asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that a further call up of coal carmen, loaders, and wharfmen for military service has been made, notwithstanding the arrangement recently arrived at to retain all existing men engaged in this work of national importance; is he also aware that these men cannot be replaced, and that in consequence coal supplies for manufacturing and all other purposes are seriously jeopardised; and will he say what action, if any, he proposes to take?

I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service on this subject, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the latest calls from labour on the land to the Army may result in jeopardising the harvest of the largely-increased cereal acreage this year; and will he say how he proposes to meet the deficiency of labour occasioned in time for the 1918 harvest?

I fully realise the importance of providing additional labour for the coming harvest, and arrangements with that object are now being completed in consultation with the War Office and the Ministry of National Service, and if my right hon. Friend will put down a question to-day week I hope then to be able to announce them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman preparing a considerable quantity of harvesting machinery in readiness for the harvest in August?

Yes, we are making preparations for that.

asked the Minister of National Service the proportions of the men over forty-one called up under the Military Service Acts who have been placed in each of the different grades as the result of medical examination?

Definite figures cannot yet be given concerning the results of medical examinations of the older men. The general impression on comparing such results as are available with the results of the examinations of younger men is that there is likely to be no marked divergence in the two sets of figures. The hon. Member will of course bear in mind that these men are graded relatively to the standards applicable to men of their age, so that where one of these men is classified as being in Grade 1, it implies that he has the full normal physical fitness to be expected of men of that age. The same relative principle applies to the other grades, in the case of these older men. Consequently the military training and subsequent disposition of the older men by the military authorities are governed by similar consideration. It is their intention that the greater proportion of the older men shall be used for garrison and auxiliary duties at home, and for similar duties overseas. There is no intention of drafting these men for duty in field formations overseas in the same manner and after the same comparatively short period of training as is customary in the case of younger men. Those of the older men who are found to be fit for field service of a less arduous character will receive a modified course of instruction and training under special supervision.

Are we to understand that the older men who are Grade l will not be put into the same army units and employed in the same kind of work as the younger men who are Grade 1?

As regards the army units, my hon. Friend had better ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but certainly the distinct policy is that the older men should not be used on the same work as the younger men.

Does it mean that a Grade 1 man of forty-one is a different thing from a Grade 1 man of thirty-one?

Certainly, but it is not forty-one, but over forty-three.

A Grade 1 man of forty-five is a different thing from a Grade 1 man of thirty-one?

Yes.

Once these men are examined and handed over to the military authorities has the hon. Gentleman's department any control over them?

We have no control over them, but, as ray right hon. Friend informed my hon. and learned Friend, the War Office is arranging to use these men differently from the younger men.

Does my hon. Friend say that a Grade 1 man is only passed for garrison duty at home, and, if so, why should he be passed Grade 1?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read my answer he will see that I have said something quite different.

Has the hon. Gentleman read the statements by the Shoreditch Tribunal, and by the chairman of the tribunal upstairs, about the grading of these men?

I have read what has been said at the tribunals, but we have had a great deal of evidence that the men are most carefully examined.

If this question be repeated later, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give the proportion of men over forty-three who are placed in the different categories?

They will be approximately the same as the other men, but I think that I ought to have notice of that.

If a Grade 1 man of forty-five is really only Grade 2, why should he be passed as Grade 1?

I think that I had better have notice of that. This policy has been most fully explained to the House.

No; it has not.

It has; and it is not easy to avoid confusion by question and answer. It is perfectly true that there are different standards for older men and younger men. That is obvious, because there was a definite pledge given in the House that the older men would not be used for the same military duties as the younger men.

asked the Minister of National Service whether he will instruct his representatives not to press for men to join the Army who have youthful families of more than six children; and whether such concession is existent in France?

Exemption on grounds of hardship is a matter for decision by the statutory tribunals, who take into account such matters as the number and age of the children of an applicant. I am informed that there are regulations in France modifying the military obligations of fathers of large families. It has not, however, been possible for me as yet to obtain full information, but further inquiries are being made.

Will the modification be introduced into England?

As I understand, the hardship in France is modified by regulation, whereas here we have adopted the tribunal system by which these cases are referred to tribunals.

asked the Minister of National Service how his recent intimation of release from the Army of miners who are serving at home and of lower medical category than B 1 will be adminis- tered; and whether application will be made by individual soldiers, or must application be made through the miners' lodge, or can individuals apply from districts concerned, or will selection be made by the officer in command, and will priority be given to those whose service has been the longest?

Applications for the release from the Colours of miners who are serving at home and who are in a medical category lower than B1 may be made in any of the following ways:

(1) The individual soldier may apply through his commanding officer;

(2) The branch secretary of the union may apply to the War Office through the colliery firm concerned;

(3) The Controller of Coal Mines may apply direct to the War Office.

The selection will not be made by the officer in command of the man's unit. The War Office will release such low category miners serving in the Army at home as can be spared. I am afraid it is not practicable to regulate the order of release by length of service.

When ray hon. Friend uses the word "soldier," does he apply it to miners who have not yet been enlisted?

My hon. Friend asked me about release from the Army. Men can be released only when they have been enlisted.

asked the Minister of National Service whether it is intended to delay calling up any more Russians for compulsory military service pending the reply which the Government is considering to the request of the Russian People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Minister of National Service whether there had been any alteration in the constitution of medical boards for the examination of recruits in the London district or elsewhere; what is the nature of the alteration and in what area has the alteration been effected; by what authority has any such alteration been carried out; and will he give particulars of any Departmental Order or other document containing, or referring to, the same?

The question of my hon. Friend is probably based on the fact that under the stress of the sudden large increase in the number of recruits for the Army it was recently found necessary to increase the number of acting National Service medical boards in certain districts. It was anticipated that it might become necessary, in cases of urgency, for temporary emergency boards to consist of two doctors. I am happy, however, to state that it has been found possible to avoid the necessity of any board being constituted of less than three doctors, and this is the minimum number responsible for the passing of any recruit.

Why has the board, which we were assured in this House would consist of five men, been reduced to three men without any notification to this House?

I must have notice of that, but I understand that those who deal with this matter are perfectly satisfied as long as three doctors examine the man.

Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the attention of the Director-General of National Service was specifically called to a circular issued by the Assistant Director of Medical Service in London reducing the board from five to three without any intimation that it was a temporary arrangement?

My right hon. Friend has had his attention called to an alleged circular which suggested reducing the medical boards to two. That was objected to, and my answer deals with that point.

Will the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House the secret orders that have been issued, and is he aware that doctors in many places have flatly refused to accept them?

I am not aware of the last part: in fact my evidence is to the contrary. But I do not understand that there are any medical instructions of the kind. The Department of National Service, in common with other bodies, has issued certain—

Secret —

No; there is nothing secret about them, but the criticism was made that we were employing a system of two doctors. That was objected to, and I am happy to say that it has been found possible to avoid that, and that each recruit will be examined by three doctors.

asked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that recruits on the conclusion of their medical examination at 62, Conduit Street are being requested to put their signature to a paper containing a list of names but no heading or explanatory statement, and are told, in answer to any inquiry as to the object of the request, that it is an acknowledgment or statement that they have been carefully examined, or that they have had a satisfactory medical examination; whether he is aware that these signatures are as a rule asked for before the grading has been determined or communicated, and while the recruit is still unclothed; and if he will give instructions to discontinue the practice immediately?

My hon. Friend's information is not quite accurate. It was desired to obtain the observations of the men themselves as to whether they had any complaints to make in connection with their examination. It was thought that this was in the interests of the recruits themselves, and would be a valuable guide to those entrusted with the arrangements and conduct of their medical examination. But, as it would appear from my hon. Friend's question that the course adopted by the medical board at Conduit Street is open to misconception, I will undertake to see that a procedure is adopted which cannot give rise to any such misconception.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many qualified dental surgeons now hold commissioned rank in the Army; how many have been commissioned since 1st March, 1918; how many of these have been commissioned from the ranks since that date; and how many are now remaining in the ranks?

The number of qualified dental surgeons who hold commissions in the Army is 640; of these, ninety-two have received their commissions since the 1st March last, including twenty-six from the ranks. As regards the last part of the question, inquiry is being made.

Are we to understand that 640 represents the total number of dentists employed professionally in the British Army? It is scandalous !

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any of the men in a low medical category who are discharged from the Army as being surplus to military requirements or of greater use in civil life can reasonably claim to be entitled to pensions, allowances, or gratuities; and, if so, whether he is aware that the fact of their having been discharged under the above headings prevents the Ministry of Pensions from entertaining their claims?

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Men discharged or transferred to the Army Reserve as surplus to military requirements fall into two classes, namely, those who have suffered impairment since their entry into the Service and those who have not. The men who have suffered impairment are dealt with as if they had been discharged on the ground of medical unfitness, and are entitled to the pensions, allowances, or gratuities that may be appropriate to their cases under the Royal Warrant.

How are local war pensions committees to know which of the two classes a man comes under if he presents his certificate as a discharged soldier surplus to military requirements?

If, after medical examination, the papers are forwarded to Chelsea, the case will be dealt with according to the manner in which he has been invalided out. The matter, therefore, would not go to the local war pensions committee at all. If the question is asked of them, and they will communicate with the Ministry, we shall be able to give them the information.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men discharged as surplus to military requirements are being refused both pensions and silver badges on the grounds that being so discharged they are liable to recall; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Men are awarded the silver war badge only if discharged as permanently and totally unfit for further military service on account of old age, wounds or sickness. As regards pension, I must refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the illtreatment of a number of conscientious objectors known as Seventh Day Adventists, also a number of serving soldiers while confined to No. 3 Military Prison, La Larvre; and whether any inquiry has been made into the allegations, or is it proposed to institute an inquiry?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question which he asked on the 28th May.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Harry Burgess, a conscientious objector, was sentenced to his first term of imprisonment in August, 1916; that he, subsequently, was transferred to a work settlement; that he was afterwards recalled and sent to prison; that he has since broken down mentally and is now in an asylum; and if he will say whether his present condition is a result of the treatment he has received while in prison?

These facts are as stated in the question except that Burgess has recently been discharged from the asylum. There is no reason for thinking that his insanity was in any way attributable to the treatment he received in prison.

asked the Home Secretary whether an inquiry was held in Hull Prison on or about 6th April, 1918, into the death of E. W. Burns, who died on 13th March; whether the Report is to be made public; who conducted the inquiry; what action has been taken on the Report; how many prisoners gave evidence; if any were legally represented; if they were indemnified or protected should their evidence be against the staff; if the evidence was taken down; if it can be made public; and how many of the staff gave evidence?

The inquiry in question was made by the hon. Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, and by Dr. Maurice Craig, F.R.C.P. The result of the inquiry was fully stated by the Home Secretary in reply to a question in this House on 15th March last. To what he said I need only add that it is not proposed to publish the evidence, but that evidence was given by the governor, the medical officer and three other officers of the prison, and by three prisoners who asked to be examined. The prisoners, who were all conscientious objectors, were given an opportunity of making their statements privately to the Commissioners— the governor and all prison officials withdrawing at the governor's suggestion.