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 ) 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