be preserved under this Bill?

:The right hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention of putting down an Amendment with regard to ministers of religion. That Amendment should be upon the Paper. We are working under very serious conditions, but that is not our fault, and, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says he will put down an Amendment at a later stage, I say that the Amendment should have been upon the Paper to-day or should have been in the Bill. It is not a question of ministers of religion, because this shocking Bill proposes to take monks who have been thirty years in a monastery and turn them into soldiers. Those monks are living in cells, except when they are teaching children; they live under most rigorous conditions, never eating meat from one year's end to the other, and to treat these monks as soldiers would be like putting a baby under arms. The Trappist monks of Mount Mellary would, absolutely every one of them, be turned into soldiers. You are making laughing-stocks of yourselves before the Irish people. The notion of old monks, who have been thirty years in a monastery, being dragged out of that monastery to be turned into British soldiers is matter for ridicule.

Are we discussing the question of the enlistment of ministers of religion?

:Yes, we are; and my Socialist friend should have a little more knowledge of the forms of the House. At all events I have some acquaintance with the Rules of this House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman when we shall see the Amendment which he proposes to put down.

:With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I think it is very unfair that any Member of this House should accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn of having no sympathy for religion. My reason for rising is this—that whatever Ministers in charge of this Bill do with regard to ministers of religion, let it be clear, at any rate, that if any Church of England minister desires to join the Service, he can do so without the interference of his bishop.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).

On a point of Order. Is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool ruled out? I had arranged to second it, and was pre-pared to move it in his absence.

It is not ruled out; but it is neither in the right place or form where it stands here, and therefore I could, not take it.

:My Amendment is to omit the power which the Government seeks to take to raise the age by Order in. Council, so that all men between the ages of fifty and fifty-six would be liable to compulsory military service. I am very doubtful whether such a power as this should be vested in the Executive Government of the day. Generally speaking, Governments are anxious to have powers which they can exercise merely by a stroke of the pen. I am not so unimaginative as not to be able to reproject myself into such a situation as my right hon. Friend occupies to-day, and I can imagine myself having to defend such a proposition. But it is rather an unusual power for any Government to seek to take to itself in this matter. I am informed that some-thing like consternation reigns in the minas of a large proportion of His Majesty s subjects, I am informed that if the powers that are here sought were to be put into force, a very large number of small traders would have to give up their businesses altogether. Men in the grocery trade, and small retailers of all kinds and descriptions throughout the country, are greatly alarmed that they will have to give up their businesses. I am further informed that in one instance, a business which has large ramifications all over the country and which does coaling supplies for His Majesty's Navy and the mercantile marine, out of 200 men in important situations concerned with the management of the business only five would be left if we were to raise the age to fifty-five. I am also informed that a great newspaper in the Midlands will have to give up issuing altogether. But I speak more for the country districts, where I am really alarmed that persons like gardeners, who are raising fruit and vegetables to increase the food supply of the people, and such odd-jobbers on estates as rabbit trappers, who are essential if we are to raise the corn necessary for the food of the people, may be taken. All that class of labour is undoubtedly very much alarmed. Therefore, I trust that my right hon. Friend may see his way to meet me in the Amendment I have put down.

Perhaps I ought to say one or two words, although I am very l0th to do so, from the personal point of view. I hope, at any rate, the Government will acquit me of any motives of faction in moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I hope my record is sufficiently clear and pure to allow me to say so much. But with regard to the personal question of age, undoubtedly I should be affected by the ages with which we are now dealing. I can, however, assure the House that my services have been at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War ever since I left office. I have approached him on more than one occasion to offer myself for employment in anything he thought I was fit to do. I do say, in all seriousness, that this proposal is hanging over the industries of the country in the way of the sword of Damocles, and that there is real consternation in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman were to assure me, or were to state that this was so important a power to possess that anything like a change or alteration would mean that victory or defeat were hanging upon the balance, I would sit down and have nothing more to say. But I do not think my right hon. Friend will make that claim. I do not think it possible that it could be said that men between the ages of fifty and fifty-five are going to make a real difference in winning or losing the War. I do not think it is proposed to put them together in battalions. I cannot imagine that. As I said once, when I was at the War Office, to a gentleman of mature age who suggested that he should serve the country, I suggested that he should join the Royal Fighting Methusaliers. That is the kind of battalion I think you would get from these men. I hope the Government may see their way to meeting me as I have said, because I feel that if this proposal were to be embodied in the Bill, it would be a real blot upon it.

I think no one will complain of the fact that my right hon. Friend has moved this Amendment. It is of great importance. No one in the House needed his assurance that he would be the first, as soon as the need arose, to take his place in the fighting forces of the Crown. Therefore there is no kind of personal motive animating this Amendment. It is a very important matter, and the House has already been informed that the object of inserting this proviso in the Bill was that at a time of extreme emergency, if it should be thought necessary to go beyond men of the age of fifty, it should not be necessary to go through all the forms of introducing and passing a Bill through Parliament. That step would only be taken in the case of extreme need, and when every day must be of importance; and we are desirous that, if possible, this should be the last Man-Power Bill that should be brought before the House.

On the other hand, we have all listened to the important Debate which took place yesterday upon the age limit. If the only considerations which could be urged against the age of fifty-five were those which were urged against the age of fifty, the Government I have no doubt would be bound to take a similar view. But the point brought before the Committee today, and which was urged by the late Prime Minister on the Second Reading of of the Bill, and by others, is this, that they desire to retain the power of Parliament over the raising of the age. I think the strong feeling is, not that they wish to refuse to the Government any powers for which it is thought necessary to ask for the purpose of carrying on the War, but they want the House of Commons to be consulted on the matter. It is of course difficultx2014;it would be impossible, I think, for us to say that the expenditure of a day for a purpose of that kind is of vital moment for the carrying on of the War. We recognise most fully the desire of the House to help us. On the other hand, we must have regard to the feelings and privileges of the House. What I would suggest is this, that while retaining the power to raise the age by Order in Council, we should insert words which would prevent us from submitting such an Order for sanction by the Privy Council without first obtaining the consent of the two Houses at the time.

By Resolution?

Yes, by Resolution, and not by the elaborate process of a Bill. I think in substance that will meet the wishes of the Committee, and if the Committee will agree to a proposal of that kind we shall be willing to insert words in the Bill. I have got words here framed on the model of the Military Manœuvres Act of 1897, so that it would run in this way, to insert after the word "years" the following: "but where it is proposed to make any such Order as aforesaid a draft Order shall be presented to each House of Parliament, and such draft Order shall not be submitted to His Majesty in Council unless each House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be made."

Supposing there should be two Orders, would that be covered by the word "Order"?

It would apply to any such Order.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met me, and I think that, as he has so specifically stated that no such power will be taken without an Address being presented to His Majesty praying that it may be put into force, I shall be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I withdraw my Amendment.

My name is also associated with this Amendment on the Paper, and therefore I think I have a right to say a word before the Amendment is withdrawn. I will not discuss the general question, because if the proposal is adopted there will be an opportunity given to the House of Commons to deal with the question before the Order in Council becomes operative, but the Home Secretary said that it would probably not require more than a single day to get a Bill raising the age from 51 to 56 through this House. [HON MEMBERS: "No."'] That was the interpretation I placed upon it.

It would take more than a day to get a Bill through.

It would not take any long time, at any rate, for a Bill raising this single point. I should like to know further whether it would be competent to the House of Commons to amend the terms of the Order in Council which the Government submitted? I think it is very important that we should have an answer to that question. If the Order in Council is presented, and the House has to take it or leave it just as it stands, one could imagine that a very considerable number of difficulties might arise I do not see what the Government are going to get by keeping this Clause in the Bill. It will leave a very large number of people in the country in a state of uncertainty. They will not know when the day may come when the Government may propose to put these powers into operation, and until they are put into operation they can serve no useful purpose.

I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit this Section altogether, but I should like to reply in a word or two to the concession which the Home Secretary has made. I use the word "concession," but I very much doubt whether the proposal the Government has made is really a concession at all to the feeling that has been expressed In this connection. I should like very much to remind the Committee that when the second Military Service Act was before this House in 1916 a proposal was made, I think by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, that, the Government should take power in that Act to raise the age to forty-five by Resolution passed in both Houses of Parliament. That proposal was condemned in every part of the House. It was pointed out that it really did not give the Parliamentary safeguard that such a proposal required. So long as no such provision exists in the Bill, the Government must come to Parliament with a Bill for any further power, when the whole question can be reviewed, but if. the present proposal is accepted it simply means that in a couple of hours the necessary Address, praying that such an Order should be made, could be voted under the Closure It removes from this House, when a proposal so serious as this is brought forward, the power of effective criticism by this House. We know quite well how very easy it will be to get a Resolution through the House under the guillotine on any day or any portion of a day that the Government suggests. I object to this proposal on principle, though I am not arguing it on that ground now, but I am arguing against this proposal at the moment because it removes from this House the power of effective control over measures the Government may seek to adopt in the future. For that reason, I, for my part, do not regard the announcement of the Home Secretary as meeting the real point of the criticism with the object of preserving to us in Parliament that which we have the right to insist on.

I had an Amendment down with the same object in view, and I feel very strongly upon it, but I think the hon. Member who has just spoken, and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) are treating the Government rather ungenerously when they criticise what I think is a very fair method of meeting our objections. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the fear of being taken will still be hanging over these men who are below fifty-six years of age. It is much the same thing introducing a Bill, and bringing forward an Address, except that possibly it might take two days for the former while the Address can be adopted in one day. In a matter of this sort I am certain we do not want to waste two days. I shall be perfectly contented, and I think the great majority of the House will also be contented, to accept the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If that is so, I think we ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for what they have done, and accept their proposal.

Will this Order be laid upon the Table here for fifteen or thirty days in order that objections may be raised to?

No, no!

Well, I am in doubt, and that is why I am inquiring.

There will be the Resolution.

What method will be open to hon. Members to make known their wishes in regard to the Order which is to be made? I ask because I understand that under this paragraph (a)—to which I am not raising any objections— the case of the one-man businesses, for instance, would come. As this stands it would be competent for the Government to take these men for soldiers. I desired to put a question to-day— which I obtained leave to put— to the Minister of National Service, but which subsequently I was not allowed to put. I wanted to know whether any Order, not, of course, made under this Bill— but the principle applying, I think, remains what it was before— if that is so I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government—for the Home Secretary has not told us—it is not his particular function, is it the intention of the Government— so far as they can state it now— perhaps the Minister for National Service can tell us? —to leave these men, so far as they can foresee, on the footing on which they have previously stood? It frequently happens that in the case of one-man businesses that the men concerned would just come under the higher age limit. These men are extremely anxious about it. I am very loath to say a word now to prolong any of these proceedings, but I have received a large number of telegrams from those who are very anxious about this matter. There is the single-man businesses, and the distribution of food. These fall into the hands of persons about the ages of fifty to fifty-six, and these men are anxious to know what is the intention of the Government upon this point, so far as it can be stated at this stage.

That really is not a point that can be raised here. It should be raised when this proposed Amendment is put into operation.

That is precisely what I want to know, what will happen when it is put into operation, for it may then be too late to put a question? That is why I am raising the point now.

:The effect of the proposed Resolution is that the Order in Council cannot be put into operation without the consent of both. Houses of Parliament.

As to the Amendment on the Paper—

Seeing that this House has not yet decided, so far as I can understand, whether it shall or shall not conscript its own Members, has any hon. Member under the age of fifty-six the right to vote in this matter which so absolutely concerns himself?

What about the Under-Secretary?

Hon Members are always supposed to give their votes on grounds of public policy. Even if that were not so, I should be unable to test the ages of hon. Members.

I am, unfortunately, older than the age referred to in the proposals, but I may tell the Government that my services are at their disposal, if they require them. I venture, however, to think that this Amendment has not had the consideration which it deserves. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend moved this very important Amendment in a somewhat half-hearted way. The matter is one of exceeding importance. There has been presented no real case to the House why the Government should have this extraordinary control over the older men of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really given no reason to the House why they should practically have a power that certainly no Government in this country has ever before exercised over its citizens. Not a single word has been said as to any pressing emergency requiring that the Government should have this power, and I submit that it is not wise in any Act of Parliament to take greater powers than are required to meet the emergency. It is not as though there was any great difficulty in getting legislation. If a really dangerous emergency arose which required it, the Government would get what they needed. My objection to what is proposed by the Home Secretary, and accepted by the Committee—as I am bound to see— is that it does spread the area of uncertainty under this Bill. I said yesterday, and I repeat to-day, that whatever the Government are proposing should be made definite and clear so that the country may understand. The matter will affect the moral of the country. It is affecting it already. In connection with such an exceedingly drastic Bill the powers taken by the Government should be made perfectly clear and definite. Let the people understand to whom it applies. If we do not do that the amended form in which the Home Secretary has now put the matter will create great unrest in the country without corresponding benefit. I am supporting the Government, for I am in whole-hearted sympathy with them; but to adopt this Clause will be no immediate gain to the Government and will afford great uneasiness throughout the country.

I had hoped that the Government would have had no hesitation to accept the Amendment to delete this Sub-clause. I do hope still that the Government will recognise that they are running a serious danger in including this Clause in the Bill. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was so ready to withdraw it. I do hope that even now, in the interests of the country, the Home Secretary will consent to the deletion of this paragraph. We in this House know the difference between the various forms of procedure, proceeding by Resolution, and so on, but the people in the country do not know, and they will always think that they can be called up up to the age of fifty-six under this Bill without any Proclamation whatever. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, if not now, on the Report stage, after reconsidering the situation, agree to drop this Sub-clause. I feel quite certain, if he does not do so, that instead of helping the Allies he will be simply playing into the hands of the Germans by killing the enthusiasm in the country in regard to the War. That being so, I hope that the Government will not take up what I call a stupid line in refusing to accept Amendments to this Bill.

It is!

I hope the Government are not going to take up that attitude. In doing so they will be simply increasing the opposition to their proposals, and to the Government as a whole. As a matter of fact, we have already had it whispered, and the thing will grow and grow, that "Lloyd George must go!"

No, no!

Where will he go? To the House of Lords?

I hope that even at the eleventh hour the Government will reconsider the position. Some of us know more about the opinions of the working classes than the Government, and I think that they ought to listen to those who are daily coming into contact with working men, and who hear at trade union meetings what is being said about the proposals of the Government. I make these criticisms without any desire to hamper the Government in the prosecution of the War, but with the object of keeping a united people at home.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how he proposes to deal with the medical profession? Does he propose to give them the same privileges?

That comes up on the next Amendment.

It is our experience that very often when a number of hon. Members get up in different parts of the House and express a view in opposition to the Government, we hear it said that that is the opinion in all parts of the House, and pressure is brought upon the Government to give way. It is for that reason that I rise to say that I believe the vast majority of hon. Members are prepared to stand by the Government, and I do not at all believe that the speeches which have been made represent the views either of this House or of the country. My own opinion is that the feeling both in this House and still more, out of it, is that in this frightful emergency in which we are at the present moment there is a great deal of impatience at the sort of debate which is going on in this House. The country is quite ready to place in the hands of the Government the power of utilising the manhood of the country in any emergency which may arise.

I am afraid I cannot agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), and the representatives of the Labour party, as to the impression which these proposals create in the minds of people who do not

I regret that we cannot agree to the Amendment being withdrawn. All the reasons advanced for it remain quite unaffected by what has been subsequently said. For one reason alone we shall divide the House, and it is that if this proposal goes, as it is proposed to be amended it prejudges the whole question. It is practically an admission by the House of Commons that they are prepared to consider the probability of calling up for military service all men between fifty-one and fifty-six years of age. We refuse to entertain that proposal, and for that reason alone we shall divide the House.

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "years" ["age of fifty-one years"] to insert the words:

"But where it is proposed to make any such Order as aforesaid a draft Order shall be presented to each House of Parliament, and the draft Order shall not be submitted to His Majesty in Council unless each House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be made."

Will it be open to the House or to either House to amend the Order in that form, or, will it be merely a question of saying "Aye" or "No" to the Order?

I want to ask a question for the purpose of being reassured. I am quite sure that it is the intention of the Home Secretary that the Order should not only be presented but should be also debated.

Notice will have to be given of the Motion for the presentation of the Address, and it will be open to the House to debate that Motion. With regard to the other point, if the House were unwilling to pass a Resolution in favour of the particular draft Order submitted to it, the Government would have to amend that draft Order.

How would the Government know in what sense the. House wished to have the Order amended? That is exactly the advantage which a Bill would have had over the procedure which the Government have adopted. It seems to me that the calling up of these men now can only be under the conditions and terms which are laid down in the present Act of Parliament, whereas if the Government had adopted the procedure of a Bill, the Bill could have been amended to meet the circumstances of the moment. It is, however, too late now.

It is perfectly plain that j an Order in Council can be amended by a Resolution of this House, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that it will not be treated as a mere prayer and as something to be brought on after 11 o'clock at night. We ought to have an undertaking, if they have occasion to come to Parliament, that they will come and present this as a first Order, so that the matter can be considered, and that they will not present it as a Prayer at the end of the sitting. If we have that undertaking I do assure hon. Members, and especially Members on the Labour Benches, that in my opinion it will be almost as complete a deterrent upon War Office folly as if it were a Bill. If the Government state that they will treat it as a mere Prayer, the thing, of course, will be of little value, but if the Home Secretary will say that he will formally put down a Motion and treat it as a first Order then, in my opinion, it will be perfectly safe.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary, before he replies, to give us an assurance that reasonable notice will, be given before such a matter is brought forward, and to reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has said that the time given ought to be a reasonable time, and that the matter ought not be taken at an impossible moment, when there would be no chance of getting a proper discussion.

The Home Secretary,, in his original undertaking, contemplated that such an Address might take a Parliamentary day. I gather, therefore, that the Government contemplate that a day would be allotted for discussion, and if the Home Secretary would endorse that, I think it would satisfy hon. Members. With respect to making Amendments. I conceive that it would be open to any hon. Member to move an Amendment just as we can move Amendments to the Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and any such Amendments would embody such ideas as the hon. Members moving them would think desirable to insert in the original Order. Perhaps the Home Secretary will say whether that is so.

I entirely agree with that view. I quite agree that due notice would have to be given before the Motion was made, and that it would have to be put upon the Paper when it would be open to debate. I cannot possibly give an undertaking months beforehand as to the order in which the Motion would appear upon the Paper. It might very well be that the House would dispose of it in five minutes, and it might be that it would take a day, but I am quite sure that the. House may rely upon the Government taking a reasonable course and giving the House some opportunity of debate if it thought desirable.

Might I suggest that some words of guarantee should be put into the Bill. We have complete confidence in the Home Secretary, but Ministers come and go, and it is quite possible that the right hon. Gentlemen may not be here when the subject comes up again for discussion. The Government may have gone and a new Government, if possible less trustworthy than the present Government, may be in power. We ought, therefore, to have some guarantee in the Bill that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to fully discuss any proposal of this kind.

On the question of notice the right hon. Gentleman said that we shall have notice, but I conclude that in the case of emergency the notice will be very short. At the same time, I think we should use some words which will allay the fears in the minds of business men. If the right hon. Gentleman would use some words to the effect that the emergency should be of an overwhelming character, it would be better, and I, at all events, would accept that. But it is not good enough for those of us who have just apprehensions in regard to the operations of the War Office to be told that this matter can be done in five minutes. As to the Standing Order, I have not looked at it, but I do not think that the Standing Order would apply to a Prayer of this kind. It may, but I do not think it would. If the right hon. Gentleman puts in some words to she effect that the Order should meet the general feeling of the country, or the general wishes of the House, I, for my part, would accept them.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether an Address of this kind can be moved without notice, and be taken at any hour?

I do not think it can, having regard to our Procedure. We do not put our Procedure into Acts of Parliament. The Chair is really the protection of Members against a thing being rushed against the wishes of Members.

When you say that, have you examined the Standing Order, and do you speak with an advised mind?

I am afraid it is not so advised as that of the hon. and learned Member.

The Amendments standing on the Amendment Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) [Exemption of Discharged Men] are matters which are reserved for the Schedule, and will be dealt with at that point.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).

I move this Amendment, more with a view to obtaining information from the Government than with any intention of pressing it, if they were unwilling to meet me in the matter. The effect of the paragraph is to apply to the medical profession alone of all the men in the country a compulsion up to the age of fifty-six. It seems to me that the picking out of a particular profession in the country for a special form of compulsion is a matter calling for considerable justification. I do not know, and I have no means for knowing, how far the Government have consulted the medical profession in this matter, and I should be very glad to know from the Government why they think it necessary to apply compulsion to these more elderly medical men. I do not think that the medical profession has shown itself any less patriotic: during the War than other classes of the community. It has not made less sacrifices than other sections of the community. There is no body of men in the country who at the present time are working under more diffi- cult conditions. The ranks of the medical men at home have been considerably depleted. I know districts in the country which are very short of doctors. While I recognise the paramount claim which the Army has upon the doctors, I cannot but think that any doctor who possibly can go, if invited by the War Office to go, although he is above the age of fifty or fifty-one, would willingly go as a volunteer. I do not know why the Government should have thought it necessary to pick out for special compulsion a body of men who are not only of immense service to the nation, but who during the last three and a half years have been conspicuous for the readiness with which they have abandoned their practices and placed their services unreservedly at the disposal of the Government, and who have done all they can to help in this great struggle. I am afraid the Government becomes enamoured of compulsion. Once you set compulsion in operation it weakens the tendency to volunteer on the part of anybody in the community. The individual shuffles off his responsibility. He says, "The Government have taken the matter in hand. If they want me, let them come and fetch me." It would have been wiser and not so insulting—I do not want to use strong words, so let me say it would not be such exceptional treatment to the medical profession if the Government had been content with the general powers the Bill gives with regard to men up to the age of fifty-one, and to have contented themselves with appealing for volunteers or specifically asking individual men to come forward. In order to procure an explanation from the Government as to the position of the medical profession, and the country, which is grateful to the medical profession for what it has done for them during the War and at all times, I move this Amendment.

I do not think there will be any question in this Committee as to the tremendous work performed by the medical profession. It would be a profound mistake, however, to ignore the necessities of the people at home. In considering this matter no one can be accused of suggesting that we do not want to do all we possibly can for the soldier, but at the same time there are districts in this country where it is open to very serious question whether adequate medical provision is made now. Dealing with the military authorities as we know them, we know they consider that their claim is the first and only clam. I can quite conceive that the very great powers which are being given in this Clause will. be open to abuse They will not only be unnecessary powers from their point of view, but will be a positive danger to the rest of the community The medical profession have given, and will continue to give, voluntary and efficient aid, but, at the same time, some regard must be had to the public requirements at home.

I only wish to say a few words on behalf of the medical profession. I am quite sure they will not raise any opposition whatever to this proposal—in fact, it looks to me rather like an honour that has been done to them, because we are told that the only men over fifty who are going to be called upon to serve the country are the doctors. Speaking of the question of age, if I am not out of order, I should like to say I fully agree with what the Minister of National Service said yesterday about the value of age. It is not the number of years that a man has lived in this world that makes him an old man; it is really the condition of his health. People are as old as their arteries. So long as a man has a good circulation of blood through his brain and his body he is not so very old. It is not so much a question of age. I am very sorry indeed that age was mentioned at all. The Government would have had a great opportunity if they had said nothing about age at all. If they had come to the House and said they wished to have power to call on any man or woman of any age, whose services they thought would be of any value, to come and serve the country in this crisis, it would have been better.

That is a very great power.

It is a very great power to give them, but I would trust them, because we must trust somebody. We are in a very tight corner. For myself I not only trust them because we are compelled to do so, but because I mean it. I particularly trust my right hon. Friend, because he belongs to the same profession as myself. Although I have said this, it is of course an extremely serious thing, both for the doctors themselves of this age and for the community at large, to call them up, and it will require a very great deal of care and tact to do it without doing injury. The medical profession really has sacrificed itself every bit as much as any other profession. There are very many young men whom I know who volunteered early in the War who are absolutely ruined as a result, financially and in health also. It is a great problem for these men how to reinstate themselves, because they have lost all their money and all their practice. Other men have taken their practices and they cannot start again. As long as they are young they do not lose hope, because they have plenty of time to reinstate themselves. That applies to the young men of twenty to thirty. But when you come to the men of fifty and fifty-five, when a man of that age has lost everything, he will never recover it. He never has a chance; he is sixty-five before he has done anything in the way of getting back his work.

That applies to the workers as well.

It applies to the whole of the community. I am only speaking of the doctors; I cannot speak for the others. Therefore I should like to impress upon the right hon. Gentlemen that in selecting these men he should have special regard to this point. As a matter of fact, I suppose the reason for selecting these men is that they want them to take the places of others who are able to go abroad. I do not suppose for one moment that there is any idea of putting men of fifty-five into the trenches. Although he is a doctor, a man has not the physical ability at that age to go into the trenches, but he may have the brains and experience to help the country at home. I would suggest that, to a certain extent they should be part-time men. Put them in charge near their own homes—for instance, in London, to work in a hospital—and let them give the greater part of their time there and yet be able to go home and keep things together. That is the sort of solution which should be worked. It will be very hard if you take away a man from active practice and he has nothing whatever to do abroad. That has happened over and over again. Men who are working night and day in London have been sent abroad and have had nothing whatever to do— half an hour's work in the whole day. That breaks a man's heart

Clerical work.

Not even clerical work. They play golf most of the time. That is all I have to say. I only wanted to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this point, that as far as possible he should try to conserve doctors' practices, at the same time getting as much work out of them as possible.

May I add my word of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give up this paragraph. I really do not see, in view of the history of the medical profession, what he is going to gain by it. There has been no reluctance, so far as I know, on the part of doctors. In fact it has been all the other way. They have made every effort, largely and mainly on the score of humanity, and their desire to assist their fellow countrymen, and also from the fact that their actual profession gives them an interest in the work which they do in the Army. There has, therefore, been, as far as I know, no real difficulty in getting doctors for the Army other than the actual difficulty, which cannot be altered by Act of Parliament, that in the present emergency there are not enough doctors for the whole of the work which has by this awful calamity been thrown upon them. Therefore the only difference which this Act makes, is that it gives the Government and the War Office power to regulate the manner in which the work of the medical profession is done instead of it being regulated in consultation with the doctors. If you go to the doctors and say, they are wanted for work for the wounded, I have no doubt you will get them if they can be spared, but if you have no compulsory powers, you have to consult them as to the terms on which they go, and to a certain extent as to the work to which they are going to be applied when they are taken. If you have compulsory powers that is left to a Department which may, or may not be wise, I do not think anyone can have heard the speech that has just been made without it bringing back to the recollection much that we should have been told as regards the manner in which the doctors who have been taken arc sometimes employed by the War Office, and as to the faults which occur in the arrangements which they make Those faults are not due to any foolishness in the War Office, or in the officials but to the inherent facts of the case. You: cannot sit in an office in London and regulate the whole work of the world really well. The thing is done very much better by people in their individual neighbourhood. If you take all the doctors up to fifty-six you are giving the power to regulate their arrangements, which, to my mind, is not a very wise power, and I do not believe is really necessary. Of course the right hon. Gentleman may have some reason to give us, which will account for it, and which may override my objection. But on the face of it, from the history of the medical profession, I can see no reason for these compulsory powers being applied to them, and the various stories one hears as to the manner in which things have been arranged tend to show that it is desirable that there should be some check on the powers of Government Departments to take these men compulsorily and some necessity on the part of the Government Departments to consult them as to the conditions of their service and the work which they are to do. For that reason I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it, and I do so all the more because there is at present in many districts of this country a somewhat grave shortage of the medical profession. You have had a healthy winter and a healthy summer, and you have not had any very great strain on it. But it must not be forgotten that the health of the civilian population is a very grave and a serious matter, and if you were suddenly under the pressure of some emergency, to deplete your medical profession at home you might find yourself face to face with a condition of things which it would be very difficult to deal with afterwards, and which would not be conducive to the best interests of the country or have at all a good effect on what we all wish, namely, the winning of this War with the least possible injury and pain to everyone.

I feel that there is some misunderstanding about the general position in the mind of the Committee and I intervene in order if possible to clear up points which appear to be confused. Under the Military Service Act, 1916, Session 2, Section 7, there is power to provide for the establishment of professional committees to deal with claims for exemption made by duly qualified medical practitioners. In other words, the dealing out, if I may use the expression, of the doctors to the armed forces of the Crown is, in fact, controlled by a professional committee. We have now reached a stage at which that professional committee says "there are only two possibilities in front of us. Either we are to take away the only doctor remaining in the locality and leave no one or we have to arrange, when we take that man, to move someone else into his locality." What happens is this. There are districts in this country where, as the result of the withdrawal of medical men, the supply available is very short, where the young fit man is really necessary, just as necessary as he is in the trenches, and working practically as hard day and night. It is no good talking about putting an old man, who does not know the district and does not know the people, into that position. What would happen then would be that you would get an unsatisfactory medical attendance and the collapse of the doctor and you would have to move someone else in. It has been tried and we know. In the medical profession youth and fitness are now required for certain districts at home just as much as at the front. But there are great base hospitals where the work is not normally very hard, so it appears to me to be wise to see if we cannot make use of some of the older men of the medical profession who are at present in this country.

We have surveyed the whole country. We have plotted out in every town the number of medical men available and the number of the population whom they may have to look after, and we find that there are in some of the more comfortably off residential cities—not the great manufacturing cities, but cities where you get a retired class—doctors of about fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three and fifty-four who are really in excess of local requirements. They have, comparatively speaking, a small number of possible patients at any time. There are alternative medical men. The professional committee which deals with this quite agrees that many of these men can go without dislocating either the public health service or the ordinary service of attendance on the sick, and these men are sufficiently physically fit for work in the base hospitals. The question for this Committee therefore is, are we going to meet the medical demand for the forces of the Crown in the way that make least disturbance at home, and the way it can be done without doing any harm whatever to the civil population, or are we going to leave the age for doctors at the same level as for other sections of the population and have a double shuffle going on? There are men always coming back from overseas to their practices, to release a partner or something of that sort. We have that shuffle going on anyhow. If we have to move men from town A to town B, so that the practitioners in town A may replace practitioners in town B who have gone into the Service, we are going to create an enormous amount of trouble, to raise an enormous number of problems as to the adjustment of practices and compensation for removal from positions and so on which, in my opinion, can be avoided. If it were true that the doctors were now equally spread over the country in such a way that there was an equal possibility of medical attendance available for every person in civil life, obviously you would not want to raise the age specially for doctors at all. You would have to take them just as you could. But the fact is that they are in pockets. They are unfortunately very thin in many of the great munition areas— far too thin. They are dangerously thin, and you cannot take any move men out of those areas.

How far have you made an effort by appealing to the medical men to go into these districts which are scantily furnished?

We are continually appealing. It is a matter that has been going on for months of arrangement, writing to individual doctors, saying, We have here a district in which you are aware there are only so many hundred people per doctor, and here is a district of so many thousands per doctor. Will you move? We can make the following arrangements for conserving your practice." A certain number of men, with great public spirit, have responded, but the medical profession is composed of human beings, and there are human beings who will do these things and there are human beings who say, "No, I would rather not," and I am sorry to say we have had a good many recently who say, "No, I would rather not." But that is not the reason. The object of this Clause really is to enable the situation to be dealt with in the interests of the civil population. The administration of this power in regard to the medical profession is in no sense under the War Office until the medical man actually dons the uniform of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The administration of this provision is worked by the Ministry of National Service, with the National Health Commissioners Office, the Local Government Board, and the professional committees as the executive machinery for calling up and distributing the men, and I believe I am correct in saying that all these bodies are agreed as to the power we are asking for.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the recognised heads of the medical profession as to the treatment of doctors in this matter?

The assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given as to the administration of this provision at home is, of course, valuable so far as it goes. We are glad to know that this provision is in the hands of the Ministry of National Service and not of the War Office. We are glad to know also that the administration locally is to be carried through by the professional committees There is one suggestion I would make to the right hon. Gentleman regarding these professional committees, and that is that they should be reinforced by a lay element. I think it is very unfortunate that the decision as to whether a particular doctor in a particular locality should go should be solely in the hands of these professional committees. I will give my right hon. Friend an example. It is a case, known to my self, of two doctors in a very popular suburb of London, which makes large claims upon medical men. They live next door to each other. One of these men happens to be outside the military age at the present, time. He has been asked by the local professional committee if he will go, but up to the present he has not gone owing to the demands of his practice. His next-door neighbour is a man who is within military age, but who has for some reason or other been rejected. This man is a member of the professional committee which is asking the man of forty-six to go. Are you going to give to these professional committees, solely composed of competitors, the right to say whether or not any one of these men shall go up to fifty years of age? I think it is necessary that there should be a lay element on these committees, so as to make it absolutely certain that no professional consideration should enter into the matter of the decision. I do not think it is altogether satisfactory from the point of view of the doctors.

We have heard from the hon. Member for St. Andrew's and Edinburgh Universities as to the way the doctors are worked at the front at the present time. We have reached a position in which there must be the severest economy in regard to the medical profession at home, and I think this House should insist that the War Office itself should exercise the most rigid economy in the employment of doctors abroad. Nobody has sought to criticise unduly the medical service in this War. There have been certain criticisms of detail, but I think in this House and elsewhere there has been a generous recognition of what has been done by the medical service in the Army. We have reached a position of serious shortage and before we give this power to the Government we ought to insist that the War Office should exercise the most rigid economy in the use it makes of doctors in the Army, and also that the men should be employed in the best way. We know that under the present system of administration a large amount of merely clerical work is thrown upon doctors. That is monstrous under the present conditions. It is easy enough to get men to do the clerical work and to fill up forms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Women!"] Yes, women. The doctors in the Army should be kept free to do their own work and nothing else.

When the hon. Member is talking about the clerical work which doctors are supposed to do, I should like to know what ho means.

I think the right hon. Gentleman should know something about the system of filling up forms in the hospitals in France, which is very largely thrown upon the doctors.

Their time is largely spent in it.

Medical officers have made this complaint to me frequently, and this is not the first time that I have made the complaint in this House, but I have never got an answer to it. The complaint was made so forcibly that the War Office had to appoint a Committee to go over to investigate the medical service in France. It was not an unfriendly Committee. I can tell something of what happened in that investigation. One of the complaints made was that many of the casualty clearing stations had far more doctors than were required. The authorities over there knew that the Committee was going round and they reduced the number of doctors in the casualty stations, and there was the most rigid economy wherever the. Committee went:

I can assure my hon. Friend that anything of that kind did no deceive us.

Will the hon. Member give me the source of his information?

I know that it is a. serious offence for any man in the Service to give information to a Member of Parliament. Men have been punished for that, and the right hon. Gentleman might have known sufficient about me to know that I would not tell him who told me. He ought to have known this also, that I have never made a statement in this House on such authority that has not been accurate. One hon. Gentleman opposite knows the result of using his professional experience in this House. He is now on the retired list because of that. The right hon. Gentleman, knowing all that, gets up and asks me to give the names of the medical officers who have told me this information. I think it is a piece of effrontery. The House ought to have absolute assurance that before this power is given for the calling up of men to the age of fifty-five, thereby further aggravating the present shortage of doctors in the country, the War Office itself is going to use the doctors which it has at present economically, and to use them for their proper work. They are not doing that now. I do not know what was the nature of the Report presented by my hon. Friend's (Sir Watson Cheyne) Committee. It has been denied to this House. We do not know whether effect has been given to the recommendations of that Committee, and we are entitled to know something about it before we part with this matter. I can give another example of what happened to a man over military age, a friend of mine, who came home from South Africa and left a practice in Johannesburg in order to offer his services as a doctor in this War. He is a man forty-five years of age. He had had considerable experience in dealing with nervous cases in South Africa, and had not only a local reputation, but cases from all parts of the Colony were sent to him. This man offered himself for nervous cases, which are a very great feature in this War. What happened to him? The War Office were told of his experience, and he was sent out immediately, within a month, to a frontline station in France to do first-aid work. What was the result? In six weeks he broke down and became a shell-shock case himself, and now he is discharged from the Army.

On pension?

That is not settled. The last communication I had from the Ministry of Pensions was that it was being considered. That is the treatment by the War Office of a patriotic man who comes over several thousand miles of sea in order to help them. Are we going to give carte blanche to this body to deal in that way with every medical man in this country up to fifty-five years of age? I say that without further assurance this House ought not to give it.

I should like to support a great deal of what was said by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pringle) as to what I may call the placing of square pegs in round holes in regard to medical officers, but I think his clearing station instance was rather a poor example to anyone who has served in this. War and knows the circumstances. A casualty station may for weeks and weeks have only a few hours' work a day, but when there comes a heavy bombardment or attack the ordinary staff of the casualty clearing station, even working twenty-four hours a day, will not get through the work. Therefore, the casualty clearing station, above all units, is entitled at times to have an extra number of doctors. I would support his demand that something should be done to ensure that the medical officer is put to the work for which he is most suited. I have in my mind the case of a well-known young surgeon of London. I do not know him personally, but he is a great friend of a great friend of mine. He went to France and for months and months he did duty as a regimental medical officer, and was allowed to do nothing but first-aid cases. Although he was a high-class operating surgeon, he had no opportunity for months of using his great skill as a surgeon except opportunities which he took wrongly. I think there has been an improvement recently, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will urge upon the War Office the necessity of further improvement. Recently, there has been a great change in the direction of the medical service at the War Office. We have now a very much younger Director of Medical Service, and I think that if they under- stood the strong feeling there is throughout the Army, as well as in this House, a great deal could be done.

My chief object in rising was to deal with the question of the local supply and the distinction between the calling up of medical officers by the civilian authorities and the handing of them over to the military authorities. It seems to me that there is a means between the two which has been ignored. It is familiar to many people, and very familiar to a great many Members from Ireland, that there are many small garrisons in Ireland where the local military commander is allowed a military medical officer. That medical officer in many cases sees the sick in the morning during an hour's work. He has to standby during bomb practice or rifle practice in case of accident, but he has really about one hour's ordinary work per day. Very often within a few hundred yards of him there are two or three medical officers who are perfectly prepared and qualified to do the work. There are many such cases, and I know that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to deal with this problem in Ireland ho will be able to economise a great deal in medical officers if there is a certain amount of give-and-take between the civilian element and the military authorities. If the military authorities are going to say, "We must have a military medical officer in such-and-such a town," and if the Ministry of National Service have no power to say, "No; it is quite good enough for you to use the local civilian doctor," we shall lose a great deal of doctors. I have mentioned Ireland because there are many small garrisons which require medical attention, and probably the problem is more acute there than elsewhere. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to forget, in dealing with this subject, that in the Army there are a great many men who are square pegs in round holes.

I do not rise to support the Amendment, but simply for the purpose of ascertaining whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consultation in this matter the acknowledged heads of the medical profession. Among my Constituents I have a large number of members of the medical profession, including the distinguished hon. Member who sits below me (Sir Watson Cheyne), and I have not had a single representation on this subject from any one of them. Perhaps, like a great many other people, they are too busy and are not paying too much attention to what we are doing here, but they may wake up one morning and find that they are very much affected. I should like to have it more clearly from the right hon. Gentleman that the special committee set up by the medical profession require this extraordinary amount of fortifying in the matter of power to deal with every member of the profession up to fifty years of age. I am sure they can be relied upon without pressure to continue the very great assistance which they have hitherto rendered. I believe there are a good many on the civil side of the profession who do not exactly like the treatment they get in the Royal Army Medical Corps. There is, I know, a certain amount of friction at times, and I should have thought that the committee set up by that distinguished body would have been enabled to supply the wants of the Army, At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman might make it more clear whether he has, in fact, consulted the special committee and whether they consider that they want fortifying to the extent now proposed. We are entitled to a great deal more information before we adopt this very drastic step of taking men away from their civil practice.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir Watson Cheyne). Everybody who knows anything of the work which the Army Medical Corps has to do is aware of the enormous amount of time wasted in filling up forms, and I hope that whatever happens in the future in regard to that particular branch of the profession some steps will be taken to relieve them of this work. This is an age of forms. Everybody has to fill them up nowadays, and doctors cannot escape doing so. The air is full of forms. There is a shortage of paper, and one would have imagined that those responsible for the administration of this country might see their way to enable doctors to exercise their energies in the purusit of their profession, instead of having to spend so much time in filling up forms. I am also in agreement with the hon. Member on the question of selection committees. Anybody accustomed to local administration in the country knows the very great difficulty there is in many parts of the country in providing medical service. It is possible that before this War is over an epidemic may break out in some part of the country. It is necessary to look forward to these contingencies, and I do suggest it is most undesirable that anything should be done which would prevent the local authorities in different parts of the country coping with an emergency of that kind. Therefore, in my opinion, on these committees of Selection, there ought to be representatives of the local authorities concerned. I agree with what has been said about the medical profession. Throughout the country generally it has behaved magnificently. It has amply upheld the high traditions associated with it in times of peace, and no words can sufficiently express our gratitude to them for what they have done during this War. The right hon. Gentleman wants more doctors for the Army. May I remind him that in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, as well as in other large cities, there are great medical colleges in which numbers of young men are qualifying for the profession of medicine. Some years ago the period of qualification for these young men was extended by, I think, one year. It seems to me that medical students who have put in three years' instruction would be quite competent to give first medical aid at the front, and I would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to consult the medical authorities as to whether it is not possible to take medical students of three years' standing for first aid work at the front, and thus relieve doctors for more important work.

Seeing that we are making great demands upon the medical profession, the greatest care ought to be taken not to injure them individually more than can be helped. Everybody knows the frightful sacrifice a medical man makes when, having reached forty years of age and upwards, he is taken away from his practice and commandeered, so to say, for the service of the State, leaving his personal interests dependent, more or less, on the loyalty of colleagues in the profession. War is a hideous thing, but there are some ways in which its abominations can be mitigated, and in matters of this kind the Selection Committees which are set up should have full power to deal with personal claims.

For the last six months I have vainly endeavoured to draw the attention of the House and of the War Office to questions on which I rise to say a few words, and I am sorry that there is no representative of the War Office on the Front Bench at the present moment

The War Office has gone to lunch.

I am anxious to get certain reforms carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) has alluded to the Committee appointed to inquire into the medical service in France, and I should like to point out that we have asked that this Committee should include a lay element, and that the inquiry should be extended, as, in our opinion, the work of the Committee cannot be satisfactorily done unless these extensions are agreed to. I think, too, it would be an advantage to have the whole question of medical manpower gone into. Hitherto the Minister of National Service has been the arbiter between civilian needs and the needs of the Army, and has had to determine not only what is necessary for the medical efficiency of the civilian community, but also what is required for the Army, in order that the needs of our gallant soldiers should be properly provided for. Before the Committee can properly carry out a duty of this kind, it is necessary it should know about the organisation of the R.A.M.C. We are aware that improvements can be made in that organisation in order to ensure that the services of the doctors who have joined the Army are utilised to the greatest possible extent. I submit that this House should have had the Report of this Committee of Inquiry into the medical services laid before it. We have over and over again, by questions in this House, asked the War Office to give us this document, but we have asked in vain, and now they are demanding more doctors for the Army, yet they are not prepared to give us this Report or to let us know what are the findings of the Committee. At the time when this Committee was appointed it was understood— although I know that that has been denied— that under its terms of reference it would investigate the medical arrangements in this country as well as in France. There was also another branch of the medical service which ought to have been included, and that was the medical service in the East, and I suggest that this inquiry was not a complete inquiry, and nothing like complete, because it did not include that. We have now in the War Office a new Director-General of the Medical Service, and perhaps the authorities will at last take up the attitude which they should have adopted long ago and make this inquiry complete. They ought to take this House into their confidence and give us this Report, and then we should be in a position to say whether what is now proposed is the right thing to be done. There is another point, and that is with regard to the enlistment of tubercular men into the Army. I think the Minister of National Service should take greater advantage of the experience of tuberculosis officers in the Department in the matter of recruiting men for the Army. I asked the Under-Secretary for War as to whether the facts mentioned in a case to which I drew his attention six weeks ago were correct, and up till now I have not been able to get any satisfactory reply.

The facts in that particular case were that a man was enlisted in Swansea, was sent before the medical board, and secured a certificate from the tuberculosis officer of the Swansea area. The Swansea Medical Board were satisfied that it was a genuine case, and accepted the certificate in accordance with the Instructions of the Army Council issued in 1916. Subsequently this man was again called up, although engaged on Government work at the time, and sent before the Cardiff Board, and, in spite of the fact that he produced the certificate of the tuberculosis officer, they passed him into the Army. He was subsequently passed into Woolwich, and nine months afterwards was sent to the military hospital at Penrhyn, and from there back to his home, where he died in the following January, after nine months in the Army. I think it is perfectly obvious that if the certificate of the tuberculosis officer—a man appointed for the special purpose of diagnosing cases of tuberculosis—had been adopted that man would never have gone into the Army, and might have been alive to-day. I have read the circular issued by the Minister of National Service very carefully, and he appears to have gone back entirely on the Army Council Instructions issued in 1916. So far as I understand the Instructions which he has sent out, the medical boards are not prepared to accept the certificate of the tuberculosis officer as clear proof that a man is suffering from tuberculosis. If that is the way in which the medical talent and experience of the country is going to be utilised by the Minister of National Service, I do not think he should come down here and suggest taking further powers to call up the medical men. It is his duty to make the most of all the skill and experience of the doctors of the country that he can, and I hope he will amend the Instruction he has issued to the medical boards, so that the certificate of a duly qualified tuberculosis officer is sufficient proof that a man is suffering from this disease, and that he shall not be recruited for the Army.

It is quite unnecessary for me to say anything more of the medical profession than what has been said by my hon. Friends, but, at the same time, as one who has the honour of representing some 5,000 doctors, I claim to have some knowledge of their feeling on this question, and I think one or two points have emerged in the course of the discussion which ought to be cleared up before it closes. In the first place, with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) as to the needs of the civilian population, I am convinced that amongst these 5,000 Constituents of mine belonging to the medical profession the opinion is, if not universal almost universal, that some further form of compulsion would be advantageous, and far from being resented by the profession. The reasons that prompt them in that are precisely, to a large extent, the reasons which were stated by the hon. Member for Derby. It is not only the needs of the Army but the service of the nation, both in the military and in the civil sense, which require better arrangement. We all know— and I was proud to hear the references made to it—of the self-sacrifice of the doctors, but, at the same time, that may not prevail altogether, and amongst the loads of communications I have received from my medical Constituents there has been some considerable number of complaints that certain men in advantageous positions were stealing away the practices of others, were remaining at home out of the national service, while the others, who sacrificed themselves, were suffering from that action. It is a very serious question, and I think it is on that ground, very largely, that the medical profession, as a whole, if I can judge of it— and I have considerable opportunity of judging of it— are in favour of some sort of regulation and organisation such as is applied in the Bill, and that they would be opposed to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. One or two questions have been raised during the discussion as to what the feeling of the leading representatives of the medical profession is. We have heard one leading representative in the House state his own opinion, but if I am rightly informed there are two Committees, the Central Medical War Committee and the Committee of Reference, composed almost entirely of leading members of the profession, and if I am rightly informed— the Minister for National Service will correct me if I am wrong— both these Committees are in favour of some sort of compulsion and organisation.

indicated assent.

My question is not as to the opinion of representative medical men, however high their authority, but what is the opinion of those representative bodies chosen by the medical profession themselves to regulate their affairs— the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, which are really representative of the medical profession.

I was referring to the speech of the Member for Marylebone (Sir J. Boyton), who raised the question precisely as I have stated, but I would point out that the Central War Committee and the Committee of Reference both comprise such members as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jones) has referred to —members of the central organisation. Apart from that, I wish to point out that while the medical profession fully welcome this further organisation, there is a corollary that follows from it, and that is, that it imposes a very great responsibility upon the authorities who are responsible for that organisation. These leaders of the profession and the great bodies are most anxious that the use made in the future should be better than that made in the past. There is, no doubt, a very considerable feeling that many of those who have been taken abroad and used in the service of the Army are not put to the most effective use, but are bound to spend their time in other medical pursuits. They often suffer from enforced idleness, and many of the complaints that have reached me from my Constituents are bitter complaints from men eating out their hearts with anxiety to do their work, but who are unable to find it, and are forced into some place where they are not fully used. They are ready to carry on the sacrifice they have made hitherto, to let that sacrifice be made on a larger and still more generous scale, but they do demand as a result that there should be greater exercise of economy of resources and of effective work on the part of the Medical Department of the War Office. In these two things I am sure I represent a great body of the 5,000 Constituents of mine who represent no small share of the medical profession. They are ready to accept the burden imposed by this Clause if they are certain that the use of their services will be more economical and more effective than it has been in the past.

What I do not think the Minister for National Service would deny is that this is the only profession whose brains he is conscripting. Can you conscript a man's brains against his will? Can you compel doctors who are unwilling to serve? I heard the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir W. Cheyne), whose admirable speech gave me profound satisfaction, and I do not think that he, although a distinguished doctor, replied to me. This is a matter not merely affecting doctors, but affecting everybody. Every man has to pass the doctor, and this matter peculiarly concerns Ireland. There is a larger proportion, in proportion to population, of Irish and Scottish doctors at the Front than of any of the other nationalities. There are more English doctors necessarily, because there it. a larger population to draw upon, but I am only speaking of proportions. They have done their work— I am speaking of all nationalities— in the most extraordinary manner, and I do not think they have had that generous recognition which perhaps some of them are entitled to. That, however, is not the question that I desire to raise. What I desire to raise is this: in rural districts in Ireland the Local Government Board has refused to allow any man of military age to be appointee to dispensaries. The result is that there are necessarily doctors over age in very many cases, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to give this power to the Irish Local Government Board without reference to the professorial or doctorial authorities, I believe grave dissatisfaction will be caused. In England and Scotland they may be satisfied, but that is not so in Ireland. I do not think it is too much to ask for the protection of doctors who are getting on in years that the University, College of Surgeons, College of Physicians, or whichever the proper bodies are, should have some say as to whether old doctors should be taken cut of their practices for the purpose of getting young men.

Apparently, in future, the medical certificate is no longer to have the weight, I will not say the validity, it possessed in the view of the War Office. We know that the War Office clerks and War Office young men are going to be substituted for tribunals. We know that in Ireland there will be no tribunals in the English sense. The whole of the horrors of this military service, the business of tribunals, overage, and other matters, will be instantly inflicted on our country. It therefore behoves us to consider the question of the doctors in a very special manner, and you cannot expect old men, however willing they may be, who are perhaps thrown into positions they do not desire to occupy, to give their best attention to the work, especially if they are of different politics, because it is the case that politics have affected many medical men in Ireland. You cannot expect reluctant old men thrust into positions they do not desire to occupy, and taken from their businesses, to give that attention which in many cases we so desire. I therefore ask that either the College of Physicians, or the College of Surgeons, or Trinity College, or learned bodies from whom these medical gentlemen spring, should be consulted in reference to this matter. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that his reputation in this matter is that of a rather strict man. I do not blame him for that. His reputation as a recruiter is that of stringency. He may not. perhaps, as yet have taken that entirely off. The Irish Local Government Board in the administration of this military service business has hitherto been absolutely in conflict with the people. It has been brought up in the Courts, but the Courts, of course, always have held that it has the power of preventing young men from getting the ordinary appointments, though there is no Conscription in the country. It has not the confidence of the people, and, therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that the College of Surgeons, the College of Physicians, or the National University, who will not be impeached by anybody as regard their loyalty, or some authority having the confidence of the people, is brought into the matter.

I do not propose to offer any objection to the Clause, but I desire to have one point understood clearly by the Committee. The Committee that was set up by the House as to Military Service Acts medical examinations, before whom the right hon. Gentleman was the first witness, reported upon the absolute necessity of having civilian boards apart from military service to examine men, so that the examination might be absolutely impartial. The right hon. Gentleman should take care, if the Committee gives him this power to take doctors up to the age of fifty-six, that there is a sufficient margin of capable men within that limit reserved in their practice to perform and continue the function of civilian examiners of those medical boards. The speed with which the War Office capitulated when we were able to make an interim report to this House was self-condemnatory of the old system, which everybody agrees was bad. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to take power to conscript all doctors up to fifty-six, to give the Committee the assurance that a sufficient number of these independent people shall be left to be able to discharge the functions of the examining bodies, and not make them the subject of any section or Department of State.

In reference to the point which has been raised as to consultation with the medical profession, there has been consultation with the medical profession and with the authorities which represent the central governing bodies, and there has been a very strong expression of opinion from certain members of the profession that the age should be up to sixty. The Central Professional War Committee proposed and

The Local Government Board will be out of it.

They will not be out I of it with regard to Local Government Board appointments, but they will be out of it with regard to the work of doctors in obtaining them in the armed forces of the Crown. In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir H. Nield), of course that is absolutely essential. That is the whole point of this Clause— to retain in civil life a sufficient number of doctors to carry out these services outside the sphere of the armed forces of the Crown, and it is to enable them to do that satisfactorily that we really want this age limit. There remains one point, that is that the whole object of our present organisation is, so far as possible, to give part-time work to the medical profession.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).

It is difficult to deal with this subject within the limits of the allotted time which remains for the discussion of this Clause, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reserve decision of the question until the Report stage. I hope, however, that the Government will accept this Amendment as their doing so, I think, will strengthen the Bill, and add to the available man-power. The effect of it is to omit this special provision relating to ministers of religion, and thereby bring them into the general community, and making them subject to the same obligations as other men. The Military Service Act when passed gave special treatment to ministers of religion, and in support of that two arguments were used. The first was that ministers were needed for their parochial work, and that to take them away from that work would be to deprive the nation of a most essential service. That argument, however, is refuted by this Bill, because by the proposal of the Government they are to be taken away from their parishes. The second argument was that ministers of religion, by the nature of their profession, ought not to be called upon to take part in active hostilities and to assist in the slaughter of their fellow-creatures. From the point of view of the interests of religious bodies, I fear that argument is a very bad one indeed. Most of us have heard sermons by young ministers of religion who declare that in fighting the Germans we are fighting evil, and who urge that it is our duty to do our best in all respects to fight the Huns. When a man makes a declaration of that character, and says it is our business to fight the evil, is it not as much his business?

It would appear that the ministers of religion are to be compelled to serve, at the same time they may ask to do non combatant service. But I believe that is not the desire of a large number of clergymen themselves. We know that very many of them have volunteered, and there is no evidence whatever that they themselves have asked to be relieved of combatant service. We were told in the discussion on the previous Amendment that doctors are proud of having been called upon to occupy positions in the Service upto the age of fifty-five; and I really think that ministers of religion are equally proud of being asked, and, indeed, compelled, to serve their country. So fax as I know, I do not think that any ministers of religion desire any exceptional treatment when called upon to serve their country. Nothing of the kind. Only a couple of days ago the Rev. Dr. Meyer wrote a letter in which he stated how gladly ministers would be ready to serve when called upon, and I know others who, from the beginning of the War, have expressed similar views. Our French Allies have conscripted their priests, and we are told that the result of it has been a great revival of religion amongst the soldiers. The presence of these ministers of religion has a profound effect on the religious life of the men. The soldier feels that a man who enters the Service should be in the fighting line, and he does not care to see a healthy young man brought fresh from England and put into the Non-Combatant service. Such a course is not going to be in the interests of religion. When the soldier, however, as he is now experiencing, sees ministers and priests taking their part against the enemy he is filled with respect for religion, and it is in the interests of religious bodies themselves that I move this Amendment.

I have not many minutes in which to reply, but I want to say that it is difficult, I think almost impossible, for the Committee to deal with this subject in the time which is at our disposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through whose fault?" J Nobody's fault; it is the result of the position in which we stand. Many Members of the House, and many people outside, are anxious that the exemption given to ministers of religion should be taken out of the Military Service Act, and many think that they should be put on the same footing as other subjects. That opinion is held by a great many ministers of religion themselves. Indeed, they feel it almost a reproach, when they are only too anxious to serve their country, that they should be excepted from the provisions of the Act.

Why do they not join?

I know that there are many heads of my Church, as no doubt there are of other Churches, who are most willing that ministers under their control should engage in active service; but there are many inside and outside the House who have objections to a proposal of this kind, objections on which they are fully entitled to be heard, and some of them have been already stated. Some, no doubt, will be stated in debate on the next Clause. This is a matter on which the Government would be very glad indeed to hear the different arguments which may be forthcoming. I think it will be unsatisfactory to the House as a whole, before we have heard Members express their views, that we should arrive at a decision.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he has an Amendment ready?

Nothing of the kind. I think we should reserve our decision of the point till a later stage of the Bill, and, after having heard the whole of the arguments, the Government will then be able themselves to put down an Amendment on Report. We shall do our utmost to secure that some time is given for the discussion on Report, and for the decision of the question. I hope the Amendment before the Committee will not be divided upon, because we cannot accept it at the moment, and a Division upon it would not be a real indication of the opinion of the House.