WAR PENSIONS: 
 
 PAST AND PRESENT 
 
WAR PENSIONS: 
 
 PAST AND PRESENT 
 
 BY 
 HIS HONOUR JUDGE 
 
 EDWARD ABBOTT PARRY 
 
 t / 
 
 AND 
 LIEUT.-GENERAL 
 
 SIR ALFRED EDWARD GODRINGTON 
 
 K.C.V.O., C.B. 
 
 Xon&on 
 NISBET & CO. LTD. 
 
 22 BERNERS STREET W. I 
 
First Published in 1918 
 
TO 
 
 OUR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE 
 
 ALBERT BELLAMY 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IN the summer of 1917 we were invited to become 
 members of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal, an inde- 
 pendent body formed to hear and determine certain 
 specified appeals from decisions made by the Officers of 
 the Ministry of Pensions. 
 
 When we took up these duties we had no special 
 knowledge or experience of our system of War Pensions, 
 nor had we studied the principles by which it was 
 governed or the machinery by which it was carried out. 
 
 We discovered that there was not in existence any 
 one book dealing with the subject ; and that, in order 
 to understand the system of War Pensions which 
 obtains to-day, it was necessary to make a very con- 
 siderable historical research. We found that the 
 modern Statutes did not define the powers and duties 
 of the Ministry or the rights of applicants. Army 
 Pensions were dealt with under a Royal Warrant, Navy 
 Pensions were dependent upon a Statute, whilst the 
 affairs of widows and orphans were in the hands of a 
 Statutory Committee. 
 
 To appreciate the position of these various bodies 
 necessitated research into the history of the Royal 
 Commissioners at Chelsea, the Pension Authorities at 
 Greenwich Hospital, and the study of the evolution of 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 the Royal Patriotic Fund from its beginning as a Com- 
 mission to its final merger in the Ministry of Pensions. 
 
 To understand the obscure and confused history of 
 War Pensions in this country, we found that we had to 
 consult many old and forgotten Statutes, reports of 
 Commissions, and lengthy volumes of evidence, some 
 of which are now only accessible in libraries. From 
 these we extracted a history of War Pensions which we 
 found of considerable value to ourselves in considering 
 questions of principle in Pension administration. 
 
 At the end of our year's work we felt that in the 
 trial of Appeals that had come before us, we had not 
 only gained considerable insight into the working of 
 Pensions administration, but that the cases actually 
 decided, and the reasons for the decisions, were worthy 
 of publication, not only in the interests of future 
 Applicants, but as a guide to members of Local War 
 Pension Committees and other citizens interested in the 
 right administration of War Pensions. 
 
 When we consider that over forty millions a year are 
 being spent by the Ministry of Pensions, and that the 
 right distribution of this money affects the lives of 
 thousands of the men who have fought for us, and of 
 the widows and orphans of those who have died in the 
 service of their country, it seems reasonable to suppose 
 that other citizens besides ourselves will desire to under- 
 stand the constitution and powers of the Ministry 
 appointed to carry out these duties on behalf of the 
 nation. 
 
 To have set out at length all the official docu- 
 ments relating to War Pensions would be to have 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 compiled and edited a cumbersome law-book. We 
 preferred to tell the story of War Pensions in a short 
 and readable form; but at the same time we have noted 
 all necessary references, so that any reader who desires 
 to consult original documents may readily find them. 
 
 To many it may seem a somewhat simple matter to 
 decide whether or not in fact an Applicant is entitled 
 to a Pension : in the majority of cases no doubt this 
 is so ; but where a man alleges that his condition of 
 unfitness has been aggravated by Military Service, 
 questions of great delicacy and difficulty are bound to 
 arise. In every Appeal that was heard the two 
 Medical Members of the Tribunal made a careful 
 examination of the Applicant, and thus in arriving at 
 their decisions the Tribunal had the advantage of 
 medical and surgical opinions of the highest authority. 
 
 In America, Appeal decisions on Pension matters 
 are reported formally in the same manner as Law cases 
 are in England. The decisions that we have printed 
 in Chapter VI. are a selection from the actual decisions 
 given in open Court ; and although some of them have 
 been reported in the Press, and a few were printed for 
 official use, no authoritative collection of them has been 
 published. We think that there can be no doubt that 
 the considered decisions of the Appeal Tribunal arrived 
 at under the conditions we have described must be of 
 great practical value to every one concerned in the 
 right decision of Pension Claims. 
 
 It would be foolish to assume that the country has 
 yet achieved a perfect system of Pension administra- 
 tion, and in printing a short account of the American 
 
x PREFACE 
 
 system, we felt that the experiences of a nation of our 
 own race, and the way in which they have solved 
 similar problems, are matters of peculiar interest to us 
 at the present time. In Parliament and in the Press 
 there is frequent discussion of Pension matters ; and 
 this is likely to continne in the future. Such discussion 
 without knowledge of the facts is likely to be barren 
 of good results. We ourselves found how necessary 
 it was to study the origin and evolution of War 
 Pensions before we could deal satisfactorily with the 
 matters entrusted to us, and we feel that the publica- 
 tion of the results of our researches may be of use to 
 others interested in Pension affairs. 
 
 " Nature is an endless combination and repetition of 
 a very few laws," and the mistaken experiments of a 
 past generation are instinctively repeated by the present 
 because the records of former failures are mislaid or 
 forgotten. In building up a new system the success of 
 the future depends in no small measure on a study 
 of the past. 
 
 The future of War Pensions will lie in the hands of 
 new legislators who will have to face many grave 
 problems, but none that will require more sympathy, 
 wisdom, or honesty than this one. Even these qualities 
 will not overcome the difficulties unless the lessons of 
 the past are studied and profitably used. 
 
 EDWARD A. PARRY. 
 A. E. CODRINGTON. 
 
 SEVENOAKS, 1918 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PREFACE . . . . . vii 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. THE EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 
 II. WAR PENSIONS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY . 
 
 III. THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND . . -30 
 
 IV. THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS . . .51 
 V. THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL . .71 
 
 VI. DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL . . .87 
 
 VII. THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM . . .158 
 
 APPENDIX ...... 172 
 
 INDEX . 177 
 
WAR PENSIONS: 
 PAST AND PRESENT 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 
 
 "When troubles rise and War is nigh, 
 God and the Soldier is the cry ; 
 When War is o'er and trouble righted, 
 God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." 
 
 Traditional. 
 
 ALL civilized nations have done something to 
 provide for the disabled soldiers who fought 
 their battles. The Athenians maintained their 
 wounded out of public funds and cared for the 
 orphans of those who fell. The Romans settled their 
 legionaries in colonies and gave to discharged soldiers 
 farms held on a military tenure. Even under our 
 feudal system, although the State undertook no duties 
 in relation to discharged soldiers, each baron looked 
 after his own retainers, and their old soldiers when 
 discharged or disabled became foresters, dog-feeders, 
 hawk -trainers or seneschals at their masters' castles or 
 cultivated the land as serfs. 
 
2 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 From il :.e drvmMl of the feudal system to the reign 
 of Elizabeth there seems to have been no systematic 
 plan for the relief of wounded and discharged soldiers. 
 In the time of Edward IV. occasional instances of Royal 
 Bounty are recorded. John Sclatter had an annuity of 
 four marks for the loss of his hand at the battle of 
 Wakefield, and Rauf Vestynden a pension of ten pounds 
 by letters patent under the Great Seal " for the good 
 and agreeable service which he did unto us in berying 
 and holding our standard of the black bull at the 
 battle of Sherborne." l 
 
 These early instances of war pensions are interesting 
 to us to-day inasmuch as they prove that the original 
 form of war pension existing in England seems to have 
 been some sort of bounty granted by the Sovereign, 
 and the instrument by which the Sovereign signified 
 his royal pleasure that a pension should be granted 
 was in the nature of a Royal Warrant. We shall see 
 that exactly the same procedure obtains to-day, and 
 that an Army war pension is still a matter of Royal 
 Bounty and not of legal right. 
 
 In the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, the 
 system of Royal Bounty still prevailed, but the extent 
 of the wars and the constant calls on the privy purse 
 led, no doubt, to the consideration of some better plan, 
 and in this reign we find the first institution of the 
 War Pension as a statutory right. How this right 
 became obsolete and why soldiers are once more 
 recipients of Royal Bounty if, as we are told by 
 authority, this is their true legal position to-day 
 * See Gleig, Chelsea Hospital, p. 15, 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 3 
 
 involves an investigation into the history of War 
 Pensions. 
 
 In the ballad of " Brave Lord Willoughbey " there is 
 an allusion to the institution of the Elizabethan 
 pension system, although the ballad-monger gives the 
 personal credit of the pension to the Queen. 
 
 " To the soldiers that were maimed 
 
 And wounded in the fray, 
 The queen allowed a pension 
 
 Of fifteen pence a day ; 
 And from all costs and charges 
 
 She quit and set them free : 
 And this she did all for the sake 
 
 Of brave lord Willoughbey." 1 
 
 Peregrine Bertie Lord Willoughbey of Eresby distin- 
 guished himself at the siege of Zutphen in 1586, and 
 was made General of the English forces in the United 
 Provinces on the recall of the Earl of Leinster. He 
 was a very popular soldier and it is possible that he 
 had some hand in persuading Elizabeth to grant 
 bounty pensions prior to the passing of the first 
 Pension Act in 1593. Before this date the only way 
 to obtain a pension was by petitioning the Crown. 
 Thus we find in 1582 : " Petition of Jane Bolding to 
 Queen Elizabeth to grant a pension to her husband 
 Edward Bolding who was maimed and disabled while 
 serving in Ireland under Mr. Walter Rawley." 2 Even 
 after the passing of the statute grants continued to be 
 made by the Crown, as on February 1595 : " Grant to 
 
 1 Percy Reliques, ii. 181. 
 
 8 Calendar of Domestic State Papers (1582), p. 87, par. 70, 
 
4 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Edward Lloyd of a pension of ld. a day for life in 
 consideration of hurts and maims received in the 
 wars," 1 and on 31st May 1597, " grant to William 
 Morre of a pension of 6d. a day for life in con- 
 sideration of his loss of sight in Her Majesty's 
 service." 2 
 
 There are many other records of money pensions 
 and places in almshouses found for old soldiers, but 
 ultimately these seem to cease as the statutory system 
 was put in practice. 
 
 There were three statutes concerning pensions 
 passed in the reign of Elizabeth, namely, 35 Eliz. c. 4, 
 39 Eliz. c. 21, and 43 Eliz. c. 3. The first laid 
 down general principles and outlined a procedure, the 
 second was an amending Act, and the third repealed 
 the first two and reorganized pension affairs and 
 became the chief authority on the subject for many 
 years. 
 
 35 Eliz. c. 4 (1593) is entitled " An Act for Relief of 
 Soldiers." The preamble should interest us to-day, 
 and runs as follows : " For as much as it is agreeable 
 with Christian Charity, Policy, and the honour of our 
 Nation, that such as have since the twenty -fifth day of 
 March Anno 1588, adventured their lives and lost 
 their limbs or disabled their bodies or shall hereafter 
 adventure their lives lose their limbs or disable their 
 bodies in the defence and service of Her Majesty and 
 the State, should at their return be relieved and 
 rewarded, to the end that they may reap the fruit of 
 
 1 Calendar of Domestic State Papers (1595-1597), p. 9- 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 427. 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 5 
 
 their good deserving, and others may be encouraged to 
 perform the like endeavours." l 
 
 The duty of relieving soldiers is here seen to be a 
 national one based upon Christian principles, Policy 
 and the Honour of the Nation, and by rewarding the 
 well-deserving it is understood that not only will 
 justice be done but that the effect on others will be to 
 make them ready to render service. It will be noticed 
 that this scheme is retrospective and is to date back to 
 25th March 1588, which was then New Year's Day. 
 
 In 1601, when the new Act (4$ Eliz. c. 6) was 
 passed, it is described as " An Act for the necessary 
 relief of Soldiers and Mariners " and the second sec- 
 tion states that " it is now found more needful than 
 it was ... to provide relief and maintenance to 
 Soldiers and Mariners ... in respect the number of 
 the said soldiers is so much the greater by how much 
 her Majesty's just and honourable defensive wars are 
 increased." 2 
 
 Mariners as well as soldiers were made pensionable 
 in the original Act but it remained for Parliament in 
 Cromwell's day to extend the right of pension to the 
 widows and children of sailors and soldiers who had 
 lost their lives in battle. The important point in 
 all these statutes for modern readers is that in the 
 days of Elizabeth and Cromwell the right of a maimed 
 or sick discharged sailor or soldier was a statutory 
 right and not, as it is with us to-day, a claim on 
 personal charity or public funds in the shape of Royal 
 
 1 Statutes of the Realm, iv. Part ii. 847. 
 
 2 Statutes at Large, ii. 706. 
 
6 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Bounty distributed at the discretion of Government 
 officials. 
 
 The procedure of collecting the pension fund and 
 paying it to the soldiers and mariners was compara- 
 tively simple. As we should say nowadays, it was 
 thrown on the rates. Every parish was charged with 
 a weekly sum of not more than lOd. a week and not 
 less than d., and the average of all the parishes in 
 one district, one with another, was not to exceed 6d. a 
 week. This fund was under the direction of Quarter 
 Sessions. The parishioners agreed among themselves 
 as to the amount of taxation they should bear or it was 
 settled by the Church-wardens and Constables, or in 
 default by the Justice of the Peace for the parish. On 
 refusal of payment there was a right to distrain to 
 recover the amount. The money collected was paid 
 to the High Constable and by him to two Justices 
 of the Peace who were elected Treasurers. These 
 held office for a year and passed their accounts at 
 Easter Quarter Sessions before their brother magis- 
 trates. 
 
 Every soldier or mariner who had been in Her 
 Majesty's pay who was "hurt or maimed or grievously 
 sick " had to make his claim to the Treasurer of the 
 county of his birth. Then the Treasurers, " according 
 to the nature of his hurt and the commendation of his 
 service," made him a temporary grant for present 
 necessities until the next Quarter Sessions. Here the 
 Justices made an " instrument of grant " which declared 
 once for all his pension right, and this was to endure 
 as long as the Act remained in force and the pensioner 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 7 
 
 continued to live, unless the Justices in Quarter 
 Sessions revoked or altered it. 
 
 The limits of amount are these : 10 per annum to 
 any who "had not borne office, " 15 to "one that 
 hath borne office under the degree of Lieutenant," 
 and %0 to any who attained that rank. 
 
 Another important provision of the statute was 
 that any one remiss or negligent in the collection of the 
 sums of money or the making of payments was liable 
 to be fined, and the fines went to swell the pension 
 fund. In the larger towns Corporation officers executed 
 the Act, and there were special provisions relating to 
 London. 
 
 That the Elizabethan system, like our present-day 
 system, sometimes broke down in administration seems 
 clear from the following extracts from the papers of 
 Francis Gavell, treasurer of eleven hundreds of West 
 Surrey. An applicant writes to him : " I request 
 beforehand 80s. paid of the pension of 4< a year due 
 to Rd. Morris, a maimed soldier, who is in prison in 
 great want as the said sum would set him at liberty. 
 Camberwell, 18 Aug. 1598." Again, Sir William 
 Howard writes : " I request your assistance for John 
 Price a soldier maimed in the service who had a pension 
 of 2 allowed but has not yet received payment from 
 preceding treasurers and wants his arrears and 
 payments as they fall due." 1 
 
 The Elizabethan statutes governed our national 
 war pension system until the Civil War, when all such 
 things fell into disuse. In the early days of Cromwell's 
 1 Calendar of Domestic State Papers, 1598-1601, p. 230. 
 
8 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 army the relief of their wounded soldiers, and the 
 widows and orphans of those who died, was left to 
 private charity, but when this was found to be 
 insufficient Parliament again stepped in to provide a 
 regular pension system. 
 
 The first Cromwellian ordinance was passed on 
 6th March 1643. It is entitled " Assessment for relief 
 of maimed soldiers and widows and children of persons 
 slain in the Parliament service." The preamble runs : 
 " Whereas divers well affected persons have gone forth 
 in the Army raised by the Parliament for the defence 
 of the Parliament, Religion, Laws and Liberties of the 
 Subjects of England and in fight have received divers 
 wounds and maims in their bodies, whereby they are 
 disabled to relieve themselves by their usual labour and 
 divers others have lost their lives in the same Service, 
 whereby they have left their Wives and Children 
 destitute of Relief to support and sustain them ; the 
 Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament taking 
 the same into their pious and charitable consideration 
 and having relieved divers of them here at London 
 with some small relief for their present subsistence ; 
 but finding that that course cannot be held for any 
 continuance of time without many inconveniences have 
 thought and do hereby ordain, that in every Parish 
 within the Kingdom," etc. 1 The regulations then 
 followed the Elizabethan system, the only alteration 
 of importance being the recognition of the rights of 
 widows and orphans. Several further ordinances 
 followed, and in one of them (28th May 1647) occurs 
 1 Scobell, Acts and Ordinances, 1658, p. 37. 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 9 
 
 the phrase " a yearly pension shall be by the said 
 Justices or major part of them granted," and this is 
 probably the first use of the word " pension " in con- 
 nection with this form of compensation or relief. 1 
 
 In spite of the many ordinances and regulations 
 passed by Parliament to maintain hospitals and pay 
 pensions the administration of them left much to be 
 desired. In all pension matters sympathetic and 
 competent administration is more important than 
 legislation. Parliamentary pensioners were unfortu- 
 nate in their experience of pension administrators. 
 Professor Firth in his admirable account of Cromwell's 
 army tells us that " Even before the Protector's death 
 the payments due to them fell into arrear, and in the 
 year of confusion which followed it the Government for 
 a time suspended payment altogether. On 7th April 
 1659 Lord Fairfax presented a petition to Parliament 
 from 2500 maimed soldiers on behalf of themselves, and 
 for 4000 widows and orphans, praying for the regular 
 payment of their pensions. Parliament made some 
 temporary grants, but they were insufficient to meet 
 the emergency. It ordered the pension list to be 
 further reduced, invalids who were sufficiently re- 
 covered to be sent to garrisons, orphans to be bound 
 apprentices to trades, and everything to be done to 
 reduce the charge on the State. A report presented 
 on 1st March 1660 revealed the fact that the revenues 
 assigned to the hospitals were forty-nine weeks in 
 arrear ; and thus the pensioners and patients were in 
 the greatest distress, ' insomuch that some have been 
 1 Scobell, Acts and Ordinances, 1658, p. 123. 
 
io WAR PENSIONS 
 
 starved ; others have attempted to destroy themselves ; 
 and many are daily likely to perish, through imprison- 
 ment, hunger, cold and nakedness. And the sick and 
 maimed soldiers now under care in the said hospital 
 are also ready to perish for want, being not able to 
 stir out of their beds and having had no pay these four 
 weeks.' " l 
 
 The Cromwellian pension system was not peculiar in 
 its misfortunes. It was well meaning but incompetent. 
 History, we shall find, discloses that there is in all 
 communities engaged in war a tendency to utter 
 generous statements of promised relief to soldiers 
 fighting for their country. This is often followed, as 
 in the Parliamentary system which Professor Firth 
 has described, by an Administration hampered by want 
 of funds, which affords the economist a chance of 
 making his deliberate effort " to reduce the charge on 
 the State." These efforts at economy, though perhaps 
 sound in themselves, are too eagerly exploited by a 
 generation undisturbed by war's alarms, and the good 
 name of the State is injured if in times of peace it dis- 
 honours the bill that it eagerly accepted during the 
 terrors of war. 
 
 With the Restoration the hospitals and pensions of 
 the Parliamentarian came to an end and the Eliza- 
 bethan statute (43 Eliz. c. 3) was once again the law 
 of the land, but how far the system was ever properly 
 worked by the Quarter Sessions it is difficult to say. 
 Blackstone in 1769 treats it as an existing statute and 
 
 1 Firth, Cromwell's Army, 269 ; quoting Commons Journal, vii. 
 and Burton's Diary > iv. passim. 
 

 EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS n 
 
 says that " a weekly allowance is to be raised in every 
 county for the relief of soldiers that are sick hurt and 
 maimed not forgetting the Royal Hospital at Chelsea 
 for such as are worn out in their duty." Burn's Justice 
 of the Peace (5th edition, 1758), which deals with the 
 everyday practice of the law, although it sets out the 
 provisions of 43 Eliz. c. 3 and refers to the collection of 
 the fund for discharged soldiers, adds the following note : 
 " But as this is left to the discretion of the Justices 
 this is not usually done ; but they are left to be pro- 
 vided for by the particular parishes whereunto they do 
 belong or the provision of the Royal Hospitals of 
 Greenwich or Chelsea respectively." 
 
 This passage shows, we think, that by the middle 
 of the eighteenth century the statutory right of a 
 sailor or soldier to a war pension was a dead letter, 
 the Elizabethan statute was practically obsolete, and 
 the men were again dependent on charity or parish 
 relief. It is interesting to remember that the statute 
 itself was not repealed until 1863, when the Statute 
 Law Revision Act declared it to be one of those enact- 
 ments "which have ceased to be in force or have 
 become unnecessary.*" 
 
 From the reign of Charles II. the history of war 
 pensions for discharged soldiers centres round Chelsea 
 Hospital. Popular tradition assigns to Nell Gwyn not 
 only the idea of founding the Hospital but a gift of 
 the land on which it was built. 1 Probably the renown 
 that had attached to Louis XIV., who had built the 
 Hotel Royal des Invalides, had something to do with 
 1 Gleig, Chelsea Hospital, pp. 23, 24. 
 
12 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Charles' interest in the subject. Sir Stephen Fox, 
 Paymaster of the Forces, took a keen interest in the 
 scheme, and it doubtless owed its success in a great 
 measure to his energy and generosity. On 22nd Decem- 
 ber 1681 a warrant was issued announcing the royal 
 intention of founding the Hospital. Sir Stephen Fox 
 consulted John Evelyn on the matter, and a discussion 
 of the proposed details of management is to be found 
 in his Diary under date 27th January 1682. The 
 original draft of its constitution seems to have been 
 made by Evelyn and Fox in the latter's study, where 
 " we arranged the governor, chaplain, steward, house- 
 keeper, chirurgeon, cook, butler, gardener, porter and 
 other officers, with their several salaries and entertain- 
 ments. I would needs have a library, and mentioned 
 several books, since some soldiers might possibly be 
 studious, when they were at leisure to recollect. Thus 
 we made the first calculations and set down our 
 thoughts to be considered and digested better to show 
 his Majesty and the Archbishop. He also engaged me 
 to consider of what laws and orders were fit for the 
 government, which was to be in every respect as strict 
 as in any religious convent." l 
 
 This passage, we think, clearly shows the difference 
 in outlook between the Elizabethan statutory money 
 pension paid to a man with liberty to spend it how 
 he pleased, and the more modern idea of a pensioner 
 subsisting on bounty and housed among a number of 
 officials who were to govern his movements by the 
 strictest discipline. 
 
 1 Evelyn's Diary ', ed. Dobson, iii. 78. 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 13 
 
 The first stone of Chelsea Hospital was laid on 
 12th March 1682, but the building was not completed 
 until 1690. The cost of its erection and maintenance 
 was provided by a poundage deducted from the pay 
 of each soldier, and this continued until 1847. The 
 management was at first entrusted to three civilians 
 Lord Ranelagh, Paymaster-General ; Sir Stephen Fox, 
 Lord of the Treasury; and Sir Christopher Wren, 
 Surveyor of the Works. 
 
 From the reign of William III. the disposition of 
 pensions for soldiers remained under the control of the 
 Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, who administered 
 the grants from Parliament and other available funds. 
 Regulations were issued from time to time to the Com- 
 missioners, but the soldiers' claim to pensions seems to 
 have rested, as it does to-day, on Royal Bounty and 
 annual Votes on Supply administered at the will of 
 Commissioners, who were the direct agents and repre- 
 sentatives of the Sovereign. 1 
 
 The history of Naval Pensions follows somewhat 
 similar lines to that of Army Pensions, but it 
 is far less involved and is easier to follow. In the 
 same way as the Hospital at Chelsea superseded the 
 Elizabethan statutory system as the authority to 
 manage the affairs of Army Pensions, so Greenwich 
 Hospital became the controlling authority for sailors. 
 
 Greenwich Hospital was founded by William III. as 
 a memorial to Queen Mary. "The affection with 
 which her husband cherished her memory,*" writes 
 Macaulay, " was soon attested by a monument, the 
 
 1 Clode, Military Forces^ i. 71. Gleig's Chelsea Hospital, p. 28. 
 
14 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 most superb that was ever erected to any sovereign. 
 No scheme had been so much her own, none had been 
 so near to her heart, as that of converting the palace at 
 Greenwich into a retreat for seamen. It had occurred 
 to her when she had found it difficult to provide good 
 shelter and good attendance for the thousands of brave 
 men who had come back to England wounded after 
 the battle of La Hogue. While she lived, scarcely any 
 step was taken towards the accomplishment of her 
 favourite design. But it should seem that, as soon 
 as her husband had lost her, he began to reproach him- 
 self for having neglected her wishes. No time was lost. 
 A plan was furnished by Wren ; and soon an edifice, 
 surpassing that asylum which the magnificent Lewis had 
 provided for his soldiers, rose on the margin of the 
 Thames. Whoever reads the inscription which runs 
 round the frieze of the hall will observe that William 
 claims no part of the merits of the design, and that 
 the praise is ascribed to Mary alone. Had the King's 
 life been prolonged till the works were completed, a 
 statue to her who was the real foundress of the insti- 
 tution would have had a conspicuous place in that 
 court which presents two lofty domes and two graceful 
 colonnades to the multitude who are perpetually pass- 
 ing up and down the imperial river. But that part of 
 the plan was never carried into effect ; and few of those 
 who now gaze on the noblest of European hospitals 
 are aware that it is a memorial of the virtues of the 
 good Queen Mary, of the love and sorrow of William, 
 and of the great victory of La Hogue." l 
 
 * Macaulay's History, vol. iv. pp. 535, 536, 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 15 
 
 On 25th October 1694 letters patent were issued to 
 erect and found a hospital " for the relief and support 
 of seamen serving on board the ships or vessels belong- 
 ing to the Navy Royal of us our heirs and successors ; 
 or employed in our or their service at sea, who by 
 reason of age wounds or other disabilities shall be 
 incapable of further service at sea and be unable to 
 maintain themselves ; and also for the sustentation of 
 the widows and maintenance and education of the 
 children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in 
 such sea service." l 
 
 Again we find Evelyn and Wren connected with the 
 scheme the former as treasurer, the latter as architect. 
 Funds were raised by subscription and lotteries, and in 
 1705 a sum of over ^80,000 had been raised. In this 
 year the Hospital was opened and 42 disabled seamen 
 were admitted. Evelyn, under date June 1705, writes : 
 " I went to Greenwich Hospital, where they now began 
 to take in wounded and worn-out seamen, who were 
 exceedingly well provided for. The buildings now 
 going on are very magnificent." 2 In 1738 the number 
 of pensioners had increased to 1000. In 1763 the out- 
 pensioners' system was first established to meet the 
 necessities of the large number of seamen for whom 
 room could not be found in the Hospital. Their 
 pensions were 7 a year. The in-pensioners had 
 increased to 1765, and there were now a number of boys 
 in the Hospital School and quarters allotted to officers. 
 In the beginning of the nineteenth century, when 
 
 1 Walford, Old and New London, vol. iv. p. 177. 
 ? Evelyn's Diary, vol. Dobson, iii. 371, 
 
1 6 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Lord Hood was Governor, the in-pensioner establish- 
 lishment increased to the maximum for which it was 
 possible to find accommodation 271 ; and there were, 
 in addition, upwards of 12,000 out-pensioners on the 
 books. 1 
 
 From this date down to 1845 there was always a 
 list of waiting applications, but from then onwards the 
 candidates were fewer than the vacancies, until in 1859 
 there were only three applicants for 956 vacancies. 
 Parliament thereupon appointed a committee to 
 investigate the whole question, with the result that in 
 1865 preliminary steps were taken to disestablish the 
 institution. Improved arrangements were made for 
 out-pensioners, and a sum equivalent to an annuity of 
 36, 10s. was offered to each of the in-pensioners, 
 whereupon 987 out of the 1400 pensioners decided to 
 leave the Hospital. For reasons of economy a second 
 Act passed in 1869 effected a final clearance, and the 
 building was in 1873 opened as a Naval College. 
 
 As a matter of practical convenience, although it 
 carries the story of Naval Pensions somewhat beyond 
 the date limits of the present chapter, it seems well to 
 set down here the system adopted when Greenwich 
 Hospital was abolished. 
 
 Naval Pensions were placed on a statutory basis. 
 The Naval and Marine Pensions Act, 1865, 28 & 
 ) Viet. c. 73, is undoubtedly the legal authority for 
 the payment of Naval and Marine Pensions. Section 
 3 enacts that " all Pay Wages Pensions Bounty Money 
 Grants or other allowances in the nature thereof pay- 
 1 Fraser, Greenwich Royal Hospital, pp. 64, 79, 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF WAR PENSIONS 17 
 
 able in respect of services in Her Majesty's Naval or 
 Marine Force to a person being or having been an 
 Officer Seaman or Marine or to the widow or any 
 relative of a deceased Officer Seaman or Marine shall 
 be paid in such manner and subject to such restric- 
 tions conditions and provisions as are from time to 
 time directed by Order in Council. " 
 
 As we shall see later, when we come to deal with the 
 powers of the Ministry of Pensions to-day. Naval 
 Pensions are referable to this statute and regulations 
 are drawn up under it by an Order in Council, whilst 
 Army Pensions are handed over to the Minister with- 
 out any reference to any statute by a Royal Warrant 
 which purports to give the Minister authority and 
 powers of interpretation as to Army Pensions which 
 are nowhere expressly conferred upon him in relation 
 to Naval Pensions. The origin of these differences in 
 procedure will appear in the story of the further evolu- 
 tion of Army Pensions. 
 
 It is characteristic of our constitution that Navy 
 and Army Pensions should be granted under distinct 
 systems and by different instruments, and the reasons 
 for this and the way it affects the sailor and soldier of 
 to-day can only be understood by a study of the history 
 of the subject. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 PENSIONS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 
 
 "Examine History, for it is Philosophy teaching by Experience." 
 CARLYLE, Essay on History. 
 
 FROM the time of William III. onward Army 
 pensions were entirely under the control of the 
 Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, acting as admini- 
 strators for the Crown. In the beginning of the 
 nineteenth century there seems little doubt that the 
 Elizabethan statutory system of War Pensions was 
 obsolete, and all pension administration centred in 
 Chelsea. 
 
 In 1806 there were 1,177 out-pensioners attached 
 to Chelsea Hospital. 1 Some of these men held pensions 
 for long service, others were invalids and disabled men 
 in receipt of pensions partly for service and partly for 
 disability. The War Pensions dealt with by the 
 present Ministry are, as we shall see, purely disability 
 pensions, but the Chelsea Commissioners until very 
 recently dealt with all classes of pensions. To a genera- 
 tion that busied itself about the rights of man and 
 imagined that it lived in an age of reason, it seemed 
 wrong that a soldier's pension should not be a legal 
 
 1 Gleig, Chelsea Hospital, p. 39. 
 18 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 19 
 
 right. Doubtless hard cases arose where through the 
 caprice of a commanding officer, who could grant or 
 withhold a certificate of good conduct, a soldier was 
 deprived of his pension without any right of appeal. 
 In any case the popular opinion of the day led to a 
 desire for reform which culminated in the passing 
 in 1806 of 46 Geo. III. c. 69, commonly known as 
 Windham's Act. 
 
 William Windham, the friend of Johnson and Burke, 
 took office under Pitt in 1794 and became Secretary at 
 War with a seat in the Cabinet. He was the first 
 War Secretary to hold office in the Cabinet. Later on he 
 accepted office under Lord Grenville, and " on 3rd April 
 1806 introduced his plan for improving the conditions 
 of the military forces, and making the Army an attrac- 
 tive profession. With this object he passed Bills for 
 reducing the term of service and for increasing the 
 soldiers' pay."" 1 The special interest of Windham's 
 Act in regard to pensions is that Windham recognized 
 the importance of the Elizabethan principle of making 
 a war pension a legal right. 
 
 46 Geo. III. c. 69, s. 3 enacted : "That every soldier 
 who shall from and after the passing of this Act 
 become entitled to his discharge by reason of the 
 expiration of any period of service ... or shall have 
 been discharged by reason of being an invalid or dis- 
 abled or having been wounded shall thereupon become 
 legally entitled to receive such pension. ..." 
 
 All pensions were under the management of the 
 Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, but a certificate of 
 1 Diet. Nat. Biog.y Ixii. 174. 
 
20 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 pension granted was a legal instrument of grant and 
 not a mere statement that the applicant was to receive 
 a royal bounty. 
 
 Windham's regulations under this Act, dated 7th 
 October 1806, laid down the exact money limits within 
 which Chelsea was to grant pensions, and introduced 
 an entirely new system. 
 
 As Mr. Clode remarks, the arrangements made 
 " were greatly to the prejudice of the public or to the 
 advantage of the soldier according to the point of view 
 from which the subject is considered." In the first 
 place they laid down a system of pensions for long 
 service with which we have no concern, but they also 
 laid down definite rules for disability pensions. These 
 were graduated according to the inability of men to 
 earn a livelihood or their ability to earn something 
 towards it or materially to assist themselves. No man 
 was allowed to claim any pension whose disability 
 arose from vice or misconduct. 1 
 
 These regulations undoubtedly led to a large increase 
 in expense, and Finance Committees in 1817 and 1818 
 pressed for economies. In 1826 Windham's Act was 
 repealed and 7 Geo. IV. c. 16 consolidated and amended 
 the various Acts relating to the Royal Hospitals for 
 soldiers at Chelsea and Kilmainham, and gave Chelsea 
 the sole control and management of all pensions, 
 allowances and relief. The Chelsea Commissioners 
 were entitled to make regulations as to the payment 
 of pensions, but these might be " revoked or altered by 
 
 1 Clode, Military Forces^ ii. 286 ; and Windham's Speeches, Amyot, 
 ii. 3 o. 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 21 
 
 any Warrant Order or instruction under His Majesty's 
 Royal Sign Manual." Although the words "legally 
 entitled " are here no longer used, the regulations are 
 to be made for " securing the due payment of such 
 pensions, allowances and relief either at Chelsea or in 
 any other place where the same shall be payable to the 
 persons entitled thereto." And section 10 of the Act 
 says that a discharged or disabled soldier is " entitled " 
 to a pension under the provisions of the Act or the 
 regulations made under it. 
 
 A great deal of this Act of 1826 remains in force, 
 and sections 10 and 11 are perhaps worth quoting at 
 length, for it might possibly be argued that they are a 
 statutory foundation of all Army Pensions granted 
 to-day. The sections are, therefore, set out in the 
 Appendix. 1 Although the Act is never referred to in 
 Pension Warrants in modern times, the point might be 
 taken that just as Naval Pensions are recognized in the 
 Order in Council to be payable under the Naval and 
 Marine Pensions Acts, 1865, so Army Pensions ought 
 technically to be referable to sections 10 and 11 of 
 7 Geo. IV. c. 16, and not be dealt with as mere matters 
 of Royal Bounty. 
 
 These matters are not perhaps without practical 
 interest, for to a disabled man it might be important 
 to determine whether his pension is a matter of legal 
 right or only of bounty, since if the former is the 
 correct view he might then consider how he could 
 enforce his right in a Court of Law if at any future 
 time a pension should be wrongly withheld. One 
 1 See p. 172. 
 
22 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 cannot hope in a country where hitherto the individual 
 has been used to cherish and maintain his legal rights 
 that we shall continue to spend many millions of public 
 money without some public interest being taken in the 
 legal position of the recipients. Those who have to 
 pay will want to know under what sanctions and 
 authority the money is spent. Those who receive, still 
 more those who think they ought to receive and do 
 not, will want to know how their interests are safe- 
 guarded. 
 
 It seems generally conceded by the best authorities 
 that there is no legal right to an Army War Pension, 
 and the reason that this is so seems based on the 
 maxim that " The Army look to the King and not to 
 the Parliament," and a pension being in the nature of 
 a reward for Army service is in the same category as 
 Army pay. 
 
 Lord Hardinge in 1834 when, as Sir Henry Hardinge, 
 he was sitting in the House of Commons laid down the 
 Army doctrine in very uncompromising terms : " The 
 King, and not that House, was the disposer of grace, 
 favour and reward to the Army ; and he should object 
 to the noble lord, or any one else, calling on them to 
 confer rewards which could only be obtained by means 
 of His Majesty's pleasure. The Estimate should have 
 been submitted by command of the King, and not until 
 his pleasure respecting it was first ascertained. The 
 same course ought to be taken before any reductions 
 were proposed, for it was of the utmost importance 
 that the Army should look up to no authority but that 
 of the King. It was by His Majesty's direction that 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 23 
 
 punishments were inflicted and by him alone should 
 rewards be conferred. This was the constitutional 
 doctrine." 1 
 
 The payment of the Army, therefore, is held to be 
 left entirely to the Crown, and this is held to be equally 
 true of pensions. Parliament provides the money 
 which in theory the King distributes. It is under his 
 control and " he may prevent it from being paid to a 
 person whom he deems not entitled to receive it." 
 This was laid down by Lord Kenyon in 1793 when he 
 held that the King may at any time stop the half-pay 
 of an officer in the Army by signifying his pleasure 
 that it shall no longer be paid. 2 
 
 No suit or action, therefore, can be brought either 
 against the Crown or its Ministers for Army pay, and 
 this seems equally true of pensions. 3 It seems, too, 
 that, at all events as regards Army pensions, however 
 clear the claim might be under the Warrant, no 
 mandamus would lie against the Minister of Pensions 
 to compel him to carry out its terms if in his discretion 
 he thought it right not to do so. A mandamus is a 
 " high prerogative writ, issuing from the Crown side of 
 the King's Bench Division of the High Court, whereby 
 the Court, in the King's name, commands the person to 
 whom it is addressed to perform some legal or quasi- 
 public legal duty which he has refused to perform." 4 
 
 1 Clode, Military Forces, i. 97. 
 
 2 Macdonald v. Steele, Peake's Nisi Prius Cases, 3rd edition, p. 233. 
 
 3 Gidley v. Lord Palmerston, 3 Broderip and Bingham's Reports^ 
 275. 
 
 4 Short and Mellor, Practice on the Crown Side, 197. 
 
24 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 If there is a statutory obligation cast upon servants of 
 the Crown to do some ministerial act and the statute 
 imposing the obligation creates a duty to the claimant 
 a mandamus will issue. If a pension therefore were a 
 statutory obligation and the statute created a duty in 
 the Minister to pay the pension, then, if a pension was 
 improperly withheld, a claimant might, it seems, invoke 
 the aid of the mandamus. 
 
 But it has been held that a mandamus will not lie 
 against the Secretary of State for War to compel him 
 to carry out the terms of a Royal Warrant regulating 
 Army pay. This was decided in 1891 in the Court of 
 Appeal in The Queen v. The Secretary of State for 
 War. 1 
 
 From an Army point of view the case is one of great 
 practical interest, and to the citizen it is important as 
 showing how necessary it is that legal rights should be 
 clearly stated in statutes and carefully preserved when 
 these are amended or consolidated. Had Windham's 
 Act been retained, or when repealed by 7 Geo. IV. c. 16 
 if that Statute had clearly stated that pensions were to 
 be matters of legal right, then the pensioner of to-day 
 and the future would have had some legal status. 
 Unfortunately 7 Geo. IV. c. 16 merely used the word 
 " entitled " and from the first it has been taken for 
 granted that it did not mean legally entitled. 
 
 The argument of Sir Richard Webster in the case 
 
 cited is simplicity itself. In carrying out the provisions 
 
 of a Warrant the Secretary of State is the mere Agent 
 
 of the Crown. He owes a duty to the Crown only and 
 
 1 Law Rep. t 1891, 2 Queen's Bench, p. 326. 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 25 
 
 no duty or obligation to any officer or man. The 
 duty under the Warrant is the Crown^s duty, and the 
 Crown would not issue a writ of mandamus against 
 itself. Therefore, it will not issue it against its 
 Secretary who is its agent and delegate. 
 
 This argument was accepted by Justices Cave and 
 Charles, who in a written judgment laid down the law 
 in these terms. Having stated that the question for 
 the Court was " whether there is imposed on the 
 Secretary of State by the Royal Warrant any duty of 
 a public nature in which the applicant is interested, or 
 whether the duty imposed is one owing to the Sovereign 
 alone," they continued as follows : " Now there are, no 
 doubt, cases where servants of the Crown have been 
 constituted by statute agents to do particular acts, and 
 in these cases a mandamus would lie against them as 
 individuals designated to do those acts. But it is also 
 beyond question that a mandamus cannot be directed 
 to the Crown or to any servant of the Crown simply 
 acting in his capacity of servant." 
 
 " With reference to that jurisdiction," says Cockburn, 
 C.J., in Reg. v. Lords of the Treasury? " we must start 
 with this unquestionable principle : that when a duty 
 has to be performed (if I may use that expression) by 
 the Crown this Court cannot claim even in appearance 
 to have any power to command the Crown. The thing 
 is out of the question. Over the Sovereign we can have 
 no power. In like manner where the parties are acting 
 as servants of the Crown and are amenable to the 
 Crown, whose servants they are, they are not amen- 
 1 Law Rep., 7 Q.B. 387, at p. 394. 
 
26 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 able to us in the exercise of our prerogative juris- 
 diction." 
 
 In this statement of the law Lord Esher concurred. 
 "I entirely agree with the Divisional Court that a 
 mandamus will not lie in this case against the Secretary 
 of State for War on the ground that there is no legal 
 duty towards the applicant to do what the applicant 
 asks us to direct him to do, imposed upon him either at 
 common law or by statute." 
 
 Unless, therefore, an Army Pensioner could 
 persuade the Courts that he was " entitled to a 
 pension" within 7 Geo. IV. c. 16, it would seem he 
 has no legal rights, though a Navy Pensioner whose 
 pension admittedly comes to him by virtue of an 
 Order in Council made in pursuance of the Naval and 
 Marine Pension Act, 1865, may perhaps be in a better 
 legal position. 
 
 These anomalies and legal curiosities arose from the 
 desire of the economists to get rid of the financial 
 burdens which they considered were unnecessarily put 
 upon them by Windham's Act. In every War 
 Pension history there comes a time within a few years 
 of war when the new generation desires to get rid of 
 its liabilities. 
 
 In 1828 a Committee on Public Expenditure con- 
 sidered the question of pensions. Thirteen years had 
 elapsed since the battle of Waterloo, and in accordance 
 with the natural trend of these matters the economists 
 were in the ascendant. The pension estimates of 1828 
 gravely troubled them. ^1,382,091 was required for 
 pensions at Chelsea and Kalmainham, ^260,000 for the 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 27 
 
 out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital, and 187,600 
 for disabled men in the Ordnance. The Committee 
 laid the blame for this enormous expenditure on the 
 system adopted in 1806 under Windharcfs Act. They 
 were sorely tempted to suggest that these arrange- 
 ments should be repudiated, but they rightly came to 
 the conclusion that they were "engagements little 
 short of positive compacts," and that to recommend a 
 diminution of payments would be "an apparent breach 
 of faith to the men who are now in the service. 1 " The 
 legal right conferred upon men who had enlisted and 
 served under Windham's Act was respected but it was 
 not renewed. 1 
 
 The Chelsea Hospital Act of 1826 was passed in 
 April, and an early Warrant signed by Palmerston on 
 18th June 1826 does not refer to its provisions. On 
 the contrary, the pensions to be granted are referable 
 solely to "Our Royal Bounty" and "Our Warrant 
 shall be the sole regulation on this head." It seems 
 fairly clear, therefore, that the official view was that 
 with the repeal of Windham's Act the legal right to a 
 pension disappeared, and once again the matter became 
 a question of bounty. 
 
 Since that date we have not found in any Royal 
 Warrants that we have seen any reference to statutory 
 authority for their issue, though it would not perhaps 
 necessarily follow from that fact alone that Army 
 Pensions do not owe their legal force to the Act of 
 1826. Each Warrant seems to extend its own power. 
 
 1 Third Report of Select Committee on Public Income and Ex- 
 penditure, 1828. Brit. Mus. Reports and Committees (2), 1828, v. 
 
28 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 In the Warrant of 23rd July 1864, signed by Lord 
 De Grey and Ripon, we read that " It is Our will and 
 pleasure that instead of the provisions contained in 
 pages 211-237 of Our Royal Warrant of the 1st July 
 1848, which are hereby cancelled, this Our Royal 
 Warrant to be administered and interpreted by Our 
 Secretary of State for War shall be the sole and 
 standing authority upon the matters therein con- 
 tained." 
 
 The claim of the right of interpretation, being in 
 the Secretary of State, would seem definitely to oust 
 the Courts of Law if, of course, as we must assume, it 
 is well founded. 
 
 Although the administration of Army Pensions was 
 in the hands of the Royal Commissioners of Chelsea 
 they acted in conjunction with the Army Council and 
 the Secretary for War. The Royal Warrant for Army 
 Pay (1914) has a large number of orders relating to 
 pensions, and it is stated which of these pensions are 
 dealt with at Chelsea. But in the same Warrant 
 there are also provisions about annuities and gratuities 
 for distinguished conduct and meritorious service, and 
 a series of Orders dealing with pensions and com- 
 passionate allowances to widows and children and 
 other persons which are dealt with by the Army 
 Council and the Secretary for War and are not referred 
 to the Chelsea Commissioners. When we come to deal 
 with the institution of the Ministry of Pensions these, 
 too, will have to be considered. 
 
 We have now dealt with the story of the War 
 Pensions of sailors and soldiers, and shown how they 
 
IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 29 
 
 came under the control of the Admiralty and the 
 Chelsea Commissioners. It remains to consider the 
 story of the War Pensions granted to widows and 
 orphans. These date from the Crimean War, and 
 necessitate a consideration of the affairs of the Royal 
 Patriotic Fund. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 
 
 "I do not give you to posterity as a pattern to imitate, but as an 
 example to deter." J UNI us, Letter xii. 
 
 IT may be a matter of surprise to some that we have 
 considered it necessary to devote so much space 
 to the history of this Institution. To our mind, how- 
 ever, it is essential to the right understanding of the 
 pension problem that its story should be told. For 
 over half a century it was the chief pension institution 
 in the country, and its rulers fought hard against local 
 administration, publicity of action, and nearly every 
 first principle of pension management that we hope 
 will prevail in the future. Much public money and 
 Parliamentary time have been spent in inquiring into 
 and criticizing its career, but we have not come across 
 any available precis of the results. Moreover, the 
 present Ministry is a direct descendant of the Fund 
 which has been built on its ruins but must never be 
 permitted to be hampered by its traditions. The story 
 must be told now lest by any means it should be for- 
 gotten and the errors of the past repeated. 
 
 On the 28th March 1854 England declared war on 
 
 Russia. An expedition was sent to the Crimea and 
 
 30 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 31 
 
 the battle of Alma was fought on 20th September. 
 The loss of the British was 26 officers and 327 men 
 killed, and 73 officers and 1539 men wounded. We 
 had been at peace for many years and the results of 
 this, the first battle of the campaign, brought home to 
 the nation the fact that this war, like all other wars, 
 entailed casualties, that the killed would leave widows 
 and orphans, and that the surviving wounded would 
 probably be incapacitated from earning their livelihood 
 during the rest of their lives. The nation also seemed 
 to realize as in a flash the fact, which afterwards was 
 so deeply impressed upon them, that means did not 
 exist for adequately dealing with these unavoidable 
 circumstances. On the 4th October 1854 a leading 
 article appeared in the Times, commenting on the 
 situation produced by the victory of Alma and mention- 
 ing that in that battle the loss to the British troops 
 was said to be 1400 killed and wounded. The writer 
 went on to say that for u wives and children " he must 
 soon write " widows and orphans," and that both must 
 be a charge, not only upon our liberality but upon our 
 justice ; that it was a time for " patriotic offerings for 
 the establishment of such a fund as will ensure against 
 want and suffering the representatives of those who have 
 fallen in their country's cause." A strong wave of 
 feeling passed through the country and moved the 
 Government to action. On the 7th October 1854 a 
 Royal Commission bearing the Royal Sign Manual was 
 issued by the Secretary of State for War constituting 
 the Patriotic Fund. The objects of the Fund and the 
 principles of its application were laid down to be the 
 
32 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 " succouring, educating and relieving those who by the 
 loss of their husbands and parents in battle, or by 
 death on active service in the (then) present war are 
 unable to maintain or support themselves."" l 
 
 Of the original Board the Prince Consort was 
 President, and the directorate consisted of statesmen, 
 legal and financial authorities as well as distinguished 
 representatives of both services. The Fund from the 
 first and at all times was intended to relieve "the 
 widows and orphans of seamen, soldiers and mariners." 2 
 With the exception of the shortlived Cromwellian 
 ordinances referred to in our first chapter this is the 
 earliest national recognition of the claims of widows and 
 orphans to War Pensions. 
 
 No doubt the early administration of the Fund was 
 satisfactory to the public and those who received relief. 
 The fact that there was money for their succour and 
 that, in the words of the Royal Commission, " a just 
 and generous benevolence " of any kind was being 
 exercised towards widows and orphans who had no 
 expectation of relief must have seemed at the time a 
 great improvement and reform. Subscriptions ceased 
 somewhere about 1860, but by that time the Fund 
 amounted to 1, 467,000. s 
 
 It is melancholy to note how in every age the gener- 
 ous spirit that in war-time readily provides for the 
 wants of widows and orphans is almost certainly 
 followed by a period of apathy and neglect. The 
 Prince Consort was by no means a merely nominal 
 
 1 Select Committee on Royal Patriotic Fund Report, 1895, p. I. 
 
 2 Ibid., 1896, p. iv. 3 Ibid., 1895, p. 7- 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 33 
 
 President of the Commission, and for the first few years 
 all went well. Troubles began when the Commissioners 
 started an ambitious and unauthorized programme of 
 building and endowing schools. In 1857 the Com- 
 mission decided " to establish and permanently endow 
 an institution for the education of 300 daughters of 
 soldiers, sailors and marines. It was necessary to 
 provide religious training for this large number of 
 children, and that of the Church of England was 
 selected. A chaplain was appointed, and a chapel 
 built at a cost of 5000. As might have been ex- 
 pected, it excited ill-feeling on the part of the Roman 
 Catholics, for whom there was no place in the new 
 school. The odium theologicum was violently aroused. 
 . . . While all the squabbling was going on, the 
 interests of the widows and orphans took a second 
 place. We can judge of this by the absence for four 
 years of any public utterances of the Commissioners, 
 who drew up no report between 1858 and 1862. The 
 report of the latter year, which was not printed for 
 nearly a twelve-month, is not pleasant reading. The 
 Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, which was to be a 
 memento to all time of the generosity of the British 
 people, had become a sort of Dotheboys Hall. The 
 children were employed in scrubbing the floors and 
 cleaning the windows, so that they did not get much 
 schooling. One poor girl had been burned to death 
 in solitary confinement. Some of the elder pupils were 
 in a state of chronic hysteria, through attending revival 
 meetings, and by order of the secretary had been sent 
 to London to be cured by mesmerism. The majority 
 3 
 
34 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 of the lady visitors, finding that the officials responsible 
 were to be retained, very naturally resigned, and the 
 name of Angela Burdett-Coutts, added to the indignant 
 protests, is strong evidence of the utter mismanagement 
 that prevailed." 1 
 
 When the Prince Consort died, the Duke of Newcastle 
 was elected President of the Fund, and during his 
 illness the Duke of Somerset, then First Lord of the 
 Admiralty, acted for him. At a meeting of the 
 Commissioners on 10th March 1865, the Duke, 
 "thinking the administration of the Fund was very 
 unsatisfactory, brought the subject before the Com- 
 missioners. The Commissioners agreed with him as to 
 the management of the Fund, admitting that it had 
 been injudicious, but at the same time did not think it 
 necessary to remove the executive officer under whom 
 the mismanagement had taken place. That being 
 the case he (the Duke) had declined any further 
 responsibility in connection with the Commission, 
 and accordingly he withdrew his name from the 
 Board." 2 
 
 Earl Nelson, who remained for many years on the 
 Board and was a champion of their policy, declared, on 
 the other hand, that " under the management of an 
 admirable executive committee the affairs of the Fund 
 were efficiently and satisfactorily administered.*" 3 
 
 Misplaced complacency has always been the 
 stumbling-block of pension administration, and there is 
 
 1 Kearley, "The Royal Patriotic Fund," Fortnightly Review, 1894, 
 vol. iv. p. 637. 
 
 2 Hansard, 1st June 1866, c. 1683. 3 Ibid., 4th June 1866, c. 1769. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 35 
 
 abundant evidence that the executive officers and 
 committee by acts of misapplication and bad manage- 
 ment had got the Fund into serious difficulties. The 
 Duke of Somerset, who was appealed to, made no offer 
 of helping the administrators out of their difficulties, 
 when fortunately for them the Government was 
 defeated on 18th June 1866. Mr. Gladstone and his 
 Ministers resigned on 26th June, and the third Derby 
 Cabinet was formed on 6th July. On 31st July 
 General Peel, the Secretary of State for War, and 
 Sir J. Pakington, the First Lord of the Admiralty, 
 brought in the Patriotic Fund Bill, 1866. Without a 
 word of introduction or debate it ran through the 
 necessary stages at the end of the Session and received 
 the Royal Assent on 10th August. This statute 
 (29 & 30 Viet. c. 120) consisted of one section tak- 
 ing power for Her Majesty to direct the application 
 of the Patriotic Fund to the purposes of education. 
 This, of course, was not a sufficient legal condonation 
 of what had been done by the Commissioners, but it 
 was the thin end of the wedge which next year was to 
 be driven farther into the tree. 
 
 The Commissioners had now arranged that their 
 Secretary, the executive officer, over whose acts there 
 seems to have been so much unfortunate dispute, 
 should hand in his resignation and receive from the 
 Fund a pension of ^300 a year. They were also 
 determined to continue their education policy, and no 
 doubt they were advised that nothing short of Parlia- 
 mentary sanction could enable them to carry out their 
 plans. The Bill of 1867 was introduced by the Earl 
 
36 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 of Longford as a necessary amendment of the Act of 
 1866, and this too passed through all its stages without 
 debate or discussion. 
 
 By these means a careless Parliament permitted 
 money which the public had subscribed with eager 
 generosity for the widows and fatherless of those who 
 had fought for their country to be applied to entirely 
 different uses. The way in which the Commissioners 
 justified their actions to themselves is not very clear, 
 but they seem to have been inspired by a dislike of 
 administering charity and a well-meaning, if not very 
 intelligent, enthusiasm for education. They were 
 influential and important people, and liked having their 
 own way. 
 
 From the first and throughout their career they laid 
 stress on the fact that they were doling out a charity 
 and not fulfilling an obligation towards their bene- 
 ficiaries. The Digest of the Patriotic Fund, 1904, 
 prints in italics the words of the original Commission, 
 " Succouring . . . those who . . . are unable to main- 
 tain or support themselves" and among the fixed 
 principles of the Commission it is stated that " widows 
 who by proper exertion are able to make a respectable 
 livelihood are not so long as such is the case in a 
 position to receive the same allowances as widows who 
 through want of health, or the number or helplessness 
 of their children, are not able to maintain themselves."" x 
 A widow's pension seems to have been five shillings, 
 so that although the Commissioners may have followed 
 the instructions of the original Commission as to 
 1 Digest of the Patriotic Fund, 1904, p. 5. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 37 
 
 "justice" they cannot have been said to have erred on 
 the side of " generosity." 
 
 There seems no reason to doubt that the Act of 
 1867 was necessary to legalize this well-intentioned 
 misapplication of the widows' and orphans' money to 
 educational uses. Later on in the story the Com- 
 missioners and their officials took refuge in the common 
 excuse that they had not power to take this, that or 
 the other action, to assist their beneficiaries, but it will 
 be seen that they readily assumed power to do many 
 things entirely outside the scope of the Royal 
 Commission. 
 
 The preamble of the Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Viet, 
 c. 98) narrates that the Executive Committee of the 
 Commissioners have appropriated part of the Fund 
 for the erection of a girls' school and a boys' school, 
 and that " it is expedient that the appropriations 
 aforesaid be now confirmed by Parliament." The Act 
 was sweeping enough. It provided for the application 
 of the Patriotic Fund to existing appropriations and 
 authorized any Supplementary Commission to issue, 
 permitting contributions to be made "to Royal or 
 other Charitable Institutions." This clause might 
 have been of considerable value if the Commissioners 
 had at any time desired to obtain a Supplementary 
 Commission to assist them in schemes of greater 
 generosity to the widows and orphans. 
 
 One section of the Act calls for special notice. The 
 Commissioners took power to award any person who 
 had been employed by them " such pension or retiring 
 allowance as to Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors 
 
38 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 seems fit to be paid out of the Patriotic Fund." l This 
 was apparently necessary to meet the case of a gentle- 
 man who joined the Commission as honorary secretary 
 but who during the last seven years of his service had 
 received a salary of ^600 a year. He retired in 1867 
 on a pension of ^300 a year, which he continued to 
 enjoy for twenty years. He retired from the Navy in 
 the same year and received a service pension of 1 
 a day, augmented in 1869 to 25s. a day. 2 Generosity 
 of this kind at the expense of the Fund, though no 
 doubt well deserved by the recipient, contrasted 
 unfavourably with the allowance of 5s. a week to 
 widows who had to prove that they were " unable to 
 maintain or support themselves " without it, and risked 
 the loss of it if they married again. 
 
 In defence of the Patriotic Fund adminstration it 
 was urged in later years that Parliament had limited 
 their powers by the Acts of 1866 and 1867, but this 
 does not seem to be the true view. 3 The Fund was a 
 War Relief Fund for widows and orphans. The Com- 
 missioners held Victorian views of the inadvisability of 
 granting large pensions to poor people and were deeply 
 interested in schemes of education. With the very 
 best intentions they appropriated money belonging to 
 one scheme to what they considered a better scheme. 
 It became necessary to come to Parliament to approve 
 of this appropriation. It is clear that the Acts were 
 drafted as the Commissioners wished, and when they 
 
 1 30 & 31 Viet. c. 98, s. 19. 
 
 2 War Relief Funds Committee, 1900, Evidence, p. 116. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 123. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 39 
 
 took powers to pay a considerable pension to a naval 
 officer already in receipt of 20s. a day they could have 
 taken any reasonable powers they wanted to deal more 
 generously with widows and orphans. They did indeed 
 take powers to apply for Supplementary Commissions 
 for new powers of using the Fund, and it is clear that 
 never during this period did anybody in Parliament 
 attempt to hinder them from doing anything appro- 
 priate or inappropriate which they considered desirable. 
 
 The policy of spending large sums on educational 
 endowments brought the Royal Patriotic Fund very 
 nearly to a state of default. The Royal Victoria 
 Patriotic Asylums Endowment Fund stood at some- 
 thing like 180,000, and other educational institutions 
 were largely endowed out of the Fund, including a 
 boys' school, so that in the year 1880 the Patriotic 
 Fund was in danger of not being able to keep up its 
 pittances to the widows and orphans. As Colonel 
 Young, the Secretary of the Fund, explained: "The 
 Commissioners launched out into expenditure after 
 1867 which brought them under the ban of public 
 censure in 1879 and 1880, and it was generally 
 admitted that the extension of the application of the 
 Fund to the erection of a boys' school was the cause 
 of that : and consequently the boys' school was put an 
 end to." 1 
 
 It was not only the expense of the boys' school but 
 
 also the general policy of educational endowment that 
 
 brought the Fund into default. The Royal Victoria 
 
 Asylum for Girls had cost and was costing a great deal 
 
 1 Select Committee on Royal Patriotic Fund, 1895, P- 9 
 
40 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 of money, and there were other endowments. The 
 position is thus described by their own secretary. 
 Colonel Young : " In 1881, undoubtedly, a financial 
 crisis occurred in the history of the Patriotic Commission, 
 and no one has been more honest than the Com- 
 missioners themselves in admitting the cause of that 
 financial crisis. It was neither more nor less than 
 putting into educational institutions pounds, shillings 
 and pence. 1 ' 1 
 
 Mr. Childers and Lord Northbrook, then respectively 
 at the head of the War Office and the Admiralty* 
 wrote a letter to the Commissioners proposing that 
 they should be dissolved. They were ready to give up 
 their boys' school indeed, something had to be sold to 
 avoid bankruptcy but they wanted to continue the 
 girls' school. "Under these circumstances," said the 
 letter, "as the educational work of the Commission 
 will in future be confined to the girls' school, it appears 
 to Mr. Childers and to Lord Northbrook, with whom 
 he has been in consultation, that it is a matter for the 
 consideration of the Commissioners whether it would 
 not be the best course to arrange for the prospective 
 closing of the girls' school and to dissolve the Royal 
 Commission (which, however effective for raising funds 
 and instituting a plan for their expenditure, is not 
 from its constitution and the absence of responsibility 
 to any department of the Government the most effective 
 for administration) and to transfer to the Commissioners 
 of Chelsea Hospital and the Greenwich Hospital 
 Branch of the Admiralty the duty of paying the 
 1 War Relief Funds Committee, 1900, Evidence, p. 124. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 41 
 
 pensions granted by the Commission with a sufficient 
 appropriation of the funds to meet them." l No doubt 
 it would have been an excellent thing if this proposal 
 had been carried out, but a compromise was arrived at. 
 Representatives of the Admiralty and the War Office 
 joined the Patriotic Fund, the boys' school was sold 
 for <32,000 at a loss of <700, and an Act of Parliament 
 was passed to carry out these objects. 
 
 In their Digest of the Administration and Finance 
 the Commissioners thus describe the position: "In 
 1880 the financial position of the Patriotic Russian 
 War Fund attracted public attention and anxiety, and 
 in a letter dated 20th August 1880 the Secretary of State 
 for War pointed out to the Commissioners that, accord- 
 ing to the Report of Referees, the liabilities exceeded 
 the assets by about <! 50,000. By the abandonment 
 and sale of the School for Boys erected adjacent to the 
 Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum for Girls at Wands- 
 worth Common, and by the suspension of restoration 
 of re-married women to allowances on further widow- 
 hood the deficiency in the assets was wiped out and the 
 Fund restored to a sound financial condition in 1881. " 2 
 
 When the Patriotic Fund Bill, 1881, came before 
 the House of Lords the House was assured that the 
 "Commissioners had promised to make considerable 
 reduction in their office expenses, hoping by that course 
 to relieve themselves of liabilities to the extent of some 
 
 1 Investigation by Secretary for War and First Lord of Admiralty, 
 Parliamentary Paper, c. 2956, 1881 ; and War Relief Funds Committee, 
 1900, Evidence, p. 122 ; Report on Royal Patriotic Fund, 1895, p. 5. 
 
 2 Patriotic Fund Digest ', 1904, p. 7. 
 
42 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 20,000." The Duke of Somerset reminded the House 
 that " the embarrassments of the Fund had arisen in a 
 great measure from the original Commission which left 
 a great deal to its Secretary who was once or twice 
 reprimanded by the Commissioners." l This Secretary 
 had been allowed to resign, but was still drawing 300 
 a year. 
 
 The Bill went through with very little debate. It 
 took powers to sell the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, 
 and the very curious provision was inserted that " the 
 purchaser shall not inquire into the legality of the sale 
 or into the application of the purchase money or be 
 responsible for the non-application or misapplication 
 thereof." 2 Power was taken to appoint new Commis- 
 sioners to issue Supplemental Commissions, and the 
 Commissioners were not in future to be allowed to 
 pension their servants out of the Fund without the 
 permission of the Treasury. 
 
 This statute and a succeeding Act of 1886 (49 & 
 50 Viet. c. 30) placed the Commissioners firmly in the 
 saddle again. Various new funds raised by the public, 
 such as the "Eurydice," "Captain," "Zulu War," 
 "Atlanta," "H.M.S. Victoria," and other public chari- 
 table subscriptions, were handed over to the Commis- 
 sioners and administered by them on principles of 
 Victorian caution and economy, and for a further period 
 of years they ceased to occupy public attention. 
 
 Not only did these statutes extend the powers of the 
 Commissioners to apply their surpluses " for the benefit 
 
 1 Hansard, 28th July 1881, c. 9. 
 
 2 44 & 45 Viet. c. 46, s. 2. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 43 
 
 of widows and children of officers and men of Her 
 Majesty "s Military and Naval Forces," but the Act of 
 1886 (49 & 50 Viet. c. 30) empowered the Commis- 
 sioners " from time to time to ask for and receive 
 contributions from the public for such purposes being 
 for the benefit of the widows and children of officers 
 and men of Her Majesty's Naval and Military 
 Forces." 1 
 
 The Commissioners had now ample funds. They 
 had large powers and if they wanted further powers 
 they could apply for a Supplementary Commission, and 
 they could ask and receive contributions if they wanted 
 more money. 
 
 In 1894 the surplus was estimated at 74,136. The 
 number of Crimean widows left in the Fund at the 
 beginning of 1896 was 1314, and the rate of decease 
 among them was about 60 or 70 a year. For the 
 preceding fourteen years many applications had been 
 made to the Commissioners " for relief from widows of 
 men who served in the Crimea who did not come within 
 the letter of the conditions under which the Fund had 
 to be administered but to whom it was desirable that 
 assistance should be given by the issue of a New Com- 
 mission." 2 
 
 The Commissioners continued their old scale of 
 payments : 5s. for a widow, 7s. for a widow and one 
 child, and Is. 6d. for every additional child. It was 
 not, of course, a living wage, but there was no appeal. 
 Their motto, " No claim to relief is acknowledged as a 
 
 1 Patriotic Fund Digest, 1904, p. 7. 
 
 2 Report of Select Committee on the Royal Patriotic Fund, 1896, p. iv. 
 
44 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 right," l precluded all argument. Nevertheless, when 
 stories of the widows of men who had served in the 
 Crimea were made known and it appeared that there 
 were technical objections to their receiving relief from 
 a surplus in the hands of the Commissioners, which 
 objection the Commissioners seemed powerless to over- 
 come, they were once again brought under the ban of 
 public censure and the House of Commons on the 
 21st February 1895 appointed a Select Committee 
 to inquire into the administration and financial position 
 of the several funds under their control. 
 
 There seems no doubt from the evidence that the 
 Commissioners had taken a very narrow view of their 
 duties to applicants and had to a considerable extent 
 hoarded their funds. For example, there was a fund 
 under the control of the Commissioners called the 
 Rodriguez Fund, which was a bequest by a Spanish 
 gentleman to be devoted to families of English subjects 
 dying or wounded in the Wars who were really indigent 
 and necessitous. A few dependants of officers received 
 grants from this fund but no dependants of ordinary 
 soldiers or sailors received benefits, and the original 
 bequest of 7380 accumulated to no purpose to 
 ^14,770. Under section 21 of the Patriotic Fund 
 Act, 1867, special powers were taken by the Commis- 
 sioners to apply for a Supplementary Commission to 
 spend the Rodriguez Fund on the general objects of 
 the Patriotic Fund, and there seems no reasonable 
 excuse for not having done so. 
 
 The Select Committee dragged on through 1895 and 
 1 Select Committee on Royal Patriotic Fund, 1895, P- I 5 6 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 45 
 
 1896, making its report on 12th August of the latter 
 year, a day on which wealthy public men apply them- 
 selves to sport other than the study of Blue Books. 
 The evidence and the debate on Mr. Kearley's effort 
 to get a more vigorous Report are of considerable 
 interest, but the actual Report itself is a colourless 
 affair. It suggested that "it is the intention of the 
 donors to a fund for a special calamity that the money 
 raised should be expended on the sufferers," a truism 
 which the Commissioners had clearly overlooked. It 
 mildly advised less restricted grants of relief, hoped 
 that the Commissioners would get into closer touch 
 with the authorities at Chelsea and Greenwich who 
 dealt with pensions, thought that by a system of five 
 years 1 term of office a little new blood might be infused 
 into the business, and thought something might be done 
 in the way of giving greater publicity to the existence 
 of the Commission and its powers to grant relief. 
 
 Whilst this Committee was sitting, the Patriotic 
 Fund Commissioners themselves met in Committee 
 under Lord Herschell, who suggested that a Supple- 
 mentary Commission should be applied for and that a 
 Consultative Committee of all Boards administering 
 Funds should be formed. 1 
 
 The excitement of these excursions and alarums 
 having died away, the Royal Patriotic Fund continued 
 their work, much in the old way, until the outbreak of 
 the Transvaal War in October of 1899 once again 
 brought the subject of War Pensions before the public 
 mind. 
 
 1 War Relief Funds Committee, Evidence, 1900,^. 246. 
 
46 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Almost at once the country awoke to the necessity 
 of providing funds for the relief of widows and orphans. 
 Large sums of money were subscribed locally. The 
 Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail raised funds. The 
 Soldiers and Sailors Families' Association, Lloyd's 
 Patriotic Fund, the Imperial War Fund and other 
 societies provided schemes of relief. The simple way 
 out of the difficulties would have been to have handed 
 all the monies to the Royal Patriotic Fund to distribute, 
 but the country would have none of it. That the 
 Commissioners did not distribute the funds at their 
 disposal in " the most impartial and beneficent " manner 
 and " according to the generous intention of the donors 
 thereof," as they had been directed to do in Queen 
 Victoria's original Commission, was strongly felt through- 
 out the country, and on 19th February 1900 Mr. 
 Balfour appointed an independent Committee, " neither 
 Departmental nor Parliamentary," 1 to " inquire how all 
 the various funds might be distributed with the least 
 waste and to the best advantage of those for whom 
 they were intended." 2 
 
 The Commission was not only independent, but was 
 presided over by Lord Justice Henn Collins, a lawyer 
 and scholar of great attainments, and although a man 
 of much human sympathy entirely untouched by any- 
 thing like sentimentalism. Indeed, his decisions in the 
 Court of Appeal on Workmen's Compensation matters 
 had always been rather narrow and technical, so that 
 he was not in the least likely to be carried astray in 
 
 1 Hansard, igth February 1900. 
 
 2 War Relief Funds Committee, 1900, Report, p. 5. 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 47 
 
 any judgment against the Patriotic Fund Commissioners 
 founded on anything less than clear evidence. It is 
 important to remember this, as the official view of the 
 Report afterwards suggested that Lord Justice Henn 
 Collins had been misled by popular clamour. 
 
 The official case put forward by Earl Nelson and Lord 
 Chelmsford was that everything they had done was done 
 in the best possible way, and that the trouble was caused 
 by other bodies overlapping and interfering with their 
 good work. It was true that they had no adequate 
 system of local inquiry and did not approach or consult 
 other bodies as had been recommended by a Committee 
 presided over by Lord Herschell in 1896. But all 
 these things were, according to official evidence, imprac- 
 ticable or impossible or the fault of other people. The 
 newspapers said that they were not worthy of confidence, 
 but they did not agree with their verdict. The man in 
 the dock often complains of the frame of mind of the 
 jury. The official attitude is well exemplified by a 
 remark of Lord Chelmsford : " From my nineteen years' 
 experience of working closely with the Patriotic Fund 
 I really do not see that we have erred in any way." 1 
 
 To people in this frame of mind the Report of the 
 Collins Commission must have seemed peculiarly un- 
 called for. For their verdict was that " the evidence 
 before us and the returns from local centres show in 
 many instances a want of confidence in the management 
 of the Patriotic Fund which has led to a withholding 
 of contributions." They were clear that overlapping 
 existed, and found that this was " in the main deliberate 
 1 War Relief Funds Committee, 1909, Evidence, p. 31. 
 
48 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 and intended to give effect to the supposed desire of 
 the public to deal generously with the widows and 
 orphans of those who have lost their lives in the service 
 of the country." They detail the pittances provided 
 for the widows and children by the Patriotic Fund, and 
 without expressing any opinion as to whether they 
 could have done better with the means at their disposal 
 state unequivocally that the standard they had set as 
 sufficient was insufficient, and as the Commissioners did 
 not or could not raise it and it was obvious that it 
 fell below " the standard which the public would desire 
 for the objects of their bounty, " that therefore over- 
 lapping was " not only probable but desirable." We 
 have an exact repetition of this position to-day, when 
 the Minister of Pensions has had to form the voluntary 
 King^s Fund to enable him to do justice to the men 
 whose claims the Treasury will not meet. 
 
 Finally, they summed up the position in these words : 
 " While as pointed out the existing system of the 
 Patriotic Fund Commissioners does not, except on the 
 points named, involve to any considerable extent waste 
 or injurious overlapping, we desire to record our opinion 
 that unless they radically change their present method 
 of administration so as to make it at once more business- 
 like and more elastic and also take steps to ensure com- 
 plete and cordial co-operation with the persons dis- 
 tributing local funds, the public confidence, which has 
 been rudely shaken, will never be restored and thus the 
 only central fund in the country for the permanent 
 relief of the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors 
 will cease to exist. This would be a great public 
 
THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND 49 
 
 misfortune. It is of the utmost importance that the 
 flow of subscriptions should not be interrupted at the 
 present crisis, and if the Patriotic Fund Commissioners 
 adopt the suggestion here made, we venture to hope 
 that funds will be entrusted to them adequate to the 
 needs of the present war.' 11 
 
 The Report also contains a wise suggestion that the 
 Government should provide some War Pension for 
 widows and orphans which, as we shall see, continued 
 to be officially ignored until long after the commence- 
 ment of the present War. 
 
 In 1901 a Select Committee of both Houses met 
 together to see what could be done to restore the 
 prestige of the Royal Patriotic Fund. The evidence, 
 mostly official, throws no new light on the matter. 
 The findings of the Collins Commission were clearly 
 sound and, as the Select Committee admitted, had irre- 
 trievably " weakened the position and authority of the 
 Patriotic Fund Commissioners as an Administrative 
 Body. 11 2 They therefore suggested that its " business 
 should be handed over to two Boards of Pensions, one 
 for Naval and one for Army Pensions, and that these 
 should be subject to Parliamentary control. 11 These 
 suggestions, however, involved wiping out the Royal 
 Patriotic Fund Commissioners altogether, and this was 
 thought to be too harsh a proceeding. There still 
 existed in official circles those by whom their history 
 and deeds were held in reverence. Therefore, in 1903 
 the Patriotic Fund Reorganization Act (3 Edw. VII. c. 
 
 1 War Relief Funds Committee, 1900, Report, p. 12. 
 
 2 Charitable Agencies Committee, 1901, Report, p. vii. 
 4 
 
50 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 20) was passed, so that the old name might not be lost. 
 The new organization was called the Royal Patriotic 
 Fund Corporation, and consisted of twelve members 
 called " appointed members " nominated by His Majesty, 
 with whom were associated Lords Lieutenant of Counties, 
 Chairmen of County Councils, Lord Mayors and Mayors 
 of every County Borough in England, Wales and Ireland, 
 and similar officials from Scotland as well as seven co- 
 opted members nominated by other Charitable Funds. 
 The Corporation was, of course, really managed by an 
 executive committee and officials. This Corporation 
 was in existence when the present War broke out and 
 the rest of its history belongs to the next chapter. 
 
 It is not our purpose to do more than tell the story 
 of War Pensions in which this Fund plays an important 
 part, but to any one who is interested in studying in 
 detail the causes of the Commission's failure in pension 
 administration we may refer them to the Reports and 
 Evidence from which we have quoted. It is clear that 
 want of publicity, exaggerated centralization and a 
 narrow type of Departmentalism impatient of local 
 assistance and co-operation, resulted in inefficient methods 
 of administration and in a total loss of public confidence. 
 It is from these lessons of the past that we can at least 
 learn what pitfalls modern pension administrators must 
 avoid. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 
 
 " They also to whom Jurisdiction is given, are Publique Ministers. 
 For in their Seats of Justice they represent the person of the Soveraign ; 
 and their Sentence is his Sentence." HOBBES'S Leviathan^ Pt. II. 
 ch. 23. 
 
 WHEN the War started we were entirely without 
 any machinery to deal with War Pensions 
 upon an adequate scale. There were, as we have seen, 
 no less than four authorities in different places having 
 cognizance of the matter, namely, the Chelsea Com- 
 missioners, the Army Council or the Secretary of War, 
 the Admiralty and the Patriotic Fund Corporation. 
 Needless to add, overshadowing all was the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer and the Treasury. 
 
 In November 1914, Mr. Hayes Fisher, then in 
 Opposition, urged upon the Government a unified 
 system of pension administration. He suggested that 
 " the whole of this question of the allowances to wives 
 and children during the War and pensions for disable- 
 ment, whether from wounds or disease after the War, 
 and the question of pensions and allowances for widows 
 and dependants after the War ought to be handed 
 
52 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 over to one body sitting in one building under one 
 roof. . . . At present part of the question is considered 
 by one body, part by another and part by a third 
 body, and consequently there is great perplexity and a 
 certain amount of overlapping necessitating sending 
 for papers here and there. After a very great experi- 
 ence I say that these questions could be much more 
 satisfactorily settled if we had one body under Govern- 
 ment control." l 
 
 It seems little short of marvellous that no attention 
 was paid to such an obviously sensible proposition. At 
 that time there were only 250 officials dealing with the 
 whole of the pension administration in London, and, 
 once placed under unified control, a machine could have 
 been started capable of evolution and expansion to 
 deal with a problem that even in November 1914 was 
 clearly bound to arise. But Mr. Fisher was told that 
 his suggestion was too revolutionary and drastic. 
 Official complacency and Government indolence were 
 too many for him, and two years afterwards the whirli- 
 gig of time brought him on to the Government Bench 
 to bring forward a Bill to deal with the very subject 
 that he had warned the Government not to neglect in 
 the early months of the War. 
 
 A Cabinet Committee now met to consider a revised 
 scale of pensions. This was followed by a Select 
 Committee under Mr. Lloyd George, whose proposals 
 were embodied in a new Royal Warrant of 21st May 
 1915. But nothing further was done in the way of 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 1 8th November 1914, vol. 
 Ixviii. col. 457. 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 53 
 
 legislation towards the establishment of a Ministry of 
 Pensions until 10th November 1915, when the Naval 
 and Military War Pensions Act (5 & 6 Geo. V. c. 88) 
 was passed. As this statute is the basis of the present 
 pension system, its provisions are worthy of careful 
 consideration. For the purposes of " War Pensions," 
 that is to say, in the words of the first section : 
 "pensions grants and allowances made in respect of 
 the present war to officers and men in the Naval and 
 Military services of His Majesty and their wives widows 
 children and other dependants and the care of officers 
 and men disabled in consequence of the present war," l 
 there was constituted a Statutory Committee of the 
 Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, consisting of 
 twenty-seven members. It was intended that this 
 should be a permanent body, and that members should 
 serve for three years and be eligible for reappointment. 
 
 To assist the Statutory Committee in the execution 
 of its duties, Local Committees were established for 
 every county and county borough, and in some counties 
 District Committees were also to be appointed. 
 
 It seems a somewhat curious solution of a pressing 
 problem to form a Statutory Committee of an existing 
 Corporation and give it no executive powers that the 
 Corporation did not itself already possess. Moreover, 
 it is hard to understand on what grounds the Govern- 
 ment considered the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation 
 a suitable body to control a national system of War 
 Pensions. But assuming it was the right body to take 
 
 1 See, too, for definition of "Service Pensions," 9, Ministry of 
 Pensions Act, 1916. 
 
54 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 the matter in hand, the Government should have given 
 it powers to act, and act promptly and effectively. 
 
 The functions of the Statutory Committee, set out 
 at great length in Section 3 of the Act, are to decide 
 questions of fact on the determination of which 
 pensions depend, to frame regulations for supplemen- 
 tary grants "out of funds at their disposal," to 
 supplement pensions and make grants and allowances. 
 Here it must be noted that the statute leaves it very 
 much in the air where " the funds at their disposal " 
 are to come from. It suggests that the Patriotic Fund 
 might find some money for its new Committee, and so, 
 no doubt, it did ; or it might come from Local Com- 
 mittees, or it might come from charitable societies. 
 Assuming they got any money to distribute they might 
 distribute it, and so might the Local Committees whose 
 powers are also defined at length. 
 
 The Admiralty and the Army Council had each one 
 representative on the Statutory Committee, but the 
 Chelsea Commissioners do not seem to have been offici- 
 ally represented, and the statute does not provide for 
 any real co-operation between these bodies and the 
 new Committee. Assuming the new Committee could 
 get the money, and assuming by correspondence with 
 the Admiralty, the War Office and Chelsea it could 
 get the necessary papers and information to consider a 
 man's claim, it could then supplement existing pensions 
 or help a man to maintain himself and his family until 
 the other pension authorities got to work. 
 
 The Admiralty and the Army Council were bound 
 by the statute to give the new Committee any 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 55 
 
 particulars about cases, but there was no such duty 
 cast upon the Chelsea Commissioners. No doubt all 
 these bodies did their best to work harmoniously, but 
 the system, or rather want of system, was bound to 
 lead to the maximum of correspondence and delay 
 with the minimum of business done, and it was scarcely 
 fair to the patriotic and hard-working men and women 
 who formed the Statutory Committee to put them in 
 the position of public purveyors of pensions without 
 goods to deliver or machinery to provide them. 
 
 The year 1916, therefore, commenced with all the 
 old original pension authorities working on their own, 
 with the addition of the Statutory Committee, a new 
 central power, and the Local War Pension Committees 
 all over the country. These Local Committees from 
 the first showed themselves to be of the greatest value, 
 and it is not too much to say that the voluntary work 
 of men and women on these Committees throughout 
 the country has done much to redeem our War Pension 
 business from failure and disaster. For the first time 
 in pension administration we had Local Committees in 
 every centre. The next problem, which is still in the 
 course of solution, was to get adequate co-operation 
 between the Local Committees and the London centres. 
 Unfortunately for the Statutory Committee, their Act 
 of Parliament gave them very little guidance how to 
 set about this, and great delays and troubles arose 
 from the fact that the Statutory Committee was only 
 a conduit pipe of communication between the Local 
 Committees and the Admiralty or the Army Council 
 or Chelsea. 
 
56 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 On 30th March 1916 another statute (6 Geo. V. c. 4) 
 was passed making a grant of c^l, 000,000 to the 
 Statutory Committee, an entirely inadequate allowance 
 in itself, and Local Committees were allowed to get 
 their administration expenses out of the rates if they 
 could persuade the ratepayers to provide them. 
 
 This was the contribution of the Government 
 towards the solution of our difficulties. No doubt 
 they were hampered by the conservatism of existing 
 authorities who resented giving up their pension powers 
 and sharing their authority with others. At best the 
 new system could only be a makeshift. To any one 
 but a statesman the institution of the Statutory Com- 
 mittee without giving it clear powers to enforce its 
 will could not have seemed a very hopeful experiment. 
 Excellent and sympathetic as the work of the indi- 
 viduals comprising it may have been, the addition of 
 a Committee could not relieve a situation that was 
 already suffering from circumlocution and overlap- 
 ping. 
 
 By the following November the condition of things 
 throughout the country was beginning to make itself 
 known, and the Government felt bound to make a 
 further move. On 21 st November 1916, Mr. Hayes 
 Fisher introduced the Board of Pensions Bill. The 
 debate on this occasion is worth reading, because it 
 shows that although for two years nothing effective 
 had been done, enlightened members thoroughly 
 understood the problems that were awaiting solu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Fisher himself referred to the men's grievances 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 57 
 
 with knowledge and sympathy. Complaints were made 
 that " men were discharged and their pay drops before 
 their pension reaches them." Another "very great 
 sore " he describes, is one that has probably caused 
 more unrest in the minds of citizens who joined our 
 Army, and their friends and families, than any other 
 form of neglect they may have suffered. " It is that 
 the Recruiting Officers are taking men who are of so 
 unsound a constitution and so impaired in their health 
 that they are almost certain, with even moderate 
 exposure, to break down in a very short time, and they 
 will become claimants upon the State for a pension. 
 I am the last person to say that because a man is 
 taken, and because he is given two or three months' 
 service, he should after his discharge unfit for service 
 have the right to be given a pension for life by the 
 State. But I do think the State owes this to him 
 that, as far as possible, it should repair and refit him 
 for the labour-market and see him back as far as 
 possible into the conditions in which he was when he 
 joined the Army. I will go further than that. I have 
 always thought that, if it is proved that at the time 
 when he was taken for the Army and for some time 
 before that he had been enjoying good wages in the 
 labour-market, and maintaining himself and family, 
 then if, after two or three months' service, he came 
 back in a crippled condition, unfit to earn anything 
 but a very small wage, he had a prima facie case to 
 have some pension given to him, sufficient in amount 
 to maintain him and his family until he could be 
 repaired and refitted and recruited to take his place in 
 
58 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 the labour-market and go back and maintain himself 
 and his family in civil life." l 
 
 A glance at the cases brought before the Tribunal, 
 which are collected in Chapter VI., will show that 
 although the House of Commons and the people desired 
 these broken men to be pensioned, yet the various 
 authorities had not as yet understood that desire, or at 
 least had not in many cases seen that it was carried out. 
 
 There was no doubt that the neglect of the principles 
 so clearly stated in the House was, as Mr. Fisher said, 
 " a very great sore " at that time. The reason why 
 cases of this kind were left without redress may be 
 summed up in one phrase, " want of system." It was 
 not that the officials who tried to work the old system 
 were hard-hearted or remiss, but the system that was 
 sufficient for a Regular Army broke down under the 
 new conditions, and the official mind clung to its old 
 ideas and continued to pour new wine into old bottles 
 with cheerful but disastrous obstinacy. 
 
 As Mr. Forster, the Financial Secretary to the War 
 Office, very truly said : " The War Office and Chelsea 
 have never been in personal contact with the pensioners 
 . . . one of the greatest drawbacks of our present 
 system is that those who have to fix the pension fix it 
 on paper only and are never brought into actual living 
 contact with the individual." 2 This is indeed a very 
 real and obvious disadvantage to our pension system, 
 but it is scarcely enough for a Minister to be satisfied 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 2ist November 1916, vol. 
 Ixxxvii. col. 1266. 
 
 2 Ibid., col. 1310. 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 59 
 
 with enunciating it. One would expect that a remedy 
 would be found for it. Yet although for a year the 
 Appeals Tribunal put examples of the evil before 
 the Ministry, difficulties seemed even then to stand in 
 the way of adopting a better system. 
 
 Another grievance was that the decisions were made 
 by unknown officials and not by persons of indepen- 
 dence, and there was no Court of Appeal from such 
 decisions. As Mr. Hayes Fisher himself agreed : 
 " There ought to be some Appeal Court from decisions 
 which are very often made on one case but which may 
 rule pensions in hundreds of cases in which the claims 
 are based on the same lines." l This again has proved 
 very true, but at present there are no full official reports 
 of pension cases, so that for want of precedents the 
 same point is discussed and decided again and again. 
 
 There is no need to set out at length figures and 
 instances of delay, neglect and muddle. The facts 
 were not in dispute, and it was no use regretting what 
 had been left undone the problem was to provide a 
 remedy. The Government proposal of a Board of 
 pensions co-ordinating the War Office, the Admiralty, 
 the Local Government and the Statutory Committee 
 met with no hearty support. It was allowed a second 
 reading on 21st November 1916, but the House and 
 the country were tired of Boards; they wanted one 
 man with responsibility, and on 30th November the 
 Bill came before the House in an entirely new dress 
 under the title of the Ministry of Pensions Bill. The 
 
 1 Official Reports, House of Commons, 2ist November 1916, vol. 
 Ixxxvii. col. 1263. 
 
60 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 whole idea of the Board was dropped, and on 
 December 1916, 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 65 instituted a 
 Ministry of Pensions. 
 
 Even then a clean sweep was not made of all the 
 existing authorities, but at least certain powers and 
 duties were handed over to a definite authority, as will 
 be seen by a perusal of Sections % and 8 of the Act, 
 which are set out at length in the Appendix. 1 
 
 From a perusal of these it will be seen that the 
 Ministry of Pensions started life with no precisely 
 defined powers of its own, but that in relation to War 
 Pensions it took over the powers and duties, whatever 
 they might be, of 
 
 1. The Admiralty. 
 
 2. The Army Council. 
 
 3. The Secretary for War. 
 
 4. The Commissioners of the Royal Hospital 
 
 for Soldiers at Chelsea, and 
 
 5. Had a " control," whatever that may imply, 
 
 of the Statutory Committee and the 
 Local War Pensions Committees who 
 continued their functions. 
 
 The narrative we have given of the different institu- 
 tions which go to form the new institution called the 
 Ministry of Pensions shows that in order to define 
 accurately the new Ministry's powers, duties and 
 authority it would be necessary to consult and collate 
 a vast number of enactments and other documents 
 containing rules, regulations, orders and powers. 
 
 175. 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 61 
 
 Whether this has ever been done, and whether any one 
 either in the Ministry or outside the Ministry has 
 devoted the time and labour necessary to solve the 
 puzzle, we do not know. 
 
 It is a somewhat remarkable thing that although 
 this Act gives His Majesty power by Order in Council 
 to "adapt," whatever that may mean. Parliamentary 
 enactments which define the powers and duties that 
 the new Ministry is taking over, yet it does not refer 
 by title or other reference to a single statute under 
 which War Pensions have been hitherto regulated and 
 controlled. It is for the purpose of, to some extent, 
 supplying that information that the inquiry in our 
 earlier chapters was undertaken. 
 
 The Statutory Committee unfortunately was not 
 dissolved by this Act, but was placed in the im- 
 possible position of continuing to exercise and 
 perform its duties " under the control of and in 
 accordance with the instructions of the Minister of 
 Pensions." 
 
 The Ministry of Pensions, however, had power to 
 take over the Executive Officers of the Admiralty, the 
 Army Council, and Chelsea Hospital, who were at the 
 time dealing with disablement pensions. For the first 
 time a clear distinction was made between War 
 Pensions, as we have called disablement, and widows' 
 pensions and service pensions. A service pension is 
 defined to be " any pension or award in respect of age, 
 lengths of service, or special service or attached to any 
 medal or other decoration, whether payable to persons 
 who have been officers or men or their widows, children 
 
62 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 or other dependants." x With these grants the Ministry 
 has nothing to do. Indeed it is a pity that the mis- 
 leading title of Ministry of Pensions was adopted. 
 The Ministry only deals with reliefs and allowances to 
 disabled men and widows and orphans of those who 
 have fought in the War, and if these had been defined 
 as War Pensions and the Ministry been called a 
 Ministry of War Pensions, it would have better 
 expressed the situation. 
 
 On the 29th March 1917 what is known as 
 the Barnes Warrant came into force. As a matter 
 of fact, two documents were issued : an Order in 
 Council for the Navy, dated 30th March 1917, and a 
 Royal Warrant for the Army, dated 29th March 1917. 
 
 It would be difficult even for a student of Con- 
 stitutional Law to define with any accuracy the 
 functional limits of the Order in Council and the 
 Royal Warrant, but for practical purposes one may 
 say that the Order in Council is used as the general 
 medium by which the manifold statutory powers con- 
 ferred upon the Crown are exercised, whereas the 
 Royal Warrant is the method by which the Crown 
 authorizes executive acts of its own motion. And this 
 seems to be the reason why in pension affairs the 
 Order in Council is used to give orders about Navy 
 Pensions, which admittedly are conferred by Sec. 3 of 
 the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, 
 whilst Army Pensions, which are considered to be 
 merely acts of Royal Bounty, are dealt with by Royal 
 Warrant. 
 
 1 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 65, 9. 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 63 
 
 In practice, therefore, the Minister of Pensions who 
 succeeds the Admiralty in dealing with Naval 
 Pensions approaches the Crown and begs leave 
 " humbly to recommend that Your Majesty may be 
 graciously pleased by Your Order in Council to sanction 
 the grant of pensions, allowances and gratuities on the 
 scales and subject to the conditions prescribed in 
 the Regulations annexed hereto. " Whereupon His 
 Majesty, haying considered the Memorial, allows the 
 new Regulations. That is to say, the Minister makes 
 Regulations under the statute and takes them to the 
 Crown for sanction. 
 
 But in Army Pensions it is the other way. Here 
 the Crown by Royal Warrant directs the Minister to 
 pay such pensions as he deems fit in these words: 
 u Whereas We deem it expedient to consolidate and 
 amend the provisions concerning the pensions of soldiers 
 disabled, and of the families and dependants of 
 soldiers deceased, in consequence of the present war, 
 and to provide for their administration by Our 
 Minister of Pensions in accordance with the Ministry 
 of Pensions Act, 1916 : Our Will and Pleasure is that 
 this Our Warrant shall ... be established and 
 obeyed as the sole authority in the matters herein 
 treated of; and that Our Minister of Pensions shall be 
 the sole administrator and interpreter of this Our 
 Warrant and shall be empowered to issue such de- 
 tailed instructions in reference thereto as he may from 
 time to time deem necessary." 
 
 At the present day, although one set of Regulations 
 is drafted by the Ministry and presented to the Crown 
 
64 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 for approval and the other set of Regulations is 
 in the form of Orders from the Crown directed 
 to the Ministry, the wording of the Regulations 
 is the same. The necessity for the duplication seems 
 to arise from the historical evolution of the two 
 systems. 
 
 On 17th May 1917 a short Act was passed (7 & 8 
 Geo. V. c. 14) authorizing the Treasury to pay two- 
 thirds of the expenses incurred by Local Authorities. 
 Although, no doubt, a welcome relief to the rates, it 
 obviously will have the effect in the future of limiting 
 the initiative of Local War Pensions Committees and 
 may have the further unfortunate effect of hampering 
 their activities. This Act also gave the Minister 
 powers to accept and administer gifts for assisting 
 disabled officers and men. Side by side, therefore, 
 with the administration of public funds the Minister 
 of Pensions may become a private almoner of chari- 
 table gifts over which Parliament will, we must 
 suppose, exercise no control. When this Act was 
 passed there appears to have been no intention of 
 abolishing the Statutory Committee, and powers were 
 taken that the Chairman of that body, although paid 
 by the State, should nevertheless have the right to sit 
 in Parliament. 
 
 On 29th June 1917, however, Mr. Barnes brought 
 forward a Bill for the abolition of the Statutory 
 Committee. He very rightly claimed that in setting 
 up 300 Local War Pension Committees, which were in 
 the future going to act directly under the Minister of 
 Pensions, a great work had been done. " We have 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 65 
 
 now, I venture to say, one of the finest of agencies 
 in a whole network of Local Committees throughout 
 the country in actual daily touch with the people 
 who are to benefit; that work has been largely 
 due to the disinterested efforts of men and women 
 with special knowledge of the sailor and soldier 
 and the needs of the family that are dependent upon 
 them." 1 
 
 In our travels with the Appeal Tribunal we had 
 many opportunities of seeing the work of members of 
 these Local Committees, and can heartily endorse the 
 Minister's wise words. In the future of pension affairs 
 it will be a bad day for the pensioners if any ardent 
 supporter of bureaucracy were to endeavour to re- 
 place these Committees by paid officials and inspectors, 
 but the modern tendency undoubtedly runs against 
 such democratic institutions as Local War Pensions 
 Committees and is in favour of centralized control 
 working through official agencies. 
 
 On 21st August 1917 the Naval and Military War 
 Pensions (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1917 (7 & 8 Geo. 
 V. c. 37), was passed, and with it passed the Statutory 
 Committee. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, 
 of which technically it was a Committee, remained as 
 before and still remains with certain funds of its own 
 under its old constitution. The Ministry of Pensions 
 took over the Local War Pensions Committees, and 
 there was established a new body called the Special 
 Grants Committee which still retains certain specified 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 2Qth June 1917, vol, xcv. 
 c. 7iQ. 
 
 5 
 
66 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 powers of the Statutory Committee which can only be 
 ascertained by a careful collation of the two Acts 
 under which they were instituted. It seems clear that 
 although the Special Grants Committee is constituted 
 by the Minister of Pensions, it has certain powers and 
 duties attributed to it by statute and a quasi-inde- 
 pendent statutory existence. 
 
 Before we leave the subject of the Ministry of 
 Pensions a few words should be said about the powers 
 claimed by the Auditor-General and the Treasury in 
 pension matters. The constitutional theory, in re- 
 lation to Army Pensions at all events, seems to 
 be that Parliament votes money and the Crown, 
 by Royal Warrant, directs how it is to be dis- 
 tributed, appointing his Minister sole administrator 
 and interpreter of his Royal Warrant. 
 
 It appears that the Treasury and the Auditor- 
 General have in several cases claimed to over-ride the 
 decisions of the Minister that pensions should be 
 granted. This seems to us illegal. It is a matter of 
 considerable importance, as :n constituting themselves 
 a Court of Appeal from the Minister's decision they 
 claim to exercise a power over the Minister of 
 Pensions, who is the King's delegate, that the High 
 Court of Justice has specifically laid down it does not 
 and cannot possess. The position of the Treasury 
 officials is defined by statute and this position should 
 not be enlarged. It is- against the spirit of English 
 justice to deprive a man of the Royal Bounty given to 
 him by the Minister by some order made in camera by 
 unknown officials without any opportunity to the 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 67 
 
 affected of stating his case. The question is worthy of 
 consideration by the highest authority, as one can well 
 understand that in the future a continuance of the 
 practice might lead to unwarrantable interference 
 with the position of the Minister of Pensions as 
 sole administrator and interpreter of the Royal 
 Warrant. 
 
 In a Report on National Expenditure * it is said : 
 " The Accounting Officer of the Department having 
 questioned a number of cases as not being covered by 
 the Warrant, the Minister applied to the Treasury on 
 27th December 1917 for their sanction for the action 
 he had taken, but this was withheld. The question 
 arises whether the instruction which was given can 
 fairly be regarded as an * interpretation ' of the terms 
 of Article 1 of the Royal Warrant, interpretation 
 being within the competence of the Minister, or 
 whether it is in contradiction to it, and therefore, 
 ultra vires. This is a matter which is proper for the 
 consideration of the Committee on Public Accounts 
 which has dealt with similar questions in former 
 years. 11 
 
 The claim seems to be that a Treasury official may 
 veto the discretion of the Crown in distributing money 
 voted by Parliament for a purpose solely within the 
 purview of the Crown. The use of the phrase ultra 
 vires in relation to the Crown in its dealings with the 
 Army seems out of place. 
 
 The Committee on Public Accounts repeated the 
 
 1 Second Report, 1918, of Select Committee on National Expendi- 
 ture, par. 10. 
 
68 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 proposition and upheld the claim of the " Accounting 
 Officer of the Ministry and the Comptroller and 
 Audit or- General " to interfere in the Minister's 
 interpretation and administration of the Royal War- 
 rant. 1 
 
 In refusing to pay a pension ordered to be paid by 
 the Minister and disputing his interpretation of the 
 Warrant it seems that the Auditor-General is going 
 beyond his powers. The Exchequer and Audit 
 Department was created by statute " to ascertain first 
 whether the payments which the accounting Depart- 
 ment has charged to the grant are supported by 
 vouchers or proofs of payment, and second whether 
 the money expended has been applied to the purpose 
 or purposes for which such grant was intended to 
 provide." 2 
 
 Its functions are accountancy, not adjudication. In 
 the grant of a pension it should call for the Order of 
 the Minister to pay the pension and the voucher of the 
 recipient that he has received it. These being in order, 
 the duties of the Auditor are concluded. There is 
 nothing in any statute giving the Auditor-General or 
 any other accounting official a right to adjudicate upon 
 a claim the evidence of which cannot be before him, 
 and the right to consider and determine which has not 
 been entrusted to him. 
 
 He could, of course, if he thinks right, express his 
 opinion that the Minister is not interpreting or ad- 
 
 1 Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, 1918, par. 77. 
 
 2 Sect. 27, 29 & 30 Viet, c, 39, Exchequer and Audit Department 
 Act, 1866. 
 
THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS 69 
 
 ministering the Royal Warrant as he would do, and that, 
 in his view, the money expended has been misapplied. 
 Parliament could then ask the Minister for an explana- 
 tion, and the Minister could then ask the Crown for 
 permission to explain the methods of administration 
 and interpretation that he has adopted. But apparently 
 the Minister's explanation of his pension adminstration 
 is only due to the Crown. 
 
 A Public Auditor's duty is merely to report what he 
 thinks is wrong, and unless he is given statutory powers 
 to allow or disallow or surcharge sums ordered to be 
 paid he has no such rights. It is to be hoped that 
 before Parliament gives the Treasury or the Auditor- 
 General power to refuse to pay a pension awarded by 
 the Minister it will consider the question of making 
 pensions a legal right and giving the applicant access to 
 a Court of Justice. That departmental officers whose 
 duties are accountants' duties should arrogate to them- 
 selves the right to overrule the award of the King's 
 Minister in awarding War Pensions is a claim to place 
 the Bureaucrat on a throne above the Crown, the 
 Parliament and the High Courts of Justice. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, that we have disposed of the 
 claim of the Treasury and the Auditor-General to be 
 Pension Authorities, the position of the Minister of 
 Pensions seems to be this. Acting with the Special 
 Grants Committee which he appoints, he is the sole 
 statutory authority for dealing with War Pensions, and 
 has full unrestricted power of awarding all Army 
 and Navy War Pensions, gratuities and bounties as 
 described in the Order in Council and Royal Warrant. 
 
70 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Until consolidation and amendment of the different 
 Acts from which he derives his powers can give appli- 
 cants definite legal rights and access to Courts of Justice 
 to uphold them, Parliament will do well to defend his 
 position of autocracy from the interference of outside 
 Departments. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 
 
 "Do the work that's nearest, 
 
 Though its dull at whiles ; 
 Helping, when you meet them, 
 Lame dogs over stiles." 
 
 CHARLES KINGSLEY. 
 
 THE institution of this Tribunal was a new 
 experiment, and as, in the future, the ques- 
 tion of the right of appeal to an independent Court 
 against the decisions of departmental officials is 
 bound to occupy public attention, a short account 
 of the working of this Tribunal will probably be 
 serviceable. 
 
 Throughout 1916, and early in 1917, there were 
 grave complaints of neglect and delay in deciding pension 
 matters ; and cases were brought before Parliament 
 where it was not possible to defend the decision given 
 or the delay in obtaining it. 
 
 On the 29th March 1917 the Government moved 
 the second reading of their Military Service (Review of 
 Exceptions) Bill. Mr. Hogge, thereupon, moved as an 
 amendment that the House decline to proceed " until 
 the Government is prepared to accept full responsibility 
 
72 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 in regard to providing pensions for such men as, having 
 been accepted for service by the Army Medical 
 Authorities, are subsequently discharged from Service 
 owing to disability not caused by their own wilful 
 misconduct." l 
 
 The argument seemed a very reasonable one. It 
 was urged, and generally agreed, that if a man was 
 passed by the doctors as fit and taken for service and 
 then became unfit for service and was unable to earn 
 his living when he returned to civil life, he was 
 deserving of compensation. 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law, who was in charge of the Bill, was 
 himself in agreement with the main principle then 
 under discussion. The Royal Warrant undoubtedly 
 promised pensions to men "discharged as medically 
 unfit for further service, such unfitness being certified 
 as either attributable to or aggravated by military 
 service in consequence of the present war and not being 
 due to the serious negligence or misconduct of the 
 discharged man." The difficulty seemed to be that 
 Army Doctors and Pension Authorities took a narrow 
 view of the meaning of the words "aggravated by 
 military service." It must be remembered that the 
 word " aggravated " had only been introduced into the 
 Warrant in June 1916, and it seems probable that the 
 older generation of Army Medical Authorities had not 
 as yet grown accustomed to giving it due consideration 
 for pension purposes. However this may be, grave 
 complaints were made to the House that cases which 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 2Qth March 1917, vol. xcii. 
 col. 643. 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 73 
 
 were really aggravated by military service were refused 
 pensions, and that the promises of the Warrant were 
 not being performed. 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law stated the meaning of the Warrant 
 in clear language when he said : " The position, as I 
 understand it, is this: Any one who has been taken 
 into the Army is entitled to a pension if, on his 
 discharge, it is found either that his ill-health is due to 
 service in the Army or that his previous ill-health has 
 been aggravated by it." 1 
 
 No one could quarrel with this declaration ; but 
 unfortunately the evidence was convincing that the 
 position, as stated by Mr. Bonar Law, was not always 
 recognized in pension administration. Nor was the 
 House in a mood to accept mere assurances that the 
 proper principle would be applied by the Pension 
 Officials in the future. There was clearly a public 
 desire for some independent Tribunal to deal with 
 these cases ; and, ultimately, Mr. Bonar Law, without 
 absolutely pledging the Government, accepted the 
 situation in these words : " I have," he said, " to con- 
 sult not only the department concerned, but the 
 Cabinet. But I say, speaking for myself, I think it is 
 a proper case, and I shall see that that case is carefully 
 considered by the Government with a view, if they 
 think there is a real case, of setting up an independent 
 Tribunal, which would do nothing more than this 
 that in the case of men who may only get a gratuity 
 and nothing more, it will review the decision and come 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 2gih March 1917, vol. xcii. 
 col. 658. 
 
74 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 to a final decision whether or not they are to get a 
 gratuity or a pension."" l 
 
 This promise was ultimately fulfilled, and a Tribunal 
 was formed which was a judicial body entirely inde- 
 pendent of the Ministry, to which every man who was 
 refused a pension could appeal to have the facts finally 
 decided whether or not his disability was attributable 
 to or aggravated by military service during the present 
 war. The following were appointed to be the Tribunal : 
 
 His Honour Judge Parry, President ; 
 
 Admiral Sir Wilmot Fawkes, G.C.B., K.C.V.O.; 
 
 Lieut-General Sir Alfred Codrington,K.C.V.O., 
 
 C.B.; 
 
 Norman Moore, Esq., M.D. ; 
 Bilton Pollard, Esq., F.R.C.S. ; 
 Albert Bellamy, Esq., C.B.E. 
 
 A Secretary and Assistant Secretary were appointed 
 by the President, and the whole secretarial work of the 
 Tribunal was carried out by these two officials. 
 
 On Saturday, the 14th July 1917, the Tribunal held 
 its first meeting. It appeared that, although in the 
 House of Commons the objective of the Tribunal had 
 been clearly expressed by Mr. Bonar Law, in response 
 to the obvious desire of the House, yet no steps had 
 been taken to make an official declaration of the 
 exact powers and duties of the Tribunal. It seemed 
 undesirable to the members of the Tribunal that they 
 should proceed to their work until they had some 
 
 1 Official Report, House of Commons, 2Qth March 1917, vol. xcii. 
 col. 710. 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 75 
 
 definite authority to act upon. Before proceeding to 
 try appeals, therefore, they decided to request the 
 Minister of Pensions to explain to them the authority 
 under which they were to act, and the duties they were 
 expected to perform. It was not clear to the members 
 of the Tribunal whether or not they were appointed 
 under statutory or other authority, and it was thought 
 very necessary that, before they took upon themselves 
 any responsibility, the limits of such responsibility 
 should be clearly defined by some official Terms of 
 Reference. 
 
 This request having been put before the Ministry, 
 the Tribunal considered the principles upon which 
 appeals should proceed. They were at the beginning 
 of a new business ; and every one agreed that it was 
 essential that they should clearly understand what they 
 were expected to do, so that they could explain to the 
 public how they intended to carry out their duties. 
 
 Although no Terms of Reference had yet been 
 received, they understood that the duty of the Tribunal 
 would be to hear appeals from seamen, marines and 
 soldiers whose claims had been rejected, but who con- 
 sidered that they were entitled to pension on the 
 ground that their unfitness was either attributable to, 
 or aggravated by, Military Service during the present 
 war. 
 
 Following the practice of the Courts of Justice in 
 this country, the Tribunal decided to sit in public. 
 
 As to the right of audience, it was decided that 
 every applicant should have the right to appear. He 
 was to be told that he might bring with him any 
 
76 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 member of the Local War Pension Committee or other 
 next friend to assist him in putting forward his case. 
 It was afterwards found in practice that this procedure 
 was largely utilized, and it proved to be of great 
 advantage, not only to the applicant, but to the work 
 of the Tribunal. It was also decided that, if an 
 applicant desired to appear by counsel or solicitor, he 
 could do so on obtaining leave from the President. 
 Although this leave was very rarely requested, it was 
 never refused. 
 
 The Ministry of Pensions had already stated that 
 they did not desire to be represented before the 
 Tribunal with a view to opposing appeals against 
 rejection of claims, but, at the same time, they ex- 
 plained that their Representative would attend the 
 hearings and make available all documents and informa- 
 tion that would assist the Tribunal in their inquiry. 
 The Ministry also decided that they would acquaint 
 every man with his power of appeal, and that witnesses 
 would not be compellable, though their expenses might 
 be paid. It was agreed that the hearing should be 
 conducted with as little of the appearance of litigation 
 as possible ; the evidence was not taken on oath ; no 
 shorthand note was made use of, which was a great 
 saving of expense ; and the record of each decision was 
 entered in the minute book, a copy being given to the 
 applicant and to the Ministry at the conclusion of the 
 hearing. 
 
 On the 25th July the Right Hon. George H. Barnes, 
 Minister of Pensions, signed a Minute containing the 
 Terms of Reference to the Tribunal. After referring 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 77 
 
 to the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the Royal 
 Warrant of the 29th March 1917, and the Order in 
 Council of the 30th March 1917, and quoting various 
 articles and regulations therein contained, the duties 
 of the Tribunal were thus defined : " The question 
 whether medical unfitness, in the case of Sailors or 
 Soldiers, or the deceased Sailors' or Soldiers' death in 
 the case of Widows, is attributable to, or aggravated by. 
 Military Service, is determined in the first instance for 
 me by my Officers who have before them recommenda- 
 tions of boards of Medical Officers. Against these 
 determinations appeals are made to me. 
 
 " I have decided to refer these appeals to a special 
 Tribunal."" (Here the names of the Members of the 
 Tribunal are set out.) " The decision of this Tribunal 
 will be final in the foregoing matters. No questions 
 with regard to the amount of award, whether the 
 awards follow on the decisions of the Tribunal or 
 have been made independently of the Tribunal, and no 
 other matters, are referred to them." 
 
 It is, of course, open to question whether the 
 appointment of a Tribunal under a Minute signed by 
 a Minister was the best method of carrying out the 
 Government intention of erecting a Tribunal inde- 
 pendent of the Ministry : it might also be interesting 
 to lawyers to discuss how far a Minister has power to 
 delegate his duties to a body of independent citizens : 
 the Tribunal, however, did not think themselves bound 
 to consider these academic questions, but accepted the 
 Minute as their Terms of Reference, and proceeded 
 without delay to the trial of Appeals. 
 
78 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 By this time the Tribunal had drafted and settled a 
 form of Notice of Appeal for Applicants to sign which 
 had been approved by the Ministry. It was arranged 
 that, when signed, these Notices should be sent, in 
 Navy cases, to Westminster House, and, in Army 
 cases, to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. The Officials 
 of the Ministry were then to consider whether they 
 should reverse their original decision : if they did so, 
 there was, of course, no necessity for the appeal to pro- 
 ceed. It was agreed that, if within thirty days the 
 Ministry did not allow the appeal, it should then be 
 sent to the Tribunal for hearing. 
 
 In view of the responsibility of the Tribunal to 
 every man who had made an appeal, the Tribunal 
 desired that each appeal should be notified to them on 
 the arrival of the notice ; and that a further notifica- 
 tion should be made of the way in which it was dealt 
 with by the Ministry. Objection was made to this, 
 in the first instance by the Ministerial Officials, who 
 desired only to notify to the Tribunal such appeals as 
 they considered worthy of a hearing. The idea of an 
 independent Tribunal to whom a citizen, aggrieved by 
 the action of an official, was to have a right of access, 
 did not seem to be clearly understood. Nor was this 
 to be wondered at, as it was, of course, an entirely new 
 experience in departmental circles that official decisions 
 should be made the subject of public discussion and 
 revision. In the end the view of the Tribunal, that 
 every notice of Appeal was a notice addressed to the 
 Tribunal and not to the Ministry, prevailed. An 
 independent Tribunal must clearly be notified of all 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 79 
 
 appeals made to it if it is to possess public confidence ; 
 and, after discussion, this principle was agreed to and 
 acted upon. The Secretary was then directed to 
 prepare a card index, and by means of this a complete 
 record of every appeal was constructed showing the 
 date of the appeal, the date on which it was settled by 
 the Ministry or forwarded for hearing to the Tribunal, 
 and the ultimate result of the hearing. This card 
 index, therefore, contains an accurate record of every 
 proceeding that was notified to the Tribunal. 
 
 At the beginning, it was not clearly understood, 
 either by Local War Pension Committees or by indi- 
 viduals, that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was 
 limited, by the Terms of Reference, to the determination 
 of one fact ; in consequence of this, a considerable 
 number of appeals were sent in on questions of money 
 and other matters with which the Tribunal had no 
 power to deal. When cases began to be notified to 
 the Tribunal, it appeared that many appeals could not 
 proceed, as the man's Army documents were not with 
 the Ministry. These and other difficulties caused 
 many applicants to write direct to the Tribunal 
 inquiring why their appeals were not proceeding. By 
 means of the complete record provided by the card 
 index, the Secretary was enabled to reply at once 
 explaining to the applicants the exact position of their 
 appeals. This was very valuable in allaying the irri- 
 tation caused to men who were unable to obtain 
 information as to what was being done with their 
 affairs. 
 
 By what means the cases were decided by the 
 
8o WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Ministry at first instance we had no knowledge ; but, 
 from the fact that a large number of appeals were 
 allowed instead of being sent for hearing, it was 
 evident that the system in the past had been far 
 from satisfactory. This system was subsequently 
 described by the Select Committee on National Expen- 
 diture. After pointing out that the Ministry is con- 
 ducting its work under great difficulties, that the staff 
 is scattered over a number of buildings in different 
 parts of London, and that many of the temporary 
 clerks who are employed have had no training or 
 experience, the Committee thus describe the method of 
 awarding pensions in the first instance : 
 
 " 14. The first stage in the awarding of a 
 pension to a soldier discharged on medical grounds 
 on account of wounds or sickness is the report of 
 the Medical Board on whose recommendation he 
 is discharged. They state whether, in their 
 opinion, the disability is due to military service, 
 or has been aggravated by it, and assess the 
 degree of disablement for pension purposes. In 
 order to decide the former point it is necessary to 
 compare the physical condition of the man when 
 he was admitted into the Army with his health 
 on his discharge. But the only evidence the 
 Medical Board have as to his health before enter- 
 ing the Army is the report of the Admission 
 Board ; the latter was able to judge it only at 
 the moment of enlistment, it had no knowledge of 
 the previous medical history of the case beyond 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 81 
 
 what the man himself supplied, and its examina- 
 tion, in great numbers of instances, was notoriously 
 imperfect. In the old Army it could be assumed 
 that recruits were quite sound when enlisted 
 and that, if they were discharged on medical 
 grounds, the disability originated during the 
 period of military service. But with the new 
 Army it is plain that such an assumption cannot 
 be made. Yet the old machinery continues, and 
 the Medical Boards are required to base their 
 awards on their opinion of what had been the 
 physical condition of the man before his admission 
 into the Army, as to which they have no sufficient 
 evidence and are not in a position to make any 
 inquiry. We are of opinion that this system is 
 wrong, and that wherever the question of pre- 
 war health arises, proper inquiry should be made 
 into the man's medical history before any attempt 
 is made to decide whether he is entitled to a 
 pension or not. 
 
 " 15. When the reports of the Medical Boards 
 come to the Ministry of Pensions, many of them 
 need review ; the action of the Boards is not 
 uniform, and in some cases also their decisions do 
 not conform to the general rules laid down. It is 
 necessary, therefore, to divide the reports in the 
 first instance into those which can be accepted at 
 once and acted upon, and those which need 
 further examination. Our Sub-Committee found 
 on investigating the organization of this work, 
 which is conducted at Chelsea Hospital, that the 
 
 6 
 
82 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 decision whether the recommendation of a 
 Medical Board would be accepted as it stood or 
 should be referred for further expert inquiry, was 
 left to a staff of temporary women clerks. It is 
 true that their work is reviewed by a branch of 
 the Audit Department of the Ministry, and that 
 only a very small percentage of the papers passed 
 by them are queried ; but the Audit Department 
 is also staffed mainly by temporary women clerks. 
 We are not satisfied that it is not necessary for 
 persons with expert knowledge to deal with the 
 cases at this important stage." x 
 
 On the 14th August 1917 the first appeal was heard : 
 on this day and the next, seven appeals in all were 
 tried : three written decisions were delivered on the 
 21st August ; and, on the 80th August, a further 
 written decision was delivered, and four further cases 
 were heard. Very few appeals were being received as 
 ready for trial ; and on the 10th September only 
 11 cases had been tried. It became evident that there 
 was some difficulty in carrying out the agreement to 
 forward appeals within 30 days of their receipt by the 
 Ministry, and, on the 12th September, the matter was 
 fully discussed by the Tribunal, and the following 
 resolution was passed : 
 
 " We note with regret that, out of 576 appeals 
 which have been notified to us as received at Chelsea, 
 only 26 have, so far, been prepared for hearing. We 
 
 1 See Second Report of Session, 1918, from the Select Committee 
 on National Expenditure, I3th March 1918. 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 83 
 
 therefore record our protest to the Minister of 
 Pensions, in the hope that some better system may be 
 adopted in the transaction of this business. Delay 
 cannot but cause much irritation throughout the 
 country, and the 80 days' limit already appointed for 
 the preparation of papers ought not to be exceeded." 
 
 By the end of September, only 34 appeals had been 
 heard; and on the 2nd October the President was 
 invited to meet a Representative of the Ministry to 
 draw up a programme of Procedure from the arrival 
 of the notice of Appeal at Chelsea to the day of 
 hearing. 
 
 Ultimately, early in November, an " Appeal Tribunal 
 Section " was formed at Chelsea to deal with appeals ; 
 and, from that time appeals began to be forwarded for 
 hearing in sufficient numbers. 
 
 The importance of having a large number of appeals 
 promptly prepared for hearing arose from the fact that 
 the applicants resided in different parts of the country : 
 it was therefore necessary to group the cases geo- 
 graphically, and to arrange for hearing them at 
 different convenient centres. Although the Tribunal 
 had power to issue railway warrants to applicants, they 
 felt that it would not be fair to confine their sittings 
 to London. In provincial centres much of the best 
 pension work is done by men and women who are 
 members of the Local War Pensions Committee, who 
 could not possibly travel to London to attend the 
 hearing of separate cases. By holding sittings in the 
 great centres, the Tribunal received most valuable 
 assistance from members of the committees and other 
 
84 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 citizens who not only knew the local conditions of life 
 of the district, but had also an intimate acquaintance 
 with the facts of a particular case. 
 
 During their existence the Tribunal, in addition to 
 the sittings in London, sat in the following cities : 
 Manchester, Leeds, York, Newcastle - on - Tyne, 
 Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Cardiff, Dublin and 
 Belfast. The Tribunal were received with the greatest 
 hospitality and kindness by the Municipal Authorities, 
 who provided them with Courts in which to hear the 
 Appeals, put them in touch with the members of the 
 Local War Pensions Committees, and in every way 
 assisted them in the work they had to do. Much 
 interest was taken in the proceedings, which were fully 
 reported and commented upon in the local press. 
 Great satisfaction was everywhere expressed that the 
 Ministry had devised a plan whereby an applicant had 
 personal access to an independent Court which heard 
 his case and decided it on broad principles of law and 
 justice, unimpeded by technical methods of procedure. 
 Moreover, the advantages of publicity which are so 
 highly appreciated by the Ministry were thereby 
 obtained. 
 
 In the autumn of 1917, after the first written 
 decisions had been delivered, it became clear that the 
 inquiries upon which the original Ministerial decisions 
 were based were not sufficient for the purpose. The 
 man had not had a personal hearing ; the evidence of 
 his former doctor, his former employer, and the records 
 of his insurance society, by which alone his original 
 state of health could be determined, were not before 
 
THE PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL 85 
 
 the Ministry, whose officials had had to decide the 
 cases on statements contained in Army Medical Docu- 
 ments which the decisions of the Tribunal now clearly 
 showed were inadequate. 
 
 There could be no doubt that the complaints in 
 Parliament which had led to the appointment of 
 the Tribunal were justified. As soon as the Ministry 
 realized this, they issued a circular to the Local War 
 Pension Committees asking them, when Appeals were 
 made, to make those inquiries into the case which 
 should, of course, be made in the first instance. The 
 Ministry did not invite the Local Committees to give 
 a decision after their inquiry, but merely to record 
 their opinion of the causation of the man's disability. 
 During the last months of the sittings of the Tribunal, 
 the evidence collected by the Committees and their 
 expressed opinions were placed before the Appeal 
 Tribunal, and were of the greatest assistance to them 
 in their deliberations. At the same time, these 
 inquiries do not meet the main objections which are 
 urged against the system under which * claims are 
 dealt with. What is really required is that there 
 should be a Court of First Instance to which an 
 applicant can have access when he first makes his 
 claim. This Court should have power to decide his 
 case, and not merely to advise upon it. From that 
 decision there would be a right of appeal. Until 
 there is a Court of First Instance, giving decisions, 
 there can be no real Court of Appeal; in fact, the 
 Pensions Appeal Tribunal was a misnomer ; and 
 although they were able, in a few cases, to lay down 
 
86 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 general principles, and on occasion to solve difficult 
 problems, yet the bulk of the cases brought before 
 them could easily have been decided at first instance 
 locally and without delay had there been proper 
 machinery for the purpose. 
 
 In the spring of 1918, the members of the Tribunal 
 were so much impressed with the inadequacy of the 
 machinery for dealing with claims that a business 
 Committee was formed consisting of the President, 
 Lieut. -General Sir A. Codrington, and Mr. A. Bellamy 
 to consider if they could make any useful suggestions 
 for a better procedure. A report was drafted after 
 careful consideration, and submitted to the whole 
 Tribunal, by whom it was amended, finally approved 
 and forwarded to the Minister of Pensions. Although 
 it may be said that a report of this kind did not form 
 part of the duties of the Tribunal, yet they felt that 
 the suggestions contained in it might be of assistance. 
 
 Towards the end of April, it was intimated to the 
 members of the Tribunal that the Ministry intended 
 to make new arrangements beginning in July, and that 
 their services would no longer be required ; and on 
 Friday, the 28th June 1918, the Tribunal held its 
 final sitting. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 
 
 "He that judges without informing himself to the utmost that he is 
 capable, cannot acquit himself of judging amiss." LOCKE, Essay Con- 
 cerning Human Understanding. 
 
 DURING the existence of the Tribunal, 927 cases 
 were decided. The majority of these involved 
 only personal matters, in which questions of general 
 principle did not arise. 
 
 In some of the cases it appeared to the Tribunal 
 that the decision they were giving might be of use in 
 dealing with future cases. On these occasions, a draft 
 decision was written by the President ; this was care- 
 fully discussed by the Tribunal and amended where 
 necessary, and the ultimate decision of the Tribunal, 
 thus prepared, was then read in open Court. In this 
 chapter we have printed some of those decisions which 
 seem to us of public interest. 
 
 In London the cases were heard in a Board Room, 
 at 2 Abingdon Street, Westminster, where there was 
 very little accommodation for the public ; and although 
 members of the Press attended to report the proceed- 
 ings, and the Court was an open one, yet on no occasion 
 
88 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 did any member of the public attend who was not 
 personally interested in a case to be tried. 
 
 The method of hearing was this : the man and his 
 friends were seated opposite to the Tribunal, and the 
 President invited him to tell his own story in his own 
 way, beginning with his domestic history before he had 
 attested or had been called upon to enter the Army. 
 
 There was, as we have said, no shorthand note taken. 
 The members took down notes of any points that had 
 not as yet been brought before the Ministry of Pensions 
 in their consideration of the case. When the man's 
 story got to the point at which he began to describe 
 what had happened to him in the Navy or in the Army, 
 Admiral Fawkes, if it was a Navy case, or* General 
 Codrington, if it was an Army case, took up the exam- 
 ination. The men were invited to bring their Insurance 
 books, which they did, and these were examined by 
 Mr. Bellamy, who then brought out in a further exam- 
 ination the man's industrial career before he had entered 
 the service and after he had left it. By this time the 
 Tribunal had acquired some knowledge of the point of 
 view from which the man regarded his own case, a 
 proposition that up to this time had seldom received 
 adequate attention. 
 
 The Medical Members then put questions to the 
 man concerning his disability ; and the points raised 
 by them often suggested further questions to other 
 members of the Tribunal. The Ministerial representa- 
 tive, who was always present at the hearing of the cases, 
 and had all the official documents before him, asked any 
 questions he desired, to bring before the Tribunal the 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 89 
 
 considerations which had actuated the Ministry in 
 refusing the man's pension. 
 
 If the Select Committee on National Expenditure 
 had thought fit to visit the Tribunal and see its 
 methods of working, they would never have suggested 
 that " there is in fact no one whose special function it 
 is to represent the interest of the public purse."" 1 The 
 interest of the public purse was well guarded by the 
 members of the Tribunal and the representative of the 
 Ministry of Pensions, and no useful purpose could be 
 served by instructing a special attorney to appear on 
 behalf of the Treasury unless his function would be 
 to make an effort to keep the strings of the purse 
 closed against just claims. Moreover, if the suggestion 
 of the Select Committee is followed out, and in some 
 future Pensions Appeal Tribunal some such person is 
 to have a locus standi to attend and cross-examine the 
 Applicant, and to " appear for the defendant," then it 
 will be only just that the man also should have his 
 attorney to "appear for the plaintiff," and safeguard 
 his rights. In this way the fine conception of the 
 Minister of Pensions, that he is there to carry out the 
 will of the nation and inquire into the merits of each 
 case, and to do justice to it, would be entirely destroyed, 
 and the State would sink to the position of the defend- 
 ant in a contested action. 
 
 At the conclusion of the evidence the Applicant was 
 asked if he desired a medical examination. In all cases 
 he expressed his assent, and the examinations took 
 
 1 Second Report (1918), Select Committee on National Expenditure, 
 par. 1 6. 
 
90 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 place in a private room. These examinations were 
 most careful, and took a very considerable time. 
 When the Medical Members returned and gave their 
 report to the Tribunal, the case was fully considered, 
 and, as a rule, the Ministerial representative was 
 present during the discussion which followed. 
 
 At this stage it was often apparent, not only to the 
 Tribunal but to the Ministerial representative, that 
 the true medical aspect of the man's condition had 
 never been fully understood. 
 
 We have no doubt that the success of the Tribunal 
 and the welcome it received throughout the country 
 were largely due to the fact that the advice of their 
 Medical Members was of the highest authority. 
 
 The Tribunal had before them, as material for their 
 consideration, the documents from which the original 
 decision had been given, the evidence of the man, any 
 letters from former employers or his own doctors that 
 he had produced, and the record of his Insurance book. 
 On many occasions it was thought necessary to adjourn 
 the case for further evidence and, in every case, the 
 Ministerial representative was asked whether he con- 
 sidered it desirable to make further inquiry into the 
 evidence that the man had produced before proceeding 
 to judgment. 
 
 When the case was decided, the man was recalled 
 to the Court, and informed of the decision of the 
 Tribunal, which was communicated in writing to him 
 and to the Ministry within twenty-four hours. 
 
 The same procedure was adopted when the Tribunal 
 visited other centres. But in the great cities of the 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 91 
 
 country the Tribunal sat either in the Council 
 Chambers or the Law Courts, and thus the public had 
 greater facilities for attending the sittings, and the 
 interest in the proceedings of the Tribunal was very 
 considerable. 
 
 As the Ministry did not desire the Tribunal to make 
 any distinction between cases which were attributable 
 or aggravated, the full words of the Warrant were set 
 out in each formal decision, which was drawn up in 
 duplicate and sent to the Ministry and the Applicant. 
 
 The cases reported in this chapter are indicated by 
 the serial number attached to the case by the Tribunal. 
 The head notes attached to each case indicate the 
 subject-matter, and we have added an occasional note 
 at the end of a case where it appeared that further 
 explanation might be necessary. The decisions are 
 arranged in the order of the date of delivery. Except 
 for the elimination of personal details which are not 
 necessary for the purpose of understanding the grounds 
 of the decisions, these are published in the form in 
 which they were delivered in the Court. 
 
 CASE NO. 2. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Tuesday, 
 2ist August 1917. 
 
 Duties and Pozvers of Tribunal Army Form B. 179 
 Position of Medical Boards Tribunal con- 
 ducting* " Enquiry " and not " Litigation " 
 True meaning of " attributable to or aggravated 
 
92 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 by " Particular Facts of' the Case Importance 
 of hearing Applicant's personal Statement 
 Certificates of Doctors and Letters of Employers 
 received by Tribunal Disability^ Rheumatoid 
 Arthritis and Myalgia. 
 
 As this is the first decision of Tribunal, we have 
 considered it advisable in the public interests to set 
 down shortly the origin, duties and powers of the 
 Tribunal as we understand them. 
 
 The pensions we have to deal with are not matters 
 of legal right, but of favour. From pre-Crimean days 
 they have been based on Royal Warrants, and until 
 30th March 1917 were granted in accordance with a 
 Royal Warrant, the substance of which dated back to 
 1834. 
 
 Alterations were made in it from time to time, but 
 even under the words of the Warrant of 20th May 1915 
 no pensions were granted to unfit men whose unfitness 
 was attributable to or aggravated by service conditions. 
 The words " attributable " and " aggravated " are not 
 in this Warrant. Pensions were only granted by the 
 words of the Warrant to men unfit for further service 
 on account of wounds, injuries or blindness caused by 
 Military Service, or disease due directly or wholly to 
 War Service. The phrase " due directly or wholly " 
 was in practice interpreted to include attributable cases. 
 
 A Royal Warrant of llth June 1916 introduced 
 the word " aggravated," and this was followed by Order 
 in Council of 30th March 1917 (Navy), and the Royal 
 Warrant of 29th March 1917 (Army), and these 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 93 
 
 documents introduced many reforms. The present 
 Warrants of 1917, which we have to interpret, decree 
 that a Soldier, Seaman or Marine " discharged as 
 medically unfit for further service, such unfitness being 
 certified as either attributable to or aggravated by 
 naval or military service in consequence of the present 
 war and not being due to the serious negligence or 
 misconduct of the discharged man," may receive a 
 pension to be assessed according to the terms of the 
 Warrant. 
 
 These reforms have, of course, made many men 
 pensionable who have been discharged without 
 pensions, and will in future make new classes of dis- 
 charged men pensionable. The procedure needed to 
 work this reform will probably require reconsideration. 
 
 The old system of pensions was administered by the 
 Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and in November 
 1915 the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 
 5 & 6 Geo. V. c. 83, was passed, establishing the 
 Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund 
 Corporation with Statutory Local Committees and 
 Sub-District Committees. In December 1916 the 
 Ministry of Pensions Act, 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 65, was 
 passed, and by Section 3 of that Act the powers and 
 duties of the Statutory Committee of the Naval and 
 Military War Pensions Act, 1915, were put under the 
 control of the Minister of Pensions. 1 On 15th February 
 
 1 The Naval and War Pensions (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1917, 
 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 37 (2ist August 1917), dissolved the Statutory Com- 
 mittee and transferred its powers and duties to the Ministry of Pensions 
 as from a date to be appointed. 
 
94 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 1917 the Minister of Pensions took over the control of 
 the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and with it the machinery 
 of the Medical Boards who decide whether a man is 
 pensionable. 
 
 It is important to remember these dates. The 
 Ministry of Pensions only came into existence in 
 December 1916, it did not take over Chelsea until 
 February 1917, and it brought out the new Royal 
 Warrants at the end of March 1917. Under these 
 Warrants the Minister of Pensions was appointed sole 
 administrator and interpreter, but it is obvious that no 
 one human being could decide the mass of matters 
 that must of necessity come before a Ministry of 
 Pensions, and for the time being, to reduce the delay 
 in granting pensions as much as possible, it was a 
 business necessity for the Minister to accept the 
 existing system of deciding who was or was not 
 entitled to a pension. This system may have worked 
 well in carrying out the limited provisions of the old 
 Warrants, but in relation to the more complicated 
 matters to be dealt with under the new Warrants 
 especially the decision of facts relating to cases of 
 unfitness being attributable to or aggravated by 
 service it may turn out that in attempting to decide 
 them by former methods we are trying to put new 
 wine into old bottles. 
 
 The old system of deciding whether a man is 
 pensionable does not seem to contain any element of 
 judicial inquiry into facts. It is indeed a wholly 
 medical inquiry. As far as the man is concerned, the 
 decision upon his claim to a pension is really concluded 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 95 
 
 by the Medical Board. His case or claim to a pension 
 is not really heard at all. It is determined without 
 hearing. This was no doubt not wholly inconvenient 
 when pensions were only given for distinct classes of 
 injuries. Now, however, when questions of attribut- 
 ability and aggravation arise, it does not seem to us 
 in accordance with the principle of English justice that 
 the right of a man to a pension should be determined 
 against him until he has had an opportunity of being 
 heard in support of his case by those who are going to 
 determine it. This, no doubt, was in the mind of the 
 Minister of Pensions when he set up this Tribunal to 
 give a hearing to any one who claimed that his unfit- 
 ness was attributable to or aggravated by service. 
 
 To understand how the position has come about it is 
 necessary to follow the history of Army Form B. 179, 
 which contains the report of the Medical Officer pro- 
 posing to invalid the man out of the Army and the 
 opinion of the Medical Board on his case. As this 
 Form, with the man's Medical History Sheet A.F.B. 
 178, constitute the sole foundation for the Minister of 
 Pensions' decision, the former is worthy of the most 
 careful study. 
 
 This Form B. 179 in its origin is an Army Form 
 used for the purpose of invaliding a man out of the 
 Army. It dates back to 1895, and although it has 
 been adapted from time to time and adopted for 
 pension purposes, the procedure contained in it was 
 not invented for the purpose of deciding pension cases. 
 It does not contain material upon which this Tribunal 
 would take the responsibility of deciding under the 
 
96 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 new Warrants the fact that a man's unfitness is or is 
 not attributable to or aggravated by service. 
 
 Army Form B. 179 is "a Medical Report on an 
 Invalid," containing two parts : 
 
 1. A statement of the medical case by the Officer 
 in charge of it, countersigned by the Officer 
 in charge of the hospital ; 
 
 %. An opinion of the Medical Board before whom 
 the invalid appears, who have power to 
 recommend his discharge and to state whether 
 further medical treatment is desirable. 
 
 The first point in which this Form seems to us 
 inadequate for the purposes of the Ministry of Pensions 
 acting under the new Warrants is that nowhere is 
 there any direction to the Medical Officer in charge, or 
 the Medical Board, to make any inquiry from the 
 man himself, or to set down his statement of how his 
 unfitness came about. It is a striking fact that the 
 word "unfitness," which is the word in the Royal 
 Warrant, does not occur in Army Form B. 179. 
 
 The only possible statement of the man's own view 
 of his case that can reach the Minister of Pensions is 
 contained in paragraph 11, which orders the Medical 
 Officer to " Give concisely the essential facts of the 
 disability, noting entries on the Medical History Sheet 
 bearing on the case." The Medical Officer does not 
 appear in practice to set down the man's own state- 
 ments in this paragraph, but translates them concisely 
 into his own language, which, indeed, is what he is 
 asked to do. Further, there is this directory note to 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 97 
 
 the Medical Officer : " The answers to the following 
 questions are to be filled in by the Officer in medical 
 charge of the case. In answering them he will care- 
 fully discriminate between the man's unsupported 
 statements and evidence recorded in his military and 
 medical documents.*" The wording of this note seems 
 unfortunate, as it is often possible that a man's 
 unsupported statement may be correct in fact, whilst 
 the evidence recorded in a military medical document 
 may be inaccurate. For the purpose of granting or 
 refusing a pension the man's statement, whether 
 supported or not, is essential to the inquiry to be 
 undertaken, and its omission from Army Form B. 179 
 renders the work of the Awarders of the Ministry of 
 Pensions very difficult. 
 
 When we come to the second portion of Army 
 Form B. 179, the Medical Board is asked in paragraphs 
 1 and %% to state whether 
 
 (1) The disability is clearly attributable to, or 
 
 (2) Has the disability been aggravated by 
 
 certain specified conditions. The use of the word 
 " disability " and the omission of the word " unfitness " 
 seem undesirable, inasmuch as the word " disablement " 
 has always in pension documents connoted specific 
 injury. The word " clearly " qualifying " attributable " 
 has not the authority of the Royal Warrant. 
 
 Two directory notes to the Medical Board should be 
 referred to : 
 
 " 1. Clear and decisive answers to the following 
 questions are to be carefully filled in by 
 
 7 
 
9 8 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 the Board, as, in the event of the man 
 being invalided, it is essential that the 
 Minister of Pensions should be in possession 
 of the most reliable information to enable 
 him to decide upon the man's claim to 
 pension." 
 
 "4. In answering question 21 the Board should 
 be careful to discriminate between disease 
 resulting from military conditions and 
 disease to which the soldier would have 
 been equally liable in civil life." 
 
 From the point of view of arriving at the truth 
 of an allegation that unfitness is attributable to or 
 aggravated by certain conditions, we do not think that 
 the filling up of answers to printed questions is the best 
 method of obtaining reliable information. Note 4 
 seems liable to mislead a Medical Board, as the 
 question of fact to be decided is not whether the 
 disease from which a man is suffering is of a certain 
 character, but whether his present unfitness is attribut- 
 able to or aggravated by his military service, and this 
 is altogether another matter. 
 
 We have set out these views on Army Form B. 179 
 at some length because we want to make it clear that 
 the Awarders of the Ministry of Pensions, the Advisory 
 Board, and the other medical authorities have been 
 limited to the information it contains. This Tribunal 
 decided to give applicants a re-hearing of their cases 
 as is done on appeals to Quarter Sessions. The 
 result has naturally been that we have had far more 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 99 
 
 evidence before us on which to base our decisions. 
 It may be worthy of further consideration whether, in 
 so far as a Form is necessary in these cases, one could 
 not be drafted more in the spirit of the new Warrants 
 and the present liberal methods and practice of the 
 Ministry of Pensions in carrying them out. 
 
 It must be remembered in reading this decision that 
 the Minister of Pensions has set up this Tribunal to 
 deal solely with one question of fact, namely, whether 
 or no a man's unfitness is attributable to or aggravated 
 by service. We have no other powers whatsoever, and 
 do not deal with questions of amounts or other matters 
 under the Warrants. 
 
 What we are saying, therefore, is only relevant to a 
 portion of the enormous work of the Ministry, and 
 deals in a great measure with past practices. Already 
 14,000 gratuities have been given, and these include 
 over 5000 old cases previously rejected. Moreover, 
 the Ministry interpretation of new cases is far more 
 liberal than it was, and already they have made use of 
 the new Warrant to place 1000 cases previously held 
 to be non-attributable into the attributable class, and 
 these cases have thereby received pensions. The 
 Ministry has to deal with 4000 to 5000 new cases every 
 week, and it is scarcely possible that each Applicant 
 should be seen personally. Nor, indeed, is this neces- 
 sary. To grant a pension to a man under the Warrant 
 there may be no need to see him. But before a man is 
 refused a pension, which he may or may not be entitled 
 to, it becomes important to consider what is the best 
 method of inquiring into the facts of his case. 
 
ioo WAR PENSIONS 
 
 It was to rectify mistakes already made, and prob- 
 ably to experiment in new methods, that the Minister 
 of Pensions created this Tribunal. Every assistance 
 has been given to the Tribunal by the Ministry to 
 obtain at the earliest moment specimens of cases dealt 
 with under the old system so that we might begin to 
 hear appeals at once. There seems no doubt that a 
 Tribunal is necessary to assist the Ministry in difficult 
 and doubtful cases. 
 
 The Tribunal held their first meeting on 14th July 
 1917, and were occupied for some days considering 
 questions of procedure. We decided that whenever it 
 was possible an Applicant should be heard in person. 
 A Form of Notice of Appeal was drawn up and circu- 
 lated to the Local Pensions Committees, and it has 
 been arranged that when these Forms are returned to 
 the Ministry of Pensions the cases shall be considered 
 anew and, if not found pensionable by the Minister, 
 shall come to the Tribunal for hearing. When a case 
 is sent to the Tribunal, the Applicant will receive a 
 Notice of Hearing with a few simple instructions as to 
 what he is to do. The Tribunal decided to sit in open 
 court unless, in any special case, it is considered un- 
 desirable. The Minister of Pensions has stated that 
 our decision is to be final. 
 
 The Minister of Pensions from the first made it 
 clear that he in no way desired to attend to oppose 
 cases ; on the contrary, the part he wished to take in 
 the proceedings was to assist us to obtain any infor- 
 mation that would throw light on the facts we are 
 inquiring into. The procedure we have adopted is an 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TPJfiUNAiL 101 
 
 endeavour on our part to carry out the intention that 
 the proceedings before us should have neither the form 
 nor spirit of litigation. 
 
 It is clear that there must be some form of inquiry 
 before a pension is granted, otherwise a malingerer or dis- 
 honest person might receive a pension. What Parliament 
 seems to have desired when it assented to the use of 
 the words " attributable to or aggravated by " was to 
 ensure that wherever a man, able under the conditions 
 of civil life to work and earn his own living, was taken 
 into the Army, and the result was to cause or bring 
 out or add to the burden of some illness or disease, not 
 due to his own misconduct, so that when the man was 
 returned to civil life he was a broken man or disabled 
 or partially disabled by reason of unfitness to carry on 
 his former civil work, then the Minister of Pensions 
 should grant such man a pension permanent or 
 temporary, and of such amount as the Minister should 
 think just within the terms of the Warrant. 
 
 On these principles we have dealt with the cases that 
 have come before us. 
 
 The facts in the Applicant's case are as follows : He 
 had served for nineteen years in the Army, from which 
 he was discharged at his own request in 1907. His 
 character was " very good," and he was stated to be 
 " steady, reliable, willing, sober ; recommended as care- 
 taker or ground man." 
 
 For two years after leaving the service he was a 
 market gardener, and in February 1909 was appointed 
 caretaker of a Recreation Ground in the service of a 
 Corporation, remaining in this post until he attested on 
 
102 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 1st March 1915. He was passed fit for service, and his 
 Medical History Sheet records no defects on enlistment. 
 He served for one year and six weeks, and was dis- 
 charged on 14th April 1916. Army Form B. 179, 
 which has been the only statement of the case before 
 the Pension Authorities, states that he was disabled by 
 rheumatoid arthritis and debility. 
 
 The Medical Officer in charge answers the questions 
 as to date and origin of disability : " 1913, in civil 
 life." 
 
 Under paragraph 11 the Medical Officer sets out the 
 man's statement thus : 
 
 " He states His hips, knees, and shoulders especi- 
 ally the left have been affected for several years, 
 crippling him in the cold months and prevent him 
 working, which consists chiefly of gardening. Within 
 the last twelve months, whilst in the service, he has 
 been compelled to have his teeth extracted, and suffers 
 from dyspepsia, headaches, and much feeling of 
 weakness."" 
 
 Upon this the Medical Officer stated that the 
 " causation of the disability " was " not in any degree 
 attributable to military service." This view being 
 upheld, the Applicant appeals to the Tribunal. 
 
 This case illustrates the danger of deciding a case 
 upon written hearsay instead of an examination viva 
 voce of the man himself by some person used to taking 
 evidence. As Blackstone says : " The open examina- 
 tion of witnesses viva voce in the presence of all 
 mankind is much more conclusive to the clearing up 
 of truth than the private and secret examinations 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 103 
 
 taken down in writing before an Officer or his clerk. 
 An artful or careless scribe may make a witness speak 
 what he never meant by dressing up his deposition in 
 his own form and language, but he is here (in open 
 court) at liberty to correct and explain his meaning if 
 misunderstood, which he can never do after a written 
 deposition is once taken." 
 
 The Medical Officer in charge is not to be blamed, 
 since Army Form B. 179 does not direct him to take 
 an accurate statement from the man of the facts of his 
 case. A further report, which was made on 7th 
 March 1917, on Form A. 36/C, is much to the same 
 effect. 
 
 The Applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal. 
 On his medical examination he was in hospital, his 
 teeth had been removed, and he was ill and had 
 difficulty in speaking. He denied that he told the 
 Medical Officer that he was crippled in 1913. The 
 evidence seems to show that he was not. His story is 
 that he had no rheumatism, as he calls it. before he 
 attested, and that he did his Army work, without 
 suffering from rheumatism, for eight months. He 
 attributes his rheumatism to sleeping on wet bedding 
 at a Battery, and doing night duty on the guns in wet 
 clothing. He was two nights on and one off on this 
 duty for eight months. The Medical Members tell us 
 that the correct term for his disease is osteo-arthritis. 
 
 As to his condition before attesting, he states that 
 he is an Oddfellow, but that he has never drawn a 
 penny from them in sick pay, because before enlistment 
 he has not been ill. 
 
104 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 He produces a very strong certificate from his 
 doctor, who states that the Applicant is on his panel 
 list, that he has attended members of his family, 
 known him as caretaker of the Recreation Ground since 
 1910, and that he has never to his knowledge had any 
 illness. 
 
 He also produces a certificate from his doctor that 
 he has been under his care suffering from some 
 myalgia during 1916 and 1917, and a letter from the 
 Chairman of the Recreation Committee of the Corpora- 
 tion, stating that "he has not through illness been 
 absent from his duties a single day, and to the best of 
 my knowledge he has always been a strong and healthy 
 man up to the time of his rejoining the Army." 
 
 This statement is repeated and confirmed in another 
 letter from the Mayor of the borough. 
 
 He was discharged permanently unfit for all services, 
 and is still disabled by unfitness. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 NOTE. This decision shows that, prior to the 
 institution of the Appeal Tribunal, a man's case was 
 practically determined on the facts contained in the 
 report of the Medical Board on Army Form B. 179. 
 Although a man may make a statement before a 
 Medical Board, there is nothing in this form directing 
 that his statement should be recorded. 
 
 At the time it is filled up he is a soldier under 
 military discipline, and could not well contradict the 
 view expressed by Medical Officers. 
 
 Until the Applicant came before the Tribunal, he 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 105 
 
 had not had a real opportunity of stating his case. 
 In the decision great stress is laid on the importance of 
 the man^s own statement. At the same time, the 
 Tribunal made it clear that they would not be bound 
 by the strict rules of evidence. 
 
 By the legal rules of evidence, nearly all the papers 
 produced by the Ministry, as well as the doctors' 
 certificates and letters from employers produced by 
 the man, would be classed as hearsay, and therefore 
 inadmissible ; and to have enforced such rules would 
 have made the inquiry impossible. 
 
 CASE NO. 4. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Tuesday, 
 2ist August 1917. 
 
 Injury to Foot Man used to special boots Aggra- 
 vation by unsuitable clothing Metatarsalgia. 
 
 The Applicant signed the obligation card on the 
 outbreak of the war, attested on 2nd October 1914, 
 and was discharged on 30th June 1916, after one year 
 and nine months' service. 
 
 He was a manufacturing agent in the City and 
 travelled for himself. Many years ago, while playing 
 football in rubber shoes, he caught his toe in the 
 ground, causing dislocation of one of the bones of the 
 metatarsal joint of the right foot. He used to wear a 
 
io6 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 special boot and suffered no trouble or inconvenience in 
 walking. 
 
 After two or three months in the Army he had a 
 fall in the dark when on duty. He went before the 
 doctor, who examined his foot, and he asked for special 
 boots, but did not obtain them. He, however, bought 
 a pair of special boots himself, and carried out his 
 Army duties successfully for some nine months. After 
 that he had to wear Army boots, and he says that 
 they have crippled him. Although he now has boots 
 made specially, he is not yet able to walk as he did 
 formerly and do his travelling. 
 
 On 6th May 1916 the Invaliding Board held that 
 his disability was aggravated by military service, but 
 the medical authorities, to whom the case was sub- 
 mitted, decided on 5th October 1916 that it was 
 not aggravated, and assessed incapacity as "nil."" A 
 gratuity of 30 was awarded. The Applicant appeals. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal examined the 
 man, and say that his condition is consistent with his 
 story. He has pes cavus, and is now probably suffering 
 from a metatarsalgia, from which he may in time 
 recover. Before the man entered the Army he had 
 been perfectly fit for many years. For months, as 
 long as he could have special boots, he was capable of 
 doing work in the Army. When he was not allowed 
 special boots and given Army boots these produced his 
 present condition of unfitness. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 107 
 
 CASE NO. 7. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Tuesday, 
 2ist August 1917. 
 
 Man originally unfit for Army Aggravation by 
 severe conditions Bronchitis. 
 
 The Tribunal understands that this case was not 
 pensionable under the old Warrant, and therefore the 
 entries on the Medical Report could not be expected 
 to contain material for a decision. Supplemented, 
 however, by the man's evidence the case seems clear. 
 The Applicant was in the Army for 145 days. He 
 was a man of over 4, and had formerly worked at an 
 iron foundry. He was employed in a Labour Company 
 of the A.S.C., and worked out of doors at Rouen 
 shifting timber at the dock-side and stacking it. He 
 was under canvas until two days before Christmas 1915, 
 and then in huts. He worked from light to dark, wet 
 or fine. Oilskins were handed out at the end of 
 January, but he says that no one got an oilskin of 
 his own, that they were not allowed to take them back 
 to the huts, and when the work was finished they 
 were stacked in the yard and became wet inside. On 
 8th February 1916 he was taken ill and went into 
 hospital, where he remained until 14th April 1916, 
 after which he was in a rest camp until his discharge 
 on 2nd July 1916, as no longer physically fit for war 
 service, being disabled by bronchitis. His character 
 says he was " a good labourer." 
 
io8 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 He produces a doctor's certificate to the effect that 
 he is quite unable to work owing to bronchitis and 
 emphysema of both lungs ; his condition is quite hope- 
 less, and he is losing flesh. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal examined 
 the man. In their opinion he was probably unfit for 
 the Army when he attested: he will never be any 
 better, but probably worse, and his Army life hastened 
 the progress of his degenerative change. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 1. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Thursday, 
 30th August 1917. 
 
 Incorrect statement of disability in Army Form B. 
 179 Effect of this on Pension Rights Man 
 capable of Work in Civil Life, broken down by 
 Army conditions Real disability found by 
 Tribunal to be Asthma and Pneumonia. 
 
 The Applicant was aged 40 ; enlisted 17th August 
 1915. He was discharged on 10th December 1915, 
 after 116 days' service, with a gratuity of 15. The 
 Applicant appeals. 
 
 In Army Form B. 204, under date 15th August 1915 
 (the application for discharge), the cause of objection is 
 stated : 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 109 
 
 1. Ankylosis of right thumb. 
 
 2. Poor physique. 
 
 Across this is written : " Recommended for R. A.M.C. 
 Hospitals at home/' 
 
 Army Form B. 178, under date 10th December 1915, 
 says he was " considered medically unfit for further 
 military service, K.R. 392, III. cc." 
 
 Army Form B. 179, under date 23rd April 1917 (the 
 invaliding report), gives the sole cause of his disability 
 as " Ankylosis of right thumb," but states that he 
 has " had pneumonia since his discharge." 
 
 The medical authorities, however, decided that the 
 man's present condition cannot be regarded for pension 
 purposes as due to or aggravated by service, though 
 his capacity for earning a livelihood is diminished 
 7/10ths. They remark that this decision is given " In 
 view of his service and no special hardship or exposure, 
 and the fact that A.F.B. 204 does not mention the 
 cause of his present incapacity." 
 
 If the decision has to be given on the documents 
 before us, it cannot be doubted that the man appears 
 to have been discharged because of a disability to his 
 thumb which was not caused in the Army, and the 
 decision would be in accordance with the facts in the 
 documents. 
 
 This case again illustrates the danger of relying 
 wholly upon documents. 
 
 The true facts about the man's thumb are beyond 
 doubt. About six years ago he had a bicycle accident in 
 which his right thumb was fractured. He was treated 
 at the London Hospital, and later at King's College 
 
no WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Hospital as an in-patient for two weeks, where a piece 
 of bone was removed. This story he told the doctor 
 who filled up A.F.B. 179, and he has repeated it 
 to us. 
 
 On his Medical History Sheet A.F.B. 178, his physical 
 development is marked " Fair." He is said to have no 
 slight defects sufficient to cause rejection. The sheet 
 is marked by some one, "Suitable for R.A.M.C." The 
 applicant tells us that the doctor noticed his thumb, 
 as no doubt he must have done. 
 
 It seems clear that the condition of his thumb is the 
 same now as it was when he entered the Army, and it 
 had been in that condition for several years. He was 
 accepted as fit for service with the thumb in its present 
 condition, and he did his work with the thumb in that 
 condition, and in our view of the facts the statement 
 that he was unfit for service by reason of the disability 
 of Ankylosis of the thumb is incorrect. 
 
 The man's own statement of the circumstances lead- 
 ing to his discharge are as follows. He states that 
 before August 1915 he was a master decorator and 
 worked himself, and was able to lift weights and do his 
 ordinary work. He had congestion of the lungs four 
 years ago, and the cycle accident some six years ago. 
 He is a member of the Independent Order of Odd- 
 fellows, and the Secretary of his branch has sent us the 
 detailed information of his illnesses, showing that his 
 last illness prior to his joining the Army was November 
 1912, " Influenza, six days," the doctor's certificate of 
 which is produced. 
 
 He was therefore an apparently healthy man carry- 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 1 1 1 
 
 ing on the daily work of a decorator without illness 
 from November 1912 to August 1915. 
 
 His first work in the Army was repairing and decorat- 
 ing lavatories, which he seems to have done without 
 difficulty. He says he caught two colds at the end of 
 September and got wet through several times, and slept 
 in a draughty place. He says his breathing became 
 bad, and he was excused all physical drills and later on 
 all drills. He was sent to hospital as an Orderly, and 
 there he says he collapsed whilst trying to move a 
 piano, and he was placed in the hospital as a patient, 
 and ultimately invalided out of the Army. 
 
 The Hospital Sheet states that he was in hospital 
 from 31st October 1915 to 10th November 1915, for 
 a stiff right hand, the result of a bicycle accident. 
 This can hardly be correct, and in any case it is 
 clear the condition of the thumb was not the real 
 cause of his discharge, and he was never treated for it 
 in the Army Hospital. 
 
 Army Form B. 204 certifies that " He is not likely 
 to become an efficient soldier on medical grounds," but 
 does not state the medical grounds. Inquiries have 
 been made, we understand, at the hospital, but with- 
 out result, and the only evidence now available of the 
 "medical grounds" are the man's statements, his 
 former history, and his history after discharge. 
 
 On his return he says he tried to go on with his 
 business, but was unable to do so. He suffered from 
 asthma, which he had not previously suffered from, 
 and from April 1916 onwards was more or less in the 
 doctor's hands. He was ordered to give up his business 
 
H2 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 and go to the seaside, and there he had pneumonia. He 
 is now incapable of doing any hard work or work of a 
 continuous nature. This is confirmed by letters and 
 certificates of doctors covering dates from April 1916 
 to June 1917. Since his discharge from the Army he 
 has been more or less unfit to work. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal examined the 
 Applicant. They consider him a man of poor physique 
 who should not have been accepted for the Army. 
 
 The evidence seems to show that the Applicant, 
 though not a strong man, was capable of working at 
 his business under the conditions of civil life, but that 
 he was not strong enough to stand Army conditions. 
 These have led to a breakdown which render him unfit 
 and incapable of work. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 8. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 I4th September 1917. 
 
 Alleged contradictory statements of man in Army 
 documents Consequent decision that man's dis- 
 ability was congenital Man's evidence of injury 
 on duty Mans alleged statement in Army Form 
 B. 179 really a Medical assumption Alleged 
 misstatement of man accounted for Question 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 113 
 
 of congenital condition discussed Mans state- 
 ment of facts supported by independent testi- 
 mony. 
 
 This case is one of considerable difficulty, both as to 
 its medical aspects and in relation to the facts of the 
 case. 
 
 The case had been decided against the man on the 
 following grounds : " A congenital affection as stated 
 by Medical Board, 12th April 1917. See man's state- 
 ment A.F.B. 179, 10th April 1917, also in A.F.B. 179, 
 28th February 1916, and on Chelsea Form 54/1, 
 marked A. all different.' 1 
 
 It is obvious that if the adjudicating authority 
 believed that the man had given these statements of 
 fact differing from each other as to the cause of his 
 unfitness, it would properly deprive his statements 
 of evidential value. 
 
 The adjudicating authority never of course heard 
 the man's own statement. 
 
 The man is suffering from extreme wasting of 
 pectoralis major and serratus magnus, and the de- 
 cision against him is that this is congenital and 
 therefore not attributable to or aggravated by military 
 service. 
 
 The man's own story is as follows. He was born in 
 1893. He was working before the war as a tool-setter. 
 His employers inform us that "he was employed by 
 this Company on and off for a number of years up to 
 August 1914, and that as far as we remember his 
 health was good." He earned 45s. a week, and when 
 not with them he had worked occasionally for other 
 8 
 
ii 4 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 firms. He was a single man, living with his parents 
 his father being a discharged soldier and paralysed. 
 
 On 5th August 1914 he enlisted, and went to 
 Salisbury Plain, but was returned home in September 
 after he was vaccinated. 
 
 He worked with his employers again, and on 29th 
 October he enlisted in another battalion of the same 
 regiment. He did not tell them about his former 
 enlistment, as he was keen to start with other friends 
 who were joining up. 
 
 In December 1914 he says he was engaged in moving 
 the Orderly Room with a fatigue party, at Braintree, 
 Essex. They were carrying heavy boxes of rifles, 
 furniture, etc., and whilst so doing he fell downstairs, 
 and caught at the bannisters and wrenched his arm. 
 He did not report it or consider it important. A 
 fortnight afterwards he had a pain in his arm and 
 chest. He saw the doctor and was having massage at 
 a hospital. Inquiry has been made at the hospital as 
 there were no Hospital Sheets, and they replied that 
 there are no records of the case. 
 
 From that time onward he was retained in the 
 Army, travelling from place to place, doing no duty, 
 getting some sort of treatment, and gradually 
 deteriorating. 
 
 At length in A.F.B. 179, 28th February 1916, 
 the Invaliding Board recommended his discharge as 
 permanently unfit for service. 
 
 In the Statement of Case the doctor writes down that 
 the man states the date of origin of disability was 
 "four years ago," and the place "in civil life." He 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 115 
 
 goes on to say, the man states : " That the loss of 
 power in the left arm occurred as the result of an 
 accident when boxing. His opponent fell, and on 
 endeavouring to pull his arm away from his opponent 
 he strained the chest muscles of his left side." 
 
 It is clear that this is the doctor's summary, and not 
 the man's own words. A tool-setter does not speak of 
 " civil life " and " straining the chest muscles of his left 
 side. 1 ' 
 
 The man's account to us of what happened is this. 
 He says he told the doctor that he had no disability 
 before he joined the Army, and that he mentioned the 
 Braintree accident to him, but that the doctor told 
 him that could not be the cause of his present 
 condition, as his trouble was at least of four years' 
 standing, and asked him whether he was an athlete. 
 He told him that he played football and was a boxer. 
 The doctor then asked him if he had ever had a fall, 
 and he described a boxing clinch that had once 
 happened to him, and the doctor in the man's own 
 words "reckoned it must have had something to do 
 with it." From this statement it would appear that 
 what we really have in A.F.B. 179 is the doctor's 
 theory of the cause of the disability and not the man's 
 
 statement of what he attributed his condition to. As 
 far as the man is capable of forming any judgment 
 about the origin of his disability, he refers it to the 
 Braintree accident, and says he has always done so, but 
 that this doctor told him that he was wrong. 
 
 At all events the statement as to disability "four 
 years ago in civil life " is the doctor's inference and is 
 
n6 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 probably incorrect, inasmuch as the man worked as a 
 tool-setter up to the declaration of the war. It is 
 curious in these medical examinations how seldom we 
 obtain information as to what the man was doing prior 
 to the war. This it seems might have helped the 
 doctor to a right conclusion if he had asked for it. 
 
 The man was discharged on 1st May 1916. He 
 tried to work at engineering work, but could not follow 
 it up. He enlisted again in the A.S.C., 3rd August 
 
 1916. His Medical History Sheet is marked "old 
 injury to left shoulder as a slight defect." He was 
 sent to Woolwich, but was found to be unfit, and put 
 in hospital. Here he was reported upon by the 
 Medical Officer, on 30th October 1916, who says the 
 patient " puts down the condition of his arm to a fall 
 at Braintree, November 1914." This statement is not 
 referred to in the adjudicating authority's decision. 
 
 He came before the Invaliding Board on 10th April 
 
 1917, and in A.F.B. 179 of this date the doctor reports 
 the place of origin of disability to be "Braintree, 
 Essex, December 1914." 
 
 The result is that in three interviews with three 
 different doctors, two set down his statement as to the 
 accident at Braintree, Essex, in 1914, and his own 
 statement to us is a reasonable explanation of why the 
 third doctor omitted to do so. 
 
 The third alleged misstatement by the man referred to 
 by the adjudicating authority occurs in Form 54/1 dated 
 29th April 1917. The man in his own handwriting 
 states : " Through a fall wild on Fatuge " (sic) and in 
 the next line " Southend-on-Sea." The adjudicating 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 117 
 
 authority seems to have read these lines together. An 
 examination of the Form shows this to be an error. 
 The first sentence is written opposite "8. Cause of 
 Discharge, 1 ' and " Southend-on-Sea " opposite " 9. Place 
 of Discharge." Both facts are accurately stated. 
 General Codrington having heard the man's story says 
 that the use of his words, a " fall whilst on fatigue," 
 would truly describe the Braintree incident, and it is 
 admitted that Southend-on-Sea was the place of dis- 
 charge. 
 
 We may, therefore, write off this alleged misstate- 
 ment of the man as having little to do with the case, 
 and the Medical Members of the Tribunal, who have 
 examined the man and heard his story, report to us 
 as follows : 
 
 The Applicant's left shoulder blade is raised above 
 the level of its fellow : this may be a congenital mal- 
 formation or a deformity which developed in early 
 life. 
 
 The costo-sternal segment of his left pectoralis 
 major muscle and his left serratus magnus muscle are 
 atrophied and the former is almost, if not entirely, 
 absent. The wasting of the muscles just mentioned is 
 so obvious that no one could fail to notice it. The 
 Applicant's disability at the time of his final discharge 
 (3rd May 1917) is attributed to " congenital absence 
 of pectoralis major and serratus magnus muscles on 
 the left side." If this condition is really a congenital 
 one, both the muscular wasting and the disability 
 caused by it must have been just as obvious when the 
 man enlisted as it is now. But no mention of it is 
 
n8 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 made in the Medical History Sheet at the first enlist- 
 ment (29th October 1914), and the first reference to 
 the affection is on his Discharge Sheet (1st May 1916) 
 where his disability is attributed to "atrophy of the 
 left pectoralis major and deltoid," and the first refer- 
 ence to a congenital condition is made by the Medical 
 Officer in a Medical Case Sheet, A.F.I. 1237, under 
 date 30th October 1916, which is two months after 
 the man's second enlistment. 
 
 After the accident at Braintree in November or 
 December 1914, to which the Applicant attributes his 
 disability, he underwent treatment by massage and 
 electricity for many months, which would have been 
 absurd treatment if the condition of his muscles was 
 the same then as it is now. It is more reasonable to 
 suppose, in the absence of any statement as to the 
 condition of the muscles at that time, that although 
 the nerves had been injured and the muscles paralysed, 
 the muscles were not wasted then in the way they are 
 now. If this view is correct, the condition was not a 
 congenital one. 
 
 When the Applicant was discharged after his first 
 period of service (1st May 1916) his disability is stated 
 to be due to "atrophy of left pectoralis major and 
 deltoid muscles." The latter muscle is now well 
 developed : it must have recovered during the 16 
 months which have elapsed since then. It is not un- 
 likely that this muscle did originally suffer to some 
 extent along with the pectoralis major and serratus 
 magnus, for the nerve fibres supplying all these muscles 
 might quite well have been damaged by an injury to 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 119 
 
 the shoulder such as this man described as having 
 happened at Braintree. On this theory the deltoid 
 has recovered whilst the serratus magnus and a propor- 
 tion of the pectoralis major are permanently paralysed 
 and atrophied. 
 
 In our opinion the man's statements are quite con- 
 sistent with the facts as we know them, and we believe 
 his disability is attributable to his war service. But 
 seeing that it is not possible to disprove the theory of 
 a congenital malformation, we think the right course 
 to adopt is to disregard surgical opinions on this case, 
 and to decide it on a review of the facts. They are as 
 follows : The man states that he has been an athlete, a 
 boxer, a swimmer and a footballer. He is certainly 
 a very muscular fellow. Owing to the paralysis of his 
 left serratus magnus he is now unable to raise his left 
 arm vertically over his shoulder as is done in diving 
 and swimming, and the reach of his left arm is some 
 6 or 8 inches less than that of his right, and the force 
 of a punch with his left arm would be much less than 
 with his right. If we can get evidence to corroborate 
 the man's statements regarding his skill as a boxer, a 
 swimmer and a footballer whilst at school, and up to 
 the time of his enlistment in the Army, we think we 
 must find that his present disability has been caused 
 by service in the war. 
 
 Now as to his boxing, swimming and football capa- 
 bilities before the war, we have not only the man's 
 own statement, but the following letter from his school- 
 master ; 
 
120 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 5th September 1917. 
 
 " I can fully bear out any statement made by Mr. 
 as to his proficiency in boxing, swimming and 
 
 football. As a boy he was very successful in all forms of 
 school sport, and he has been equally smart as an adult." 
 
 This, with the fact that he was a working tool-setter 
 at the declaration of the war, and was received into 
 the Army twice, namely, on 5th August 1914 and 
 29th October 1915, and worked in the Army up to 
 November or December of 1915, when the Braintree 
 accident happened, seems to entirely dispose of the 
 theory of the man's present condition being a congenital 
 condition. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 NOTE. This case shows the importance of taking 
 down the man's own statement of the facts of his case 
 at the earliest moment, and the possible unreliability 
 of statements contained in the Army invaliding docu- 
 ments when used for the purposes of deciding questions 
 relating to pensions. 
 
 CASE NO. 15. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 I4th September 1917. 
 
 Man accepted for Army with Acromegaly Aggrava- 
 tion of this Disease by Military Service. 
 
 This man was born in 1875. He enlisted originally 
 in 1895 and served 8 years 259 days ; 5 years 304 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 121 
 
 days of which were spent in India. He was discharged 
 in 1904, when he was 29 years of age. At this time 
 he was observed to have acromegaly. 
 
 He became a crucible steel melter and worked at 
 
 's steel works from 1907 to 1914, earning a wage 
 
 of % 11s. a week. A letter from the firm shows that 
 he kept good time and was not absent on account of 
 sickness during the seven years he worked for them. 
 They applied for him to return for munition work, but 
 he had then broken down in health and is now unfit 
 for work. 
 
 The Army Medical view is that, as he had acromegaly 
 in 1904 when he was discharged unfit and is now unfit 
 because of acromegaly, he is not pensionable. 
 
 The Medical Members of this Tribunal have approved 
 the following statement of facts. 
 
 He was accepted for service again 4th September 
 1914, and after 5J months was discharged as unfit on 
 account of acromegaly. He was unfit for service, in 
 view of his then existing acromegaly, 4th September 
 1914. The exertion of service aggravated the results 
 of his disease and increased the tendency to extreme 
 fatigue caused by it. Exertion to the full extent of a 
 man's powers has been observed as making a patient 
 with acromegaly worse. 
 
 The Applicant's disease was not caused by the service, 
 but was aggravated by it, and remembering that he 
 had acromegaly, this is not inconsistent with his being 
 able to do a good deal of work in civil life before his 
 second enlistment. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
122 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 CASE NO. 16. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 I4th September 1917. 
 
 Effect of short term of Service Result of Service 
 conditions as compared with Civil life Asthma^ 
 aggravation of. 
 
 This man was but a few days in service, yet the 
 conditions under which he served caused his unfitness. 
 
 In a letter of 16th July 1917 the Local War 
 Pensions Committee stated his case as follows : 
 
 "This man was discharged on the 27th December 
 1916, suffering from asthma, and was granted a 
 gratuity of 5 under the new Warrant. He served 
 62 days only. Up to the date of his entry into the 
 service, his Employers inform us that he was able to 
 put in full time, but since the date of his discharge he 
 has only been able to work for one week, when he 
 broke down completely. We have obtained convales- 
 cent treatment for him, and he has been under the 
 care of his doctor ever since his discharge. He received 
 no pension whatever upon discharge, but the Statutory 
 Committee, on the evidence submitted by us, made him 
 a temporary allowance of 10s. per week, which, with 
 his insurance, enabled him to live. We have obtained 
 a medical certificate from his doctor, certifying that he 
 is suffering from asthma and abdominal trouble, and is 
 quite unable to work, He is in an extremely serious 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 123 
 
 state of health, and the only hope there is for him is to 
 have a long period of convalescence on the South Coast, 
 after which it is considered he may be able to take 
 up some light work, such as poultry farming, in that 
 vicinity. 
 
 " He needs special treatment and extra nourishment. 
 I may mention that upon receipt of the gratuity his 
 temporary allowance was immediately stopped. My 
 Committee desire me to ask you to reconsider this case 
 and to grant him the highest pension possible, as his 
 case is certainly one which was aggravated by his 
 service. In the opinion of his doctor and ourselves, he 
 would have been able to continue his work if he had 
 remained in civil life, but owing to exposure he is now 
 absolutely broken down.'" 
 
 We have heard the man's evidence and considered 
 the papers in the case, and fully concur with the 
 opinion of the Local Committee expressed at the end 
 of the letter. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 140. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on 
 Wednesday, I4th November 1917. 
 
 Effect of Accident on Duty Partial aggravation on 
 Discharge Effect of this on present conditions 
 Complications of already existing Disease. 
 
 In this case the Applicant, who was an old soldier, 
 time-expired, voluntarily re-enlisted on 13th April 
 
124 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 1916. The Tribunal consider that he deserves the most 
 sympathetic consideration, but feel bound to set out 
 the facts of his case in so far as they affect their 
 decision under their Terms of Reference. 
 
 The following statement has the approval of the 
 Medical Members of the Tribunal. 
 
 The Applicant broke both bones of his right leg 
 by a fall on ice whilst on military duty at night. The 
 bones have united, but there is a half-inch to three- 
 quarters of an inch shortening. The man now com- 
 plains of pain and tenderness at the site of the fracture 
 and swelling of the leg after use. The result, however, 
 is not a bad one, and if there was nothing else the matter 
 with him the man would be able to resume his occupa- 
 tion in a few months. Such disability as is due to the 
 fracture is attributable to his military service. The 
 Applicant is also suffering from locomotor ataxy, and 
 some of his symptoms are due to that and are not 
 attributable to his military service. 
 
 Subject to the above statement of facts the Appeal 
 was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 48. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on 
 Wednesday, sist October 1917. 
 
 Original disability. Loose Cartilage and Chronic 
 Synovitis no longer causing unfitness Aggrava- 
 tion at time of' discharge Possible recurrence. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal approved the 
 following statement of facts. 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 125 
 
 The man's disability is stated (A.F.B. 179, 25th 
 May 1916) to be 6 loose cartilage, 1 and his right 
 knee is said to present the physical signs of chronic 
 synovitis. 
 
 There are no signs of synovitis now and the joint 
 seems to be quite healthy. 
 
 The account given to the Tribunal by the man him- 
 self points to recurring dislocation of an interarticular 
 cartilage. 
 
 We are of opinion that the patella is more liable to 
 displacement now than it was before the man enlisted. 
 We think, however, that if he is supplied with a suit- 
 able apparatus, the dislocation may be prevented and 
 that in twelve months or so the increased liability to it 
 may be overcome. 
 
 The facts of the case, moreover, satisfy us that at the 
 time the Appellant was discharged as medically unfit 
 for further service and probably for some period after- 
 wards his unfitness was attributable to or aggravated by 
 military service, and we consider that as our sole duty is 
 to give a decision upon that fact we are bound to decide 
 it in the man's favour. Although he is not at present 
 suffering from any unfitness attributable to or aggra- 
 vated by service during the present time, our Medical 
 Members say there is a possibility of a future break- 
 down which might well be held to be attributable to 
 or aggravated by service. In further cases of a similar 
 character we shall propose, with the Minister of 
 Pensions' approval, to add a note to our decisions 
 setting out the position. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
126 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 CASE NO. 153. IN THE MATTER OF 
 AN APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Wednesday, 
 I4th November 1917. 
 
 Disability earned by accidental Infection Man's 
 statement supported by Hospital Reports 
 Importance of hearing marts evidence. 
 
 In this case it is clear that it would have been 
 impossible to do justice without hearing the 
 Applicant's evidence. 
 
 He is a married man with three children and was 
 in the employment of a doctor as driver mechanic 
 before he attested on 21st December 1914. 
 
 The Members were impressed by his answers, and 
 the following statement of the facts is approved by the 
 Medical Members of the Tribunal. 
 
 The Applicant was in hospital (A. KB. 178, 3rd April 
 1915) suffering from gonorrhceal conjunctivitis and 
 panophthalmitis of his right eye, for which eviscera- 
 tion was performed (4th April 1915). The Applicant 
 states that the doctor examined him to see if he had 
 an urethal discharge ; there was no discharge, and the 
 Applicant says the doctor remarked, " That's all right." 
 The Applicant further states that he was not treated 
 for urethritis, and this is supported by the absence 
 from the Hospital Reports of any mention of it. If 
 the Applicant had not urethritis himself the gonor- 
 rhoeal infection which destroyed his right eye came 
 from outside himself and was not due to his own fault. 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 127 
 
 The Applicant also states that one of the seven men 
 who were fellow -occupants of the same hut had 
 " venereal disease,' 1 and it is possible that the infection 
 may have been conveyed by washing materials which 
 were used in common. 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 114. IN THE MATTER OF 
 AN APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 7th December 1917. 
 
 Loss of Eyesight due to Syphilis Evidence of 
 Accident Effect of Active Service conditions on 
 this Disease Expert Evidence of Ophthalmic 
 Surgeon. 
 
 In this case the decision was not given in writing, 
 as, although the Tribunal were unanimous in their 
 view that the Appeal must succeed, yet the Members 
 of the Tribunal were not entirely in agreement upon 
 the scientific aspects of the case. Part of the evidence 
 in the case was a general statement from Arnold 
 Lawson, Esq., F.R.C.S., who was kind enough to 
 appear before the Tribunal and to explain to them in 
 detail the bearing of this statement on the case of the 
 Applicant. 
 
 Although the Medical Members of the Tribunal did 
 not advise us to adopt these views in their entirety, 
 they seem to us of such importance that it is thought 
 
128 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 right to include the material portion of them in this 
 record of the Tribunal's proceedings. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD LAWSON, RR.C.S. (Eng.). 
 Called and examined. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. What are your degrees and qualifica- 
 tions ? 
 
 A. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, 
 England. 
 
 Q. You are an ophthalmic surgeon, I think ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You have been kind enough in the Applicant's 
 case to send us a general statement on the 
 subject of his disease and his disability. Do 
 you agree that it should go on the Shorthand 
 Notes as a general [statement, and that will save 
 you going through it again ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 The Statement was handed in, and is as follows : 
 
 " 12 HARLEY STREET, LONDON, W. 1, 
 5th November 1917. 
 
 " I have been asked to place on record my views on 
 the question of blindness associated with syphilis 
 arising in soldiers and sailors during this war. 
 
 "The matter is an extremely important one and 
 somewhat intricate. To be clear, I shall draft my 
 views into a series of numbered paragraphs and then 
 briefly summarize the points I wish to bring forward. 
 
 " 1. It is urgent to recognize in the first place that 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 129 
 
 there are two varieties of syphilis (1) Congenital, i.e., 
 inherited ; and () acquired. Both classes may equally 
 lead to blindness. 
 
 "S. The types of blindness in both are similar. 
 Clinically it is generally possible to differentiate 
 positively from collateral evidence between the two 
 and definitely to assign the origin as either inherited 
 or acquired. On the other hand, it is not always 
 possible to do so ; and as the Wassermann blood test 
 reacts equally in the one class as in the other, it may 
 and does sometimes happen that a man is accused of 
 contracting the disease which he has in fact inherited. 
 
 "3. Syphilitic affections of the eyes leading to 
 blindness are of two distinct kinds (a) Primarily 
 inflammatory and causing blindness by the results of 
 inflammation ; and (6) primarily degenerative, i.e., un- 
 accompanied by inflammation. 
 
 "The first (a) class occur in any stage of inherited 
 syphilis from early childhood to middle life, and in 
 recent or fairly recent acquired syphilis. The second 
 (Z>) class may also occur in any stage of inherited 
 syphilis, but hitherto have been regarded as rare in 
 acquired syphilis until the disease has been of several 
 years' standing. 
 
 "4. The inflammatory class (a) are usually very 
 amenable to treatment, and will not cause blindness if 
 taken early and energetically treated, though the sight 
 may be damaged. The degenerative (b) class, on the 
 other hand, are extremely intractable, and nearly 
 always progress in course of time to complete blind- 
 ness. 
 
 9 
 
130 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 " 5. The results of the war have been to show 
 
 "(1) That a number of men have lost their 
 sight from inflammatory syphilis. 
 
 "(2) That blindness due to degenerative affec- 
 tions (such as optic atrophy) forms a very 
 large class in soldiers and not very infre- 
 quently occurs in mere lads in their * teens ' 
 or early ' twenties.' 
 
 " 6. It is a well-recognized fact that the manifesta- 
 tions of any virus are very much influenced by the 
 power of resistance, i.e., the vitality of the subject, whilst 
 its determination to any one spot or organ may be 
 decided by the special weakening of resisting power in 
 that locality, often due to any prolonged strain or 
 stress on that particular part. 
 
 " 7. In warfare, and probably in this war more than 
 in any other previous campaigns, the soldiers have 
 been exposed to great hardships and strain, and 
 syphilitic affections have the tendency to be extremely 
 severe in their symptoms and damaging in their 
 consequences. 
 
 " Probably the strain of war reacts more decisively 
 on the nervous system than on any other part of the 
 human mechanism. Of that there is abundant evidence 
 in the numerous cases of shell-shock and shattered 
 nerves. The eyes as ' the windows of the brain ' and 
 developed originally from the primitive brain, and 
 further the chief means by which the nervous system is 
 kept in touch with external affairs, are very prone to 
 exhibit an extreme sensitiveness as one of the results of 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 131 
 
 prolonged or severe nerve strain. Of that again there 
 is complete and full evidence. If the soldier is already 
 weakened by syphilis the determination of the virus to 
 the eyes is a contingency extremely likely to occur. 
 The eyes are also especially exposed to adverse weather 
 conditions such as cold and wet, and it is well known 
 that in peace time syphilitic inflammation of the eyes 
 often follows prolonged exposure to such influences. 
 
 " Summary. 
 
 "To summarize the matter. The question of in- 
 herited or acquired syphilis ought to be very carefully 
 sifted in every case, and especially as both varieties 
 react ' positively ' to the Wassermann blood test. It 
 is obviously grossly unfair to attach any importance to 
 the question of syphilis if the complaint has been in- 
 herited. Then the number of soldiers blinded from 
 inflammatory syphilitic affections shows either (a) that 
 the inflammatory attacks are of particular severity, or (b) 
 that often they do not yield satisfactorily to treatment, 
 or (c) a combination of both conditions. Further, the 
 large percentage of blindness, due to degenerative 
 affection of the nervous structure of the eyes, is most 
 striking, as is also the youth of many of the sufferers. 
 All these points come out most strongly, and can be 
 fairly and adequately explained by the conditions of 
 the soldier's life on active service. They point abso- 
 lutely to the conclusion that a large number of blind 
 syphilitics owe their blindness indirectly to their 
 service on behalf of their country, and that had it not 
 
132 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 been for such service very many now hopelessly blinded 
 would be enjoying good sight. Finally, it must be 
 remembered that syphilitic eye affections form in 
 normal times merely a fraction of syphilitic manifesta- 
 tions, and no expert writing on Syphilis would 
 emphasize blindness as a danger more prominent than 
 many others. Yet, as a result of this war the number 
 of blinded syphilitics is appalling, and it can only be 
 explained in the manner I have tried to indicate. I 
 feel most strongly that these points should be clearly 
 set forth for the consideration of all Tribunals who 
 have to deal with the future of these men, and I hope 
 that they will modify in a large degree the very wrong 
 but prevailing opinion that the country has no re- 
 sponsibility for their blindness. 
 
 "(Signed) ARNOLD LAWSON, 
 F.R.C.S. (Eng.)." 
 
 Q. Is there anything you would like to add to that 
 general statement before you deal with the 
 Applicant's particular case ? 
 
 A. Yes, there are one or two points as to which 
 I might claim your attention for about two 
 minutes. That general statement about syph- 
 ilis is, of course, particularly with regard to 
 the Wassermann test. If you take a positive 
 Wassermann reaction as proving that a man 
 has syphilis, which practically it does do and 
 it may be accepted with few exceptions you 
 must logically, I think, accept the position that 
 if a man does not give a Wassermann reaction, 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 133 
 
 if it is negative, he has not had syphilis, and has 
 not got it. That is an absolutely wrong stand- 
 point, and therefore I say it is not fair to use 
 the Wassermann test 4n the way it has been 
 done. What I mean is this : in old syphilis 
 people who are suffering from what is called 
 tertiary syphilis that has been going on for 
 some years 20 to 25 per cent, of the cases will 
 give a negative Wassermann. So that if you 
 are going to exclude from pensions a man who 
 is syphilitic because he gives a Wassermann 
 reaction, you are doing an injustice ; that is to 
 say, if 20 to 25 per cent, of the men who have 
 syphilis do not give a Wassermann reaction and 
 you exclude them as having syphilis, you are 
 undoubtedly doing an injustice. If the one 
 position is right the other position must be 
 right too ; but it is not. 
 
 Q. I follow your point. Is there anything further 
 you wish to say generally, before we come to 
 the Applicant's case ? 
 
 A. Yes, there are one or two other points. 
 
 Q. Will you clear them up first ? 
 
 A. Yes. Then, again, there is a small class of cases 
 which give a positive Wassermann reaction, 
 which are not syphilitic. They are few in 
 number, and there are not likely to be many 
 cases in which the question will come up ; but 
 certainly cases of malaria do give a positive 
 Wassermann, and that point ought to be most 
 carefully sifted. If a man comes home from 
 
134 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 the tropics from Palestine, or Mesopotamia, 
 or Gallipoli, or wherever it is and gives a 
 positive Wassermann, he should not necessarily 
 be classed as syphilitic. You must exclude 
 malaria for one thing. Then there are other 
 diseases which will give a positive Wassermann, 
 such as yaws, which is a skin disease incidental 
 to the tropics ; so that malaria is only one. I 
 only mention them to show that a positive 
 Wassermann ought not to be taken of itself 
 alone as a proof of syphilis. Leprosy happens 
 to be another disease which gives a positive 
 Wassermann, and, as I say, there is malaria and 
 this other disease known as yaws. Then, finally, 
 I wanted to point out that there have been 
 statistics already published by some enterprising 
 man I cannot give you the reference to-day, 
 but I think I could let you have it of an exam- 
 ination made for pure curiosity in certain large 
 schools where the children have been examined 
 with regard to syphilis. They were not children 
 who exhibited syphilitic symptoms so that it 
 was known by others that they were syphilitic, 
 but the whole of the children were examined. 
 It has been found that in 1000 cases of ordinary 
 healthy children attending a Board School, 
 from 10 to 15 per cent, of them give a positive 
 Wassermann. 
 
 Q. Would those be cases of hereditary syphilis ? 
 
 A. They were cases of hereditary syphilis who had 
 never exhibited syphilitic symptoms. That is 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 135 
 
 all I have to say generally ; but it only shows 
 that a positive Wassermann should not be taken 
 of itself without great care. 
 
 Q. Then we come to the Applicant's case in particu- 
 lar. You know the details of his case ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. He is a man who has been under you ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you remember giving a certificate in his case ? 
 
 A. Yes, quite well. 
 
 Q. Would you read it to us ? 
 
 A. Yes. This was just a precis of my own notes, 
 which went a great deal more into detail. 
 
 Q. This is what you sent to Chelsea, or what got 
 there ? 
 
 A. Yes. " The Applicant, aged 46. Fell on back of 
 head off timber heap in France on 2nd October 
 1915 and was not rendered unconscious. Was 
 admitted into hospital there for five days 
 and then sent back to England, arriving at 
 hospital on 9th October. Sight rapidly failed 
 in both eyes. Became completely blind in both 
 eyes in March 1916. Primary optic atrophy, 
 R. and L. Wassermann test positive. 
 " (Signed) ARNOLD LAWSON, F.R.C.S. (Eng.)." 
 
 Q. You know the point that we are here to decide is 
 whether a man's condition of unfitness is attri- 
 butable to or aggravated by war service ? 
 
 A. Quite. 
 
 Q. That is the question of fact we are called upon 
 to decide. In your view, aye or no, do you 
 
136 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 contend from a scientific point of view that the 
 Applicant's condition of unfitness is attributable 
 to or aggravated by war service ? 
 
 A. Certainly. 
 
 Q. You think it is ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Will you give us your reasons? You can put 
 your points in two ways : either (a) assuming 
 there was an injury, or (b) assuming there was 
 not. I do not know whether you are satisfied 
 that there was an injury from what you heard, 
 or whether you based your views on it. 
 
 A. Assuming that he had an injury, it makes the 
 thing much more simple. 
 
 Q. Assuming, in the first place, that he had an 
 injury, what do you say ? 
 
 A. He gave a very definite history to me. One 
 realizes, of course, that these men are very apt to 
 try to find causes. I looked at him and I did 
 not find any sign of injury ; I simply took his 
 statement and accepted it as such. It is very 
 common knowledge that blindness is not at all 
 uncommon after a fall of that description ; 
 because your cerebral visual centres are situated 
 at the back of your head, and if a man falls 
 upon his occiput, blindness might follow. I 
 have seen many cases followed by blindness; 
 it is not at all uncommon. 
 
 Q. That is, assuming there is injury, that would 
 satisfy you that this particular case was aggra- 
 vated by war service ? 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 137 
 
 A. Aggravated. In my general statement I make 
 the point that the determination of any virus to 
 any one spot or organ, in the case of syphilis as 
 in other toxins (poisons), was very much decided 
 by the question of the vitality of the part, and 
 if there was any injury to one particular part it 
 was very common to find that part affected by 
 the virus. A man who has syphilis in his 
 blood very often gets syphilitic inflammation 
 of the eyes. I have very often seen cases of 
 syphilitic inflammation of the eyes follow a ride 
 on an omnibus on a windy day ; so the fall on 
 the back of his head might well have induced 
 degeneration of the eyes that would lead to 
 blindness. Supposing that his injury cannot be 
 substantiated, the question arises as to whether 
 there was anything in his service which could 
 have aggravated his blindness. I think the 
 dates as they have been given me here in regard 
 to the Applicant's service are striking on that 
 point. The date of his enlistment was the 2nd 
 September 1915. When he was enlisted pre- 
 sumably one might say that he had decent sight, 
 and it was so good that he was sufficiently good 
 for military service. He was taken ill on the 
 4th October 1915, which was only four weeks, 
 and he was discharged as completely blind six 
 months later. Now to me those dates are very 
 suggestive. If he was perfectly well on the 2nd 
 September 1915, one cannot understand how it 
 was he had to be certified as ill on account of 
 
138 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 his sight only four weeks later, unless there was 
 some very strong pre-determining cause. Then 
 if he was discharged from the Army on account 
 of the failure of his sight only six months later, 
 which it was, the loss of sight was extremely 
 rapid. It has affected both eyes as it commonly 
 does. But generally it affects one eye quicker 
 than the other ; while he was so bad in both 
 eyes that he had to be discharged from the 
 Army six months after it came on. There are 
 two striking points about it. The first striking 
 point is the rapidity with which it came on after 
 his enlistment, and the second striking point is 
 the rapidity with which it progressed to extreme 
 blindness. In this case the most important 
 point is the second one. In these cases of 
 primary optic atrophy where there was no 
 previous inflammation, but pure degeneration, 
 it would take time. This was a case of pure 
 degeneration and there was no sign of previous 
 inflammation. The average time from the first 
 symptom to complete blindness runs to a matter 
 of two to three years and sometimes may go on 
 from four to five years. In this case he was 
 totally blind in six months. 
 
 Q. Does that point, in your view, to the fact that he 
 had had an injury ? 
 
 A. I think it supports it, but it also goes in support 
 of the general statement I put in, that these 
 cases in the war are very severe, and they 
 progress very rapidly; and that is the out- 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 139 
 
 standing feature in nearly all these syphilitic 
 cases. 
 
 Q. Then you are satisfied, are you, that from your 
 view as a scientist, this man's case was aggra- 
 vated by his service ? 
 
 A. Yes, certainly. 
 
 Q. And you have no doubt about it ? 
 
 A. No, I have not. 
 
 CASE NO. 26. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 4th January 1918. 
 
 Sarcoma No evidence of actual Injury Case held 
 not attributable. 
 
 In this case the man was a baker's journeyman, and 
 on 14th May 1916 he joined as a gunner in the R.F. A. 
 He had no trouble with his leg before enlisting, and he 
 did eight months' training and riding. He does not 
 complain of any actual injury, and does not remember 
 any actual knock or blow. 
 
 He first felt pain in November 1916 whilst walking 
 upstairs. He thought nothing of it. Later on, in 
 about a month, he noticed a slight swelling. He 
 rubbed it with embrocation, and in February he 
 reported sick. The M.O. said it was serious, and he 
 was sent to hospital. 
 
 Ultimately it was discovered that he was suffering 
 
140 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 from sarcoma, and he was operated on, on 4th 
 September 1917, his leg being removed. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal are of 
 opinion that the sarcoma in the Applicant's case was 
 not due to injury. The origin of sarcoma is obscure, 
 and in the present state of knowledge we can only say 
 that its origin is not related to accident or injury. 
 
 The Appeal was disallowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 297. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 nth January 1918. 
 
 Epilepsy Eff'ect on Disease of change from Civil to 
 Military Life Fits increased Aggravation. 
 
 In this case the Medical Members reported to the 
 Tribunal as follows : 
 
 " There is no doubt that the Applicant has epilepsy, 
 because we saw him in what was a slight but still a 
 perfectly typical epileptic fit here, so we know that he 
 has epilepsy. His mother mentioned that about 1915 
 he had slight seizures of an epileptic character, and then 
 there came an interval when he had a few or none; 
 and then there came a period of service in which the 
 number was increased. 
 
 " Epilepsy is a disease which very often lasts for the 
 whole lifetime of the patient without killing him. It 
 goes on as long as he goes on. Sometimes the patient 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 141 
 
 has long intervals in which he has no fits, and then has 
 more fits ; but no single rule can be laid down on the 
 subject, and each case must be carefully observed in 
 itself. 
 
 " There can be no doubt that mental stress such as 
 is produced by a new state of life, such as the change 
 from civil to military life, from a position of no 
 responsibility to a position of considerable responsi- 
 bility, like that of a soldier, does in many cases tend 
 to aggravate epilepsy and make fits more numerous 
 if not also more violent. 
 
 "The epilepsy which the patient had before was 
 aggravated by the incidence of his military service."" 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 319. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Tuesday, 
 I5th January 1918. 
 
 Chronic Nervous Disease aggravated by Service 
 conditions Condition of Syphilis not to be 
 inferred in absence of recognized tests or other 
 satisfactory evidence. 
 
 In this case the facts set out in the papers were 
 supplemented by letters from the man's doctor, the 
 vicar of his parish, and others who knew him as to his 
 character and his condition before enlistment. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal had the 
 opportunity, not only of examining the man, but of 
 
142 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 having an interview with his wife, who also gave 
 evidence before the Tribunal. 
 
 It did not appear that at any time the Wassermann 
 test was made ; and no record of any was produced. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal gave us 
 their opinion as follows : 
 
 "The Appellant has widespread muscular tremors, 
 scanning speech, exaggerated knee jerks, some ankle 
 clonus, and pupils showing a diminished reaction to 
 light. His mental condition is one of depression, but 
 he has no delusions. At times, he appeared to re- 
 member the answers to questions with difficulty ; but, 
 after an effort, recalled all the incidents of his life 
 about which he was asked. His gait was feeble, but 
 not ataxic. He states that he has at times some 
 difficulty in controlling his bladder and bowel. He 
 attributes these symptoms, so far as he has observed 
 them, to a fall with a ladder on which he was stand- 
 ing on 23rd December 1914. There is some evidence 
 that such a fall took place. 
 
 " His wife has borne to him nine children, of whom 
 six are living, while two have died of heart disease at 
 17 years 5 months, and 21 years, and one of pneumonia 
 at 1 year. His wife has had no still-births and no 
 miscarriages. 
 
 " The Appellant's symptoms would suggest that his 
 disease may be one of the varieties of general paralysis 
 of the insane, if there were conclusive evidence of 
 syphilis ; but this is not presented. He denies having 
 had syphilis, and no Wassermann reaction is recorded : 
 while the evidence given by his wife (which is not 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 143 
 
 mentioned in the papers before us) also tends in a 
 contrary direction. 
 
 " Syphilis ought not to be adopted as a description of 
 his disease till its existence in his medical history has 
 been proved. 
 
 " It has generally been recognized from the experience 
 of the present war, and from some previous experience, 
 that chronic nervous diseases have often been aggra- 
 vated by military service. We are of opinion that 
 such aggravation has taken place in the case of the 
 Applicant. 
 
 " In the absence of full evidence, it might be allowable 
 to suggest that his disease is a variety of widespread 
 sclerosis of the nervous system not due to syphilis." 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE No. 311. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on 
 ipth January 1918. 
 
 Accident by explosion Military Inquiry in Man's 
 absence not evidence against him No decision of 
 his misconduct by Ministry Question of' attri- 
 butability considered on evidence produced. 
 
 In this case the man attested on 8th May 1915 and 
 served until 19th September 1917, when he was dis- 
 charged as medically unfit with very severe injuries 
 which necessitated, among other things, the amputation 
 of the left leg above the knee. His military character 
 
144 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 states : " He is a steady, sober, hard-working man who 
 has performed his duties as a soldier in a satisfactory 
 manner.*" He tells us that he was knocked unconscious 
 by an explosion somewhere near Arras when he was 
 washing dixies. That is the only account he gives of 
 the accident. 
 
 An inquiry appears to have been held on the same 
 day as the accident, at which the man was not present, 
 and therefore the statements in it could not be fairly 
 used against him. But in any case these statements 
 only refer to the question whether the accident is due 
 to the serious negligence or misconduct of the dis- 
 charged man. Inquiry was made whether any re- 
 presentative of the Ministry had given any decision 
 one way or the other on the question of negligence or 
 misconduct, and the Tribunal was informed that as 
 far as was known no such decision had been given. 
 Although there is no written decision of any kind we 
 must assume that, the Appeal having been sent to us, 
 some one has decided that the man's unfitness is not 
 attributable to military service. The Tribunal is 
 unanimously of opinion on the evidence before it that 
 the accident is directly attributable to military service. 
 The Tribunal has not considered, does not decide and 
 expresses no opinion on the question of misconduct or 
 negligence, as the question has been specifically withheld 
 from their jurisdiction. 
 
 NOTE. This case illustrates the inconvenience of 
 the limited jurisdiction of the Appeal Tribunal. The 
 Tribunal could only decide whether the disability was 
 attributable to, or aggravated by, military service or 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 145 
 
 not. It was not permitted to consider any questions 
 of negligence or misconduct. In the Applicant's case, 
 an inquiry had been held in the Army on the 13th 
 July 1916, in which it had been held that the Ap- 
 plicant's injuries were " self-inflicted through negligence." 
 He was not present at this inquiry, and had no oppor- 
 tunity of hearing or cross-examining the witnesses. 
 The Ministry did not find against him that he had 
 been guilty of negligence or misconduct. Obviously 
 they could not act upon the result of an inquiry held 
 in the man's absence. 
 
 In par. 666, King's Regulations, 1912, it is stated 
 that " When the inquiry affects the character or military 
 reputation of an Officer or Soldier, full opportunity 
 must be afforded to the Officer or Soldier of being 
 present throughout the inquiry." This is in accord- 
 ance with the ordinary principles of justice. 
 
 The Ministry could of course have ordered a further 
 and better inquiry, but had not done so. Unless the 
 Ministry proved in the terms of the Royal Warrant 
 that the man's unfitness "was due to (his) serious 
 negligence or misconduct," they were bound to give 
 him a pension. 
 
 CASE No. 340. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 i8th January 1918. 
 
 Disability, Ataxia aggravated by Service conditions 
 Remote Venereal origin of 'disability not sufficient 
 to exclude possibility of aggravation. 
 
 This man joined the service on 14th December 1892. 
 He served continuously until 21st September 1904, 
 10 
 
146 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 when he was discharged upon completion of his engage- 
 ment. He was enrolled in the Royal Fleet Reserve 
 on 22nd September 1904, and called up on 2nd 
 August 1914. He was discharged on 13th October 
 1915 as unfit, owing to locomotor ataxia. From 1904 
 to 1914 he was examined each year and found fit. All 
 this time he was working on a Shipping Line and in 
 good health. He served as a stoker petty officer and 
 underwent considerable hardship incident to active 
 naval service. 
 
 Our Medical Members say that it is clear that the 
 man has locomotor ataxia. The modern view is that 
 all ataxia is of syphilitic origin. He appears to have 
 had a Wassermann test at Chatham. It is not produced, 
 and he does not know the result. He and his wife 
 have had eight children, four of whom died, but there 
 is no history of still-born children. The man probably 
 had the spirochaete in his system, and the last period 
 of service may have aggravated his condition. It is an 
 established fact that ataxia may be aggravated by the 
 exposure of an Alpine expedition. Admiral Fawkes 
 tells us that in the man's service, as described by him, 
 he was undoubtedly exposed to excessive hardships, 
 particularly when he was on the coaling ship and they 
 were coaling destroyers. He would have to come from 
 a warm stokehole on to the deck, and have to sleep 
 under damp conditions. 
 
 The remote origin of his disability is venereal, but 
 that is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of aggra- 
 vation. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 147 
 
 CASE NO. 343. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 i8th January 1918. 
 
 Allegation of Fraudulent Claim not proved Real 
 Disability discovered on Appeal Appeal allowed 
 on real Disability. 
 
 In this case the man served 247 days, and was 
 invalided out for defective vision owing to severe 
 choroiditis. A ruling had beeTi given that the man's 
 claim was fraudulent because he alleged that the 
 condition arose from tetanus. The Tribunal decides 
 that the choroiditis was not attributable to or 
 aggravated by service, but they do not consider that 
 the claim is fraudulent ; on the contrary, they think it 
 very reasonable that an ignorant man having suffered 
 from such a serious disease as tetanus would readily 
 and reasonably come to the conclusion that his present 
 condition was due to the disease he suffered from. 
 
 The matter does not stop here because the man is 
 undoubtedly suffering from a disability which was 
 directly attributable to war service, and which in our 
 opinion the medical authorities at Chelsea should have 
 decided is directly attributable to military service. It 
 appears that on llth March 1915 he fell downstairs 
 and fractured his thumb. An inquiry was held into 
 the matter, and it was decided that it was a serious 
 injury likely to affect efficiency, and that the soldier 
 upon parade was not to blame. It is clear that he now 
 
148 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 has a stiff thumb, and is to that extent permanently 
 disabled. If it is likely to affect his efficiency in the 
 Army it seems reasonable to suppose that it also affects 
 his efficiency in civil life. The Tribunal therefore holds 
 that in the matter of the thumb there is a real dis- 
 ability directly attributable to his military service, and 
 that in relation to that he is entitled to consideration 
 under the Royal Warrant. 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 347. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 25th January 1918. 
 
 Mercantile Ratings not within jurisdiction of Tribunal 
 Effect of the Injuries in War (Compensation) 
 Act, 1914 Suggestions for dealing with such 
 cases. 
 
 This man applied to us in Manchester in October 
 last for advice, and was given an appeal form. He 
 filled this in and sent it to Westminster House. It is 
 admitted that it was a naval appeal, and should as 
 such have been notified to the Tribunal. On 22nd 
 November 1917 it was first notified to the Tribunal as 
 " man is appealing for a special Campaign Pension and 
 case is in hand at Chelsea." 
 
 No communication was made to the Applicant as to 
 what had been done in his case. 
 
 In January, on our second visit to Manchester, the 
 Applicant again asked our assistance. It seemed clear 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 149 
 
 that if he was a seaman he was entitled to an appeal 
 under the Order in Council. 
 
 On 18th January 1918 we heard his evidence. He 
 states that he joined H.M.S. C at Hull as a fire- 
 man in October 1914 at =7 10s. a month. He was on 
 active service. At the end of four months he left the 
 service, having signed on for that time. He complains 
 that the wet coming into his berth gave him bronchitis. 
 When he left the ship he had to go to hospital, and 
 has never been to sea since, although before the war 
 he was actively engaged in mercantile service. If his 
 story is true, and he were a seaman within the terms 
 of the Order in Council, there seems every reason to 
 believe that we should decide that his disability was 
 attributable to or aggravated by naval service during 
 the present war. 
 
 On 24th January 1918 his case was further con- 
 sidered in London, when a Ministerial representative 
 attended the Tribunal and said that the case did not 
 come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the 
 following reasons: The Applicant was a "mercantile 
 rating," and entered the service under a special form of 
 agreement as a mercantile seaman at mercantile rates 
 of pay. He was probably entitled under the Injuries 
 in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, to pension or 
 allowance. Section 1 of this Act states that an Order 
 in Council may be framed to carry out a scheme for 
 this purpose, and we understand from the Ministerial 
 representative that the man's right course is to apply 
 to the Admiralty. Under these circumstances it seems 
 clear to us, and we unanimously decide that the 
 
ISO WAR PENSIONS 
 
 Applicant's case does not come within our terms of 
 reference. The case, however, is one where a man who 
 has fought for his country has been disabled ; and we 
 suggest that the following matters should be further 
 considered : 
 
 1. Whether a man who makes a mistaken claim 
 
 to the wrong department should not be 
 informed which is the right department. 
 
 2. Whether it cannot be arranged that men 
 
 having claim to pension under the Injuries 
 in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, could 
 have access to Local Pension Committees 
 and this Tribunal. 
 
 3. Whether there are any other similar authorities 
 
 having pension jurisdiction, and whether 
 this Tribunal and the Local Pension Com- 
 mittees could be informed of these, so as to 
 direct applicants to the proper authority to 
 consider their claims. 
 
 NOTE. We understand that these suggestions have 
 been taken into consideration. 
 
 CASE NO. 415, IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 8th February 1918. 
 
 Serious Disease attributable to short Service. 
 
 The Applicant joined the Militia in 1908. He was 
 in training when war was declared, having been called 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 151 
 
 out on 18th July 1914, when he was medically 
 
 examined. He trained at Y and marched to 
 
 A , and on the date of mobilization it seems clear 
 
 that he was in good health. The Medical Members of 
 the Tribunal report to us that at the present time the 
 Applicant has valvular disease of the heart affecting 
 both the aortic and the mitral valves. 
 
 About a week after the war began he spent, during 
 military exercises, a wet night in a field. He got 
 thoroughly wet. Two days later, or thereabouts, he 
 had severe rheumatic pains and was sent to the 
 Military Hospital. He was not detained there and 
 was discharged. He has since had similar pains from 
 time to time. This illness was an attack of rheumatic 
 fever ; the valvular disease probably originated in it. 
 
 He has no chronic arthritic changes. 
 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 500. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Decision of the Tribunal, delivered on Friday, 
 ist March 1918. 
 
 Allegation of' Malingering made on Army Form B 
 178 Probable adverse effect on Man's treat- 
 ment Absence of Medical History Sheets 
 Importance of Early Investigation Real Facts 
 of Case recorded Medical condition of Appli- 
 cant Exophthalmic Goitre group Rheumatic 
 Fever Disability caused during short Service. 
 
 This man attested on 12th December 1915. He 
 was not then medically examined. He was mobilized 
 
152 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 on 8th April 1916. The recruiting Medical Officer 
 evidently formed a bad opinion of the man. 
 
 In the column where this official is directed to set 
 out "Marks indicating congenital peculiarities or 
 previous disease" he set down the following state- 
 ments : " Malingering ; swore he couldn't read 6/60 but 
 under pressure read 6/6 ; complains of pain in right leg, 
 but nothing can be found to account for it." 
 
 This original statement in A.F.B. 178, of which the 
 man would have no knowledge, and which accompanies 
 his Army papers for all time, may have had an 
 adverse effect on his ultimate treatment. 
 
 He was passed Class 1 and joined his regiment. 
 The next military document is a note by a Lieutenant 
 of the R.A.M.C. of 12th April 1916, as follows: "Re 
 
 Pte. . I marked him <E' yesterday before I 
 
 obtained class in which he had been recruited to ; I must 
 reclassify him to 4 A,' and in the event of inability to 
 perform duties I would bring him before the Inspector 
 of Recruits. At the recruiting office he was considered 
 a malingerer." 
 
 If this Officer had followed his own opinion and had 
 had the power to have returned the man to civil life 
 at this stage, there seems every probability that no 
 question of pension would have arisen. 
 
 Although no Hospital Sheets are available there 
 seems no reason to doubt that on 19th April 1916 
 he was admitted to hospital. The next Army 
 document is A.F.B. 204, dated 28th April 1916, 
 signed by a Lieut.-Col. R.A.M.C. (T.), and confirmed 
 by the Lieut.-Col. of the Battalion. This document 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 153 
 
 contains the following statements about the man's 
 condition : 
 
 " 1. Recurrent attacks of general rheumatism with 
 
 wasting of left leg. 
 "2. General debility. 
 "3. Is unfit for military service. 
 " 4. Disability was not caused by military service."" 
 
 The man had been under observation in hospital 
 since 19th April 1916, and it is important that no 
 suggestion is now made that he is a malingerer. He 
 is reported to have been discharged from hospital, 
 10th June 1916, to his home, pending discharge from 
 the service. 
 
 He was discharged from the service on 17th June 
 1916. 
 
 His military character is good. 
 
 Early in 1917 he appears to have tried to bring his 
 case before the Ministry of Pensions and was ordered 
 to attend a Medical Board. An Hon. Sec. S.S.F.A. 
 interested herself in the case, and on 7th March 
 1917 writes to the Ministry about his attendance at 
 the Medical Board, and states that he "is quite 
 unable to walk the distance from the station to the 
 Board's Office." 
 
 On 30th March 1917 he attended the Medical 
 Board, who reported on A.F.B. 179 that he was under 
 no disability and not incapacitated, or at all events 
 they did not fill up the spaces in the form referring to 
 these matters, and their silence has been so interpreted 
 in the precis before us. 
 
 It is regrettable that the Medical Board did not 
 
154 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 seek to obtain the original Hospital Records which at 
 that date may have been available. Although A.F.B. 
 179 states no disability it also states that the origin of 
 the disability was " from childhood " and " in civil 
 life." Upon these documents it has been decided that 
 the man is not pensionable, and from that decision 
 he appeals. 
 
 On 18th October 1917 the Applicant filled in his 
 appeal form, and on 89th December 1917 the appeal 
 was notified to the Tribunal as ready for hearing. 
 
 The real story of the case seems to be as follows : 
 The Applicant was born in 1890 and has worked at a 
 Spinning Company for the last eleven years. He was 
 married in 1911 and has one child, born in 1912. Up 
 to 18th December 1915, when he attested, he was in 
 full work as a blanket material blender, regular in 
 attendance, and had good health, and bore a good 
 character. 
 
 This is borne out by his own statement, and is 
 corroborated by a letter from the Spinning Company, 
 a statement by the Hon. Sec. of the S.S.F.A., and the 
 production of his Insurance book. 
 
 It is officially reported by his C.O. under date 
 
 3rd March 1917 that he was in hospital at from 
 
 19th April 1916 to 10th June 1916, and the man 
 states that he was returned home in an ambulance. 
 The Local War Pensions Committee seems to have 
 assisted him from time to time, and there is evidence 
 of his doctor and his employer that he is not fit for the 
 work he could do formerly. 
 
 The Medical Members of the Tribunal who 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 155 
 
 examined him state that he is an example of the 
 exophthalmic goitre group, of which we have seen 
 several cases. He has very rapid, irregular action of 
 the heart and probably some affection of the mitral 
 and aortic valves. There are tremors of the hands. 
 His eyelids do not follow his eyeballs. He seems to 
 have had rheumatic fever whilst in the Army. His 
 whole condition would be aggravated by service, and 
 the rheumatic fever seems to have been acquired in 
 service. 
 
 With regard to the suggestion that he was a 
 malingerer the Medical Members were satisfied that he 
 was not. They explained that to this type of man, 
 nervous, shy, and of poor education, the eye test of 
 reading letters on a screen which he described to us 
 would be a matter of some difficulty. The Tribunal 
 were impressed by the fact that the man made no 
 endeavour to exaggerate his case or complain of 
 unusual hardships. 
 
 The decision has been written at length for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 1. It seems fair to the man that we should state 
 
 that in our opinion there is no truth in the 
 suggestion that he is or has been malingering. 
 
 2. The case is typical of many cases which have 
 
 never been investigated at first instance and 
 which we understand will in future be investi- 
 gated and reported upon by Local Committees 
 before they come to the Appeal Tribunal, 
 and illustrates the importance of such investi- 
 gation being made at the earliest moment. 
 
WAR PENSIONS 
 
 3. Attention should be drawn to the advisability 
 
 of applying for the Hospital Records directly 
 the case is put forward. If these records 
 had been asked for in February 1917 when 
 the case was first before the Ministry they 
 might have been available. 
 
 4. An idea seems to be prevalent that the mere 
 
 fact that a man breaks down in health after 
 a short service disqualifies him for a pension. 
 As the Medical Members explained to us, if 
 a man got rheumatic fever by one day's ser- 
 vice his heart might be seriously damaged for 
 life. Each case must be dealt with on its 
 merits, but the mere fact of service being 
 short is irrelevant if the medical and other 
 evidence clearly points to the man's condition 
 being aggravated by service. To save un- 
 necessary appeals, this point should be made 
 clear to the Local Pensions Committees. 
 The Appeal was allowed. 
 
 CASE NO. 736. IN THE MATTER OF AN 
 APPLICANT. 
 
 Doubt benefit of. 
 
 The special facts of this case necessitated a long and 
 detailed discussion of the effect of the evidence, which 
 is not of public interest. The following passage 
 explaining the principle upon which the appeal was 
 allowed is quoted from the decision of the Tribunal: 
 
 "The Pension Minister, as sole interpreter of the 
 
DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL 157 
 
 Warrant, has expressed the opinion in which we have 
 always concurred, that, where there is a real doubt, the 
 benefit should be given in favour of the man, and this 
 principle was expressly approved by the Select Commit- 
 tee on National Expenditure, Second Report, 1918, 
 par. 8." 
 
 NOTE. The actual ruling of the Minister of 
 Pensions on this subject as stated on 20th February 
 1918 is in these words : " Where a man is discharged 
 in consequence of medical unfitness for further service 
 it shall be presumed that the cause of his unfitness was 
 due to service unless (a) there is good evidence to the 
 contrary, or (b) that such unfitness was due to his own 
 serious negligence or misconduct. 1 ' l 
 
 The Tribunal constantly applied this ruling, which 
 is in every way consonant with the established principles 
 of English justice. There is no doubt that if it was 
 better understood and universally followed by the 
 various adjudicating authorities in War Pensions 
 matters greater satisfaction would be given to ap- 
 plicants, and a large number of appeals would be 
 unnecessary. 
 
 1 Select Committee on National Expenditure, Second Report, 1918, 
 pars. 8 and 9. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 
 
 " We have seen the alacrity with which the American-born populace, 
 the peaceablest and most good-natured race in the world, and the most 
 personally independent and intelligent, and the least fitted to submit to 
 the irksomeness and exasperation of regimental discipline, sprang, at 
 the first tap of the drum, to arms, not for gain, nor even glory, nor to 
 repel invasion but for an emblem, a mere abstraction for the life, 
 the safety of the flag." WALT WHITMAN, Democratic Vistas. 
 
 HISTORY repeats itself, and once again America 
 is playing her part, this time side by side with 
 ourselves in the world drama. In every department of 
 life we are striving to set aside our national exclusive- 
 ness and beginning to take notice of the way in which 
 our American cousins manage affairs, in the sensible 
 hope that we may be the learners and gainers. America 
 has had a hundred years' experience of pension ad- 
 ministration, and it would be a very stiff-necked depart - 
 mentalist who, having the charge of our own system, 
 would not look round to see what had been going on 
 in the same business in the United States. 
 
 The American War ideal tallies with our own ideal 
 and is expressed once for all in Abraham Lincoln \ 
 memorable words : " With malice towards none ; with 
 
 charity for all ; with firmness in the right, as God gives 
 
 158 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 159 
 
 us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work 
 we are in ; to bind up the nation's wounds ; to care for 
 him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow 
 and his orphan to do all which may achieve and 
 cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and 
 with all nations.*" l It is a supreme truth that care of 
 the disabled and the widows and orphans of the War 
 is a sacred trust and duty, and upon that all are 
 agreed. 
 
 The intentions and ideals of all nations during war 
 in relation to pensions are probably very similar ; it is 
 when we come to deal with the machinery for trans- 
 lating them into the facts of life that we recognize 
 the difficulties to be overcome. On the threshold of 
 enormous schemes for spending money, which we desire 
 should be carried out wisely, generously and justly, 
 we have the privilege of studying similar efforts of a 
 democracy of our own race. 
 
 The United States Pension system commences with 
 a resolution of Congress dated 26th August 1776, by 
 which the Continental Congress undertook to provide 
 for disabled soldiers of the Revolution. 2 The first 
 general Pension Law for the benefit of the soldiers of 
 the Revolutionary War was enacted in 1818, thirty-five 
 years after the declaration of peace with Great Britain. 
 It was restricted to men who could show nine months' 
 service and who were in indigent circumstances. It is 
 curious how, in nearly every pension system we have 
 
 1 "Second Inaugural Address," 4th March 1865, Works of Abraham 
 Lincoln, vol. ii. p. 656. 
 
 2 Encyclopedia Americana , vol. iv. p. 167. 
 
160 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 studied, there appears within a few years of its institu- 
 tion an economical reaction against carrying out its 
 promises. In 1820, " only two years later, Congress 
 repented of its liberality, and the number of applica- 
 tions for pensions having reached the enormous total 
 of 8000, that body passed what was known as the 
 ' Alarm Act,' under which pensioners were dropped, 
 and the applications of others rejected." 1 
 
 It would not be possible to set down in detail the 
 various general and special enactments relating to 
 pensions and gratuities and the grants of bounty land 
 which have been administered from time to time by 
 the American Pension Authorities before the passing of 
 the Dependent Pension Law 2 in 1890, which based 
 war pensions not only on invaliding but on a service of 
 ninety days and present inability to earn a support by 
 manual labour, and provided for pensions for widows, 
 children and dependants. The United States had 
 nothing akin to our Civil List and did not recognize 
 long service as a ground for pension. Generally speak- 
 ing, their pensions are purely War Pensions granted 
 only for active service in times of war and the bene- 
 ficiaries are survivors or their widows and children. 
 These War Pensions, or invalid pensions, are given, as 
 with ourselves, for total or partial disablement from 
 wounds or disease contracted in the military or naval 
 service, and to widows, children and dependants in 
 certain cases. In 1902 there were 372,268 pensioners 
 
 1 S. N. Clark, "Some Weak Places in our Pension System," The 
 Forum, November 1890, vol. xxvi. p. 306. 
 
 2 Fifty-first Congress, Session I. c. 634. 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 161 
 
 on the roll on account of service in the Civil War, and, 
 under the Act of 1890, 597,319 pensioners. 1 
 
 When we read these figures it should bring home to 
 us the importance of building our own pension system 
 on sure foundations, and our rulers and governors 
 should not grudge a little clear-thinking and applied 
 foresight to pension matters. The two last surviving 
 revolutionary soldiers who were allowed pensions under 
 the general laws were William Hutchings of Hancock, 
 Co. Me., who died 3rd May 1866, aged 102 years, and 
 Samuel Denring of Saratoga, Co. N.Y., who died 18th 
 February 1867, aged 101 years. On 30th June 1888 
 there were still 37 widows of soldiers of the Revolu- 
 tionary War drawing pensions. Assuming that our 
 children and grandchildren honour our promises to 
 our men in the same way as the citizens of the United 
 States did to the soldiers of the Revolution, we must 
 look forward to a Pension Ministry in the year of our 
 Lord 2000, administering Pension Laws which we en- 
 act to-day. It is a responsibility which should make 
 for the exercise of clarity arid common sense by the 
 authorities of the present day. 
 
 In the early days of pensions they were undoubtedly 
 regarded as matters of legal right. Thus, in 1825, 
 an opinion of an Attorney- General is quoted that a 
 pension " is a vested right." 2 The Secretary of the 
 Interior laid down the law in these terms : " The 
 Invalid Pension Acts promising a pension for future 
 
 1 Chambers's Encyclopedia, 1904, vol. viii. p. 35. 
 
 2 Harmon, A Manual of the Pension Laws of the United States of 
 America^ Washington, 1867, p. 182. 
 
 II 
 
1 62 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 service amount to a contract on the part of the Govern- 
 ment and vest an absolute right in the party whenever 
 the disability shall occur. If therefore he has completed 
 his proof and thus become entitled but dies before 
 the certificate issues, his representatives may claim 
 arrears." x 
 
 In later years, however, Secretaries of the Interior 
 are said to have held the view that a pension is a 
 gratuity and not part of a contract for services rendered. 2 
 If it were held to be a contract Congress could not by 
 legislation terminate a right existing under former 
 pension laws, but the question does not, as far as we 
 have been able to discover, seem to have come before 
 the United States Supreme Court, the reason being, no 
 doubt, that whatever the true legal aspect of the case 
 may be, the United States Pension Authorities have 
 never sought to escape from any liability imposed 
 upon them by the pension legislation of former genera- 
 tions. 
 
 As early as 1849 the United States possessed a unified 
 administration in the shape of a Pension Office, which 
 in that year became a Bureau of the then newly- 
 created Department of the Interior, and the pension 
 administration to-day is governed by this Bureau, which 
 is still a branch of the Ministry of the Interior. As 
 compared with our past history of amateur administra- 
 tion and voluntary charitable effort, the United States 
 
 1 Harmon, A Manual of the Pension Laws of the United States of 
 America, Washington, 1867, "Case of Abigail McKurdly," p. 182. 
 
 2 Encyclopedia Americana, 1889, vol. iv. p. 1 66, sub. tit. " Pension 
 System of United States." 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 163 
 
 from the first placed their pension administration in 
 the hands of a Commissioner, under whom there were 
 several Boards of legal and medical reviewers, special 
 examiners and accountants, such as we are seeking to 
 constitute to-day. In the general machinery of pension 
 administration the United States are, of course, years 
 ahead of anything we have even thought about as yet, 
 but one advantage of coming late into the field is that 
 we have been able to broaden the basis on which 
 pensions have been granted, and we have been the first 
 to institute Local War Pensions Committees, demo- 
 cratic experiments the progress of which English 
 citizens will do well to guard jealously and United 
 States citizens will doubtless watch with intelligent 
 curiosity. 
 
 In 1867 Mr. Henry C. Harmon published a valuable 
 and well-edited treatise on American Pension Law. 1 
 It consists of a business collection of statutes, decisions 
 and practice rules of the American War Pension Laws. 
 Since that date it has, of course, been superseded by 
 modern official volumes detailing the law and practices 
 of pensions and reporting the official decisions. Mr. 
 Harmon claims that the American pension system is so 
 simple and natural that any one of ordinary intelligence 
 can understand what is necessary in the prosecution of 
 any just claim against the Government for pension or 
 bounty. No man, he thought, needed the intervention 
 of any intermediate party to obtain a pension who has 
 common intelligence and an honest claim. 
 
 1 Henry C. Harmon, A Manual of the Pension Laws of the United 
 States of America^ Washington, 1867. 
 
1 64 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 The steps necessary to put forward a pension case 
 were : The declaration of the applicant, made before a 
 Court of Record and supported by two witnesses ; the 
 certificate of two surgeons as to the injury received or 
 disease contracted, and the certificate of some com- 
 missioned officer having knowledge of the circumstances 
 of the case. 
 
 At this period there had been too much laxity in 
 filling up pension papers, and some claimants and their 
 attorneys had by their misconduct injured the position 
 of honest applicants, and the practice now introduced 
 of making the claims before a Court of Record was 
 regarded with approval. Pension agents in those days 
 had a very ill name throughout the States, and Mr. 
 Harmon expresses the hope that his book may assist 
 to " put them on the road where they will have to earn 
 some portion of their bread by honest toil, where 
 honest men will not be insulted by their presence, nor 
 public virtue further interfered with by their running 
 at large." 1 
 
 This trouble with pension claims agents has un- 
 doubtedly been a great blot on the American adminis- 
 tration. If you have to deal with a system which is 
 allowed to grow highly technical, and grants are refused 
 for legal or departmental reasons not understood of 
 the people, you are bound to encourage some class of 
 attorney. This is indeed necessary to the poor man 
 who wants what he believes are his rights and meets 
 with difficulties in obtaining them. If our system of 
 
 1 Harmon, A Manual of the Pension Laws of the United States of 
 America, Washington, 1867. 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 165 
 
 Local War Pensions Committees continues and is the 
 success it may well be, if the Central Authority encour- 
 ages its growth and adds to its powers and duties, 
 there is no reason why pension claims agents need ever 
 arise in this country ; but if we proceed in future to 
 a highly centralized official administration, attorneys 
 will be as necessary in pension affairs as they are in 
 legal affairs, if justice is to be done. Although 
 some American pension claims agents were " shysters " 
 and fraudulent persons, many of them were honest, 
 high-minded, patriotic men. 1 It really entirely 
 rests with our administrators whether they can 
 make a system, prompt, certain, simple and sym- 
 pathetically worked ; for if not, of necessity, agen- 
 cies will arise to combat and overcome the official 
 obstacles that stand between the applicant and his 
 pension. 
 
 The right to a pension in the United States has 
 from the first turned on the phrase "line of duty." 
 Any one disabled in the line of duty by wounds or 
 disease has a right to a pension. This state of the law 
 is somewhat similar to our own attitude towards 
 pensions before this War, but the words being legally 
 defined and construed tend to make cases easier of 
 adjudication. The pension authorities cannot, as we 
 can, give a pension to a person whose condition has 
 been merely "aggravated" by conditions of service. 
 " A soldier discharged on account of a disease under 
 which he was labouring when he enlisted is not entitled 
 
 1 " Some Weak Places in our Pension System," S. N. Clark, Th$ 
 November 1898, vol. xxvi. p. 318, 
 
1 66 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 to a pension. " l Still there are, of course, many cases 
 where the aggravation arose in the line of duty, and 
 there an applicant succeeds. 
 
 " In line of duty " is a technical phrase, and is the 
 basis of the American Pension system. 2 The words 
 are construed by the Pension Courts on lines analogous 
 to the decisions in our own Courts in the familiar 
 phrase, " arising out of and in the course of their 
 employment," which has given rise to so much legal 
 controversy in the discussion of cases under the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act. The American Pension 
 Reports are full of interesting points. Thus, a man is 
 not " in line of duty " when he has gone home to vote 
 or while on furlough, unless it is sick furlough, or 
 when foraging on his own account, or if his injury is 
 due to negligence or misconduct. A man who is 
 injured by a surgical mistake, or one who dies from eat- 
 ing green apples in service, is held to be " in line of 
 duty." When the cause of death is unknown the 
 dependants are given the benefit of the doubt. 3 
 
 From this it will be seen that in America pensions 
 are not dependent on the hazard of departmental 
 action. They are not granted or withheld by this 
 clerk or that clerk as he deems fit, but have to be 
 brought within certain definite categories by a judicial 
 authority. The fact that a man has certain well- 
 
 1 Harmon, A Manual of the Pension Laws of the United States of 
 America^ Washington, 1867, p. 185. 
 
 2 Treatise on the Practice of the Pension Bureau, 1898, p. II. 
 
 8 Cases cited in Digest of Pensions and Opinions relating to Pensions^ 
 Washington, 1897, sub-title, "Line of Duty." 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 167 
 
 defined rights, and these are ascertained in accordance 
 with regulated procedure by trained authorities from 
 whom there are definite rights of appeal, gives much 
 public satisfaction and leaves no legitimate grievance 
 in the minds of those whose claims are denied as not 
 being within the terms of the law. 
 
 The Washington Pension Office is not only big but 
 business-like. The building was erected in 1885 at a 
 cost of 900,000 dollars; it covers nearly ten acres, 
 measures 400 by 200 feet, and is 150 feet high ; it has 
 a floor area of 188,258 square feet, and is divided into 
 175 rooms, courts and galleries. It is said to be the 
 largest brick building in the world, and houses a staff 
 of 1200 officials. 
 
 That, comparatively speaking, so small a staff can 
 deal with such a mass of detailed work is due entirely 
 to the business organization of the office, and especially 
 to its thorough system of indexing. A pension office 
 that neglects indexing is bound to disappoint its clients 
 by delay and confusion in dealing with claims and 
 leaving inquiries unanswered. 
 
 The United States long ago did away with the 
 possibility of delays and neglect in dealing with the 
 affairs of applicants, and promptness and efficiency 
 were made possible by an ingenious system of card 
 records which is fully described in an official report. 
 
 In 1916 the American Bureau of Pensions recognized 
 that their card records had grown to such proportions 
 and served such important and different purposes that 
 it was in the public interest to publish an account of 
 them. They form a complete index to vast and varied 
 
1 68 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 information, and are a model of what thought and 
 industry can accomplish in this direction. Before our 
 own country had attained to a Ministry of Pensions 
 this system was not only working, but the book explain- 
 ing it in detail was in existence. 1 What our system of 
 record may be is not known, but its inefficiency has 
 been the constant theme of complaint. There could, 
 we should think, be little difficulty in an office manager 
 adapting the American system to our own needs. 
 
 The system is based on a numerical arrangement by 
 series. All claims are filed in numerical order according 
 to serial number. The number of the claim, the name 
 of the soldier or sailor, and the designation of his 
 service are the three essentials by which to identify a 
 paper that may be filed in support of a claim. There 
 are, therefore, three card index records : Alphabetical, 
 Numerical, and Service Records, each complete in itself 
 as to its particular function. 
 
 The Alphabetical Record contains details of the case 
 and is the legal record of the Bureau. Where a name 
 only is given in a letter about a case, it supplies at once 
 the missing dates necessary to trace the details of 
 number and service and to find the case in the 
 files. 
 
 The Numerical Records, which have reached 1,423,905, 
 contain the name and service of every soldier of the 
 several wars who has been the subject-matter of a 
 pension claim, and details of dependants. 
 
 The Service Record consists of cards based on service, 
 
 1 Card Records in use in the Bureau of Pensions ', 1916, Washington, 
 1916, 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 169 
 
 and are the index to the man's service career; the 
 number of every certificate issued in his service and 
 other service details are here recorded. 
 
 All these records by means of cross-references and 
 guides are really parts of one index, and used together 
 enable any letter or inquiry about any case to be 
 promptly and accurately dealt with. 
 
 There are also card records in use in Medical 
 Divisions, indexing the various medical examinations, 
 and another set of Records in the Law Division, and 
 several smaller records of minor matters. 
 
 The files or dossiers of each man's papers are dealt 
 with by a Clearance Section, and an elaborate system 
 is maintained by which at any moment the particular 
 department where the man's papers may be at the time 
 is registered ; furthermore, on each file there is a record 
 on the outside of every step taken in the case. These 
 files, of which there are now over 2,000,000, are kept 
 in numbers of 40-80 in steel file boxes, which are very 
 easily handled and keep the papers clean and tidy. In 
 the Annual Report of his work the Commissioner of 
 Pensions takes pride in telling the general public these 
 domestic details of his office management. 1 The 
 distress and misery caused by loss of papers and 
 consequent delays to applicants, who are daily awaiting 
 the results of claims, make a system of this kind 
 absolutely essential to proper pension administration. 
 When we read how cleverly all these difficulties have 
 been thought out and mastered in Washington, we do 
 
 1 Report of the Commissioner of Pensions to the Secretary of the 
 Interior , Washington, 1915, p. 7 
 
1 70 WAR PENSIONS 
 
 not despair that some day we shall be able to put our 
 own house in order. 
 
 For many years the work of the Bureau has been 
 assigned to different departments, each dealing with a 
 special branch of the business. A claim sent in goes 
 quickly and automatically to its appropriate branch. 
 It is received by the Mail Division and classified by 
 the Law Division for there are different laws relating 
 to different wars then it goes to the Record Division, 
 where it is recorded, numbered, jacketed and forwarded 
 to the Adjudicating Division. The man is at once 
 told his official number, which is the keynote to his 
 papers, and the Record Division enters his case on the 
 card indexes. Arrived in the Adjudicating Division 
 of Army or Navy, as the case may be, the preparation 
 of the medical and other evidence necessary to support 
 the claim proceeds, and as soon as that is ready the 
 case with all the affidavits and depositions goes on to 
 the Board of Review, which is charged with the 
 determination of the merits of the application. Two 
 expert reviewers consider each case, acting separately in 
 the first instance ; and if they do not agree, the Chief of 
 the Board is called in. From him there is an appeal 
 to the Commissioner, and from him there is a final 
 appeal to the Minister of the Interior. When the 
 matter is judicially determined in the applicant's favour 
 he receives a certificate of title setting forth the rate 
 at which he is to be paid. 1 
 
 The declaration of a claimant is made on oath and 
 before a Court of Record ; witnesses are compellable 
 1 United States Pension Souvenir^ 1915. 
 
THE AMERICAN PENSION SYSTEM 171 
 
 to give evidence, and a subpoena can be issued at the 
 request of the heads of any of the departments. A 
 witness is allowed his expenses. The attorney or agent 
 who prepares the case for the claimant is allowed his 
 expenses, which are now fixed on a strictly limited scale. 
 Ultimately, a file is made of all the Army or Navy 
 papers necessary to the case which are demanded by 
 and supplied to the Pensions Bureau ; to these are 
 added the affidavits or depositions of the man and his 
 witnesses, and certificates of doctors. It is upon this 
 collection of evidence that the case goes for trial. 
 
 In the case of an appeal from the Bureau to the 
 Secretary of the Interior, the appellant makes a special 
 assignment of the alleged mistake, or error of law, or 
 fact in the adjudication of his claim, but does not file 
 new evidence. 
 
 It will be seen that the system, though definite, is 
 narrower than ours, and the procedure, though eminently 
 businesslike, lacks that element of human sympathy 
 that we hope to supply through our Local War 
 Pensions Committees. There is no doubt that in 
 matters of administration Westminster can learn much 
 from Washington, for in pension matters sympathy 
 without business is like the Good Samaritan without 
 the oil or the two pence. 
 
APPENDIX 
 I. 
 
 SECTIONS 10 AND 11 OF 7 GEO. IV. c. 16: AN ACT 
 
 TO CONSOLIDATE AND AMEND SEVERAL ACTS 
 RELATING TO THE ROYAL HOSPITALS FOR SOLDIERS 
 AT CHELSEA AND KILMAINHAM. 
 
 Soldiers entitled to Pension to have the Benefit of the 
 
 Regulations and Orders in force at the Time of 
 
 their Enlistment, except in certain Cases. 
 
 X. And be it further enacted, That every Soldier 
 who shall from and after the passing of this Act 
 become entitled to his Discharge by reason of the 
 Expiration of any Period of Service fixed in any Orders 
 and Regulations made by His Majesty in that Behalf, 
 or shall have been discharged by reason of being an 
 Invalid, or disabled, or having been wounded, shall 
 thereupon be entitled (except in the Cases hereinafter 
 mentioned of Admission into either of the said 
 Hospitals at Chelsea or Kilmainham, or Expulsion 
 therefrom) to receive such Pension, Allowance, or 
 Relief, as shall have been fixed in any Orders or Regula- 
 tions by His Majesty, in relation to such Cases respec- 
 tively, and in force at the Time of his Enlistment, and 
 
 for the Payment whereof Money shall have been voted 
 
 173 
 
174 APPENDIX 
 
 by Parliament ; and every such Soldier shall receive 
 the same under the Provisions of this Act, or any 
 Rules or Regulations made in pursuance thereof, by 
 the said Commissioners of the said Hospital at Chelsea, 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 Regulations to be annually laid before Parliament. 
 
 XL Provided always, and be it further enacted, 
 That all Orders and Regulations from Time to Time 
 made by His Majesty, in relation to the Discharge of 
 Soldiers after the Expiration of any Periods of Service, 
 and also in relation to any Pension, Allowance, or 
 Relief, to any discharged or invalid, disabled, or 
 wounded Soldiers, shall annually be laid before Parlia- 
 ment ; and that Estimates of the Amount of all such 
 Pensions, Allowances, and Relief, arid of all contingent 
 Expences and Charges relating to the Payment, Con- 
 troul, and Management thereof, shall also be annually 
 laid before Parliament. 
 
 II. 
 
 SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4 OF 6 & 7 GEO. V. c. 65 : 
 THE MINISTRY OF PENSIONS ACT, 1916. 
 
 Duties and powers of Minister of Pensions. 
 
 II. (1) There shall be transferred to the Minister of 
 Pensions 
 
 (a) The powers and duties of the Admiralty \\ith 
 respect to pensions and grants to persons 
 who have served as officers or men, and to 
 
APPENDIX 175 
 
 their widows, children, and other depend- 
 ants, and to persons who have been em- 
 ployed in the nursing service of any of 
 His Majesty's naval forces, other than 
 service pensions, so far as such pensions 
 and grants are payable out of moneys pro- 
 vided by Parliament, and not provided 
 exclusively for the purpose of Greenwich 
 Hospital ; 
 
 (6) the powers and duties of the Commissioners of 
 the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea 
 with respect to the grant and administra- 
 tion of disability pensions and grants, other 
 than in-pensions ; 
 
 (c) the powers and duties of the Army Council 
 and the Secretary of State for the War 
 Department with respect to pensions and 
 grants to persons who have served as officers 
 or soldiers, and to their widows, children, 
 and other dependants, and to persons who 
 have been employed in the nursing service 
 of any of His Majesty's military forces, 
 other than service pensions ; 
 
 and His Majesty may by Order in Council make such 
 adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers 
 and duties as aforesaid as may be necessary to make 
 exerciseable by the Minister and his officers the powers 
 and duties of the several authorities above mentioned 
 and their officers, and may fix the time or times as 
 from which the several powers and duties are to be 
 transferred to the Minister. 
 
176 APPENDIX 
 
 (2) The Minister of Pensions shall in each year 
 prepare and lay before Parliament a report of the 
 proceedings of the Ministry. 
 
 Relations with Statutory Committee (5 & 6 
 Geo. V. c. 83). 
 
 III. The powers and duties of the Statutory Com- 
 mittee under the Naval and Military War Pensions, 
 etc. Act, 1915, shall be exercised and performed by 
 that Committee under the control of, and in accord- 
 ance with, the instructions of the Minister of Pensions, 
 and the Statutory Committee shall render to the 
 Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of 
 any matter on which such advice and assistance is 
 requested by the Minister. 
 
 Functions of Local Committees. 
 
 IV. The local committees constituted under the 
 Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. Act, 1915, 
 shall, at the instance of the Minister of Pensions, 
 exercise, with respect to pensions and grants adminis- 
 tered by that Minister, all such functions as to inquir- 
 ing, reporting, collecting, and furnishing information, 
 making recommendations and distributing grants as by 
 the said Act are exerciseable by those committees at 
 the instance of the Statutory Committee. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abingdon St., No. 22, 87, 
 Accident complicated by existing 
 
 disease, 123. 
 Acromegaly, aggravated by 
 
 service, 120. 
 
 "Alarm Act," U.S.A., 160. 
 Alma, battle of, 31. 
 American Pension System, 158- 
 
 171. 
 
 Appeal Tribunal Section, 83. 
 Army Form B. 179, effect of, 95- 
 
 99, 102, 103, 104, 109, 1 10, 
 
 113-120, 125, 153. 
 Asthma, 108 ; aggravation of, 
 
 122. 
 
 Ataxia, aggravated by service, 145. 
 Auditor-General, powers of, 66- 
 70. 
 
 Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., M.P., 46. 
 Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N., M.P., 
 
 64, 76. 
 Bellamy, Albert, C.B.E., 74, 86, 
 
 88. 
 Board of Pensions Bill, 1916, 56- 
 
 60. 
 Bronchitis, 107. 
 
 Card Index of Washington Pension 
 
 Office, 167-169. 
 Cartilage, loose, 124. 
 12 
 
 Chelmsford, Lord, 47. 
 
 Chelsea Hospital, 11-13, 18-29, 
 
 81. 
 Childers, Rt. Hon. H. C. E., 
 
 M.P., 40. 
 Codrington, Lt.-Gen. Sir Alfred, 
 
 74, 86, 88. 
 
 Collins, Lord Justice Henn, 46. 
 Crimea, 31. 
 Cromwellian Pensions, 7-10. 
 
 Daily Mail Fund, 46. 
 Daily Telegraph Fund, 46. 
 Doubt, benefit of, 156. 
 
 Elizabethan Pensions, 2-7. 
 Epilepsy, and service conditions, 
 
 140. 
 
 Evelyn, John, 12, 15. 
 Evidence ; value of applicant's 
 
 statement, 102-105, 112-120. 
 Exchequer and Audit Department, 
 
 powers of, 68. 
 Exophthalmic goitre, 151. 
 
 Fawkes, Admiral Sir Wilmot, 74, 
 
 88. 
 Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes, 
 
 M.P., 51, 52, 56, 58, 59. 
 Forster, Mr. H. W., M.P., 
 
 5 8. 
 
178 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Fraud, charge of, not proved, 
 147. 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd, 
 
 M.P., 52. 
 Goitre, 151. 
 
 Gonorrhoeal conjunctivitis, 126. 
 Greenwich Hospital, 13-16. 
 
 Hardinge, Sir Henry, afterwards 
 
 Viscount, 22. 
 Harmon, Henry C., 163. 
 Henn Collins, see Collins. 
 Herschell, Lord, 45, 47. 
 Hogge, Mr. J. M., M.P., 71. 
 Hotel Royal des Invalides, u. 
 
 Infection, accidental, causing dis- 
 ability, 126. 
 
 Kearley, Mr. H. E. K., M.P., 
 
 now Lord Devonport, 45. 
 King's Fund, The, 48. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar, M.P., 
 
 72, 73, 74- 
 
 Lawson, Arnold, F. R. C. S., 
 evidence on blindness follow- 
 ing syphilis, 128-139. 
 
 Legal right to War Pensions dis- 
 cussed, 19-29. 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham, 158. 
 
 "Line of Duty," meaning of 
 phrase, 165. 
 
 Local War Pension Committees 
 established, 53-55; controlled 
 by Ministry, 60 ; how financed, 
 64 ; Mr. Barnes on value of, 
 65; their work, 83, 84; in- 
 quiries into appeals, 85 ; 
 report of, approved on appeal, 
 
 122, 123 ; no similar institu- 
 tions in America, 171 ; statu- 
 tory functions of, 175. 
 
 Malaria and Wassermann test, 
 
 133. 
 
 Malingering, 151. 
 Mandamus, will not lie against 
 
 Minister of Pensions, 23-26. 
 Medical Boards, 80-82. 
 Medical History Sheets, 151. 
 Mercantile ratings, 148. 
 Metatarsalgia, 105. 
 Ministry of Pensions, 51-70. 
 Misconduct questions of not 
 
 referred to Appeal Tribunal, 
 
 143. 
 
 Moore, Norman, M.D., 74. 
 Myalgia, 92. 
 
 Naval Pensions, 13-17. 
 Nelson, Earl, 34, 47. 
 Newcastle, Duke of, 34. 
 Northbrook, Lord, 40. 
 
 Pakington, Sir J.,M. P., afterwards 
 
 Lord Hampton, 35. 
 Panophthalmitis, 126. 
 Parry, Judge, 74. 
 Patriotic Fund, 30-50, 53, 54. 
 Peel, Major-General, M.P., 35. 
 Pensions Appeal Tribunal, 71-86. 
 
 Decisions of, 87-157. 
 
 Procedure of, 88-91. 
 Pes cavus, 1 06. 
 Pneumonia, 108. 
 Pollard, Bilton, F.R.C.S., 74. 
 Prince Consort first President of 
 
 Patriotic Fund, 32. 
 Proof, burden of, Ministerial ruling 
 approved and followed, 157. 
 
INDEX 
 
 179 
 
 ^ The, v. Secretary of State 
 for War, 24. 
 
 Regina v. Lords of the Treasury, 
 
 25- 
 
 Rheumatic fever, 151. 
 Rheumatoid arthritis, 92. 
 Rodriguez Fund, 44. 
 Royal Patriotic Fund, see Patriotic 
 
 Fund. 
 Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, 
 
 33, 39, 4i, 42. 
 
 Sarcoma, 139. 
 
 Secretary of State for War, legal 
 
 position of, 24. 
 Service, shortness of, not itself 
 
 a bar to pension, 151, 
 
 156. 
 
 Somerset, Duke of, 34. 
 Special Grants Committee, 65. 
 Statutes 
 
 J 593- 35 Eliz. c. 4, Act for 
 Relief of Soldiers, 4. 
 
 I 597- 39 Eliz. c. 21, Act for 
 Relief of Soldiers, 4. 
 
 1 60 1. 43 Eliz. c. 3, Act for 
 Relief of Soldiers and 
 Mariners, 4, 5, n. 
 
 1806. 46 Geo. III. c. 69, Wind- 
 ham's Act, 19. 
 
 1826. 7 Geo. IV. c. 16, Chelsea 
 Hospital Consolidation 
 Act, 20, 21, 24, 26, 
 172. 
 
 1865. 28 & 29 Viet. c. 73, 
 
 Naval and Marine Pen- 
 sions Act, 1 6. 
 
 1866. 29 & 30 Viet. c. 39, 
 
 Exchequer and Audit 
 Department Act, 68. 
 
 Statutes 
 
 1866. 29 & 30 Viet. c. 120, 
 
 Patriotic Fund Act, 35, 
 38. 
 
 1867. 30 & 31 Viet. c. 98, 
 
 Patriotic Fund Act, 37, 
 
 38. 
 1 88 1. 44 & 45 Viet. c. 46, 
 
 Patriotic Fund Act, 41. 
 1886. 49 & 50 Viet. c. 30, 
 
 Patriotic Fund Act, 42, 
 
 43- 
 
 1903. 3 Edw. VII. c. 20, 
 Patriotic Fund Re- 
 organization Act, 49, 
 50. 
 
 1914. 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 30, 
 
 Injuries in War (Com- 
 pensation) Act, 149. 
 
 1915. 5 & 6 Geo. V. c. 83, 
 
 Naval and Military War 
 Pensions Act, 53. 
 
 1916. 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 65, 
 
 Ministry of Pensions 
 Act, 60, 173. 
 
 1917. 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 14, 
 
 Naval and Military War 
 Pensions (Administra- 
 tive Expenses) Act, 64. 
 1917. 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 37, 
 Naval and Military War 
 Pensions (Transfer of 
 Powers) Act, 65. 
 
 Statutory Committee of Royal 
 Patriotic Fund, 53, 54, 56; 
 abolition of, 64 ; legal rela- 
 tion with Ministry, 175. 
 Syphilis affecting eyesight, 127 ; 
 not to be inferred in absence 
 of evidence, 141. 
 Synovitis, 124. 
 
i8o 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Transvaal War, 45. 
 Treasury, powers of, 66-70. 
 
 United States Pension System, 
 158-171. 
 
 Venereal origin of disability does 
 not exclude aggravation, 145. 
 
 Washington Pension Office, 167. 
 Wasserman tests, how far proof 
 
 of syphilis, 133-135- 
 Windham's Act, see Statutes. 
 
 Yaws, and the Wasserman test, 
 
 134. 
 Young, Colonel, 39, 40. 
 
 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., EDINBURGH 
 
E ^AST DATE 
 
 LD 21-ioo m -8,'34 
 
YB 04171 
 
 KB, 
 
 398057 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY