91. Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that on 18th November the inoculated soldiers in the 4th Cameron Regiment, at Bedford, were ordered to parade at headquarters, told by the lieutenant-colonel that unless inoculated they would not be allowed to go to the front, and ordered to give up their kit; that of forty men from two companies who paraded twenty 786 still refused inoculation; and that such action, if general throughout the Army, will not only deprive our forces at the front of many willing, strong, healthy, and efficient soldiers, but prevent thousands who conscientiously object to this treatment from joining the Army; and whether he will remove this deterrent by insuring recruits against official pressure to forego the liberty to refuse inoculation which the law gives them?
§ Mr. TENNANTI have inquired into the statements contained in the question and am informed that it was made plain to the men that inoculation was not compulsory but that, where the military authorities had a possibility of choice, preference would be given to those who had been inoculated. A full battalion of inoculated men for the 4th Camerons was forthcoming, but to equip this number some equipment had to be given up by the men not selected. The War Office have consistently held that, while inoculation is not compulsory, it is highly desirable.
Mr. CHANCELLORDo I understand that the men who exercise this privilege the law gives them are deprived of the opportunity of serving?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo; my hon. Friend must not assume that at all. What I said is that it is desirable men should be inoculated, and where it is possible to get a whole battalion of inoculated men they will be taken in preference.