§ MR. PIRIEI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to ascertaining the correct ages of recruits and the evils of the existing system, if he will state in what respect the oath of allegiance 338 taken by the recruit on attestation is an oath as to correctness of his ago, and if he will consider the abvisability of altering the oath so as to make it refer more directly to this point, and at the same time include among punishable offences any false statements of age on his part; can he state why more care is not exercised by the Army medical officers in their duty in this respect, and whether in future neglect as to this on their part will be dealt with more severely; and who was the medical officer responsible for the enlisting as a full-grown private soldier of George H. Over, who was only fourteen years old; and whether the officer has been reprimanded.
LORD STANLEYThe oath of allegiance has nothing whatever to do with the matter. On attestation the soldier signs his name to a declaration that his answers to various questions are true, amongst which is a question as to age. I am advised that a conviction for making a false statement as to age cannot be obtained. There is no reason to suppose that medical officers are careless on the point of age, and in this particular case the officer does not appear to have been to blame, as the recruit was well grown.
§ MR. PIRIECan the noble Lord explain his statement in answer to another question that the age given by a recruit on oath was held to be true age for reckoning army service? The noble lord distinctly said that, and—