MILITARY SERVICE ACT. (Hansard, 24 February 1916)

§ Mr. HOGGE
Before we adjourn, may we have an answer to a question which arises out of the Military Service Act, and in connection with the recruiting scheme? A great many separate statements have been made in regard to the men who are supposed to have been brought within the scope of the Bill, and who ought not to have been brought within it. Certain answers have been given as to what they ought to do. The latest answer, I am given to understand, was given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday to the hon. Member who represents York City. In that answer he said, in regard to conscientious objectors, that they ought to apply direct to the War Office. May I 833 ask my right hon. Friend this very simple question, to which I hope he can give an answer, because I assure him a very large number of men are very desirous of knowing the methods that they should adopt. Can he say that some complete scheme will be published widespread so that all these difficulties can be covered; the man involved may then know a direct and simple way out of his difficulties—if he has to set about stating his objections either to the tribunals or to the War Office direct? If my right hon. Friend can give me an answer I am perfectly certain he will relieve the minds of a very great number of men.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I should like to press the point mentioned, with his usual clearness, by the hon. Member who has just sat down, although he has not put the difficulty which appears to me to have grown up in connection with the tribunals. I think the statements we have had in respect to this matter and others from the Front Bench are most satisfactory. The lists of exemptions are quite sufficiently comprehensive; they certainly do not err on the side of not being comprehensive. But this is my point: What is to be done if the tribunals pay no attention to what is said on that Front Bench opposite, and disregard the list of exemptions? That is a question which is growing up. The tribunals are an unusual kind of tribunals in this country—quite unusual—and many of the members are not fully skilled even in the technicality of this single Act of Parliament which they have to construe. The result is that we have the anomaly, admitted to-day by the President of the Board of Trade, that there are large classes of merchant seamen whom it was intended to exempt, but who have received notices to come up. In many cases even the tribunals may not exempt them. We have had most specific assurances from the Prime Minister down to my right hon. Friend—or up to my right hon. Friend. Everything said from that bench has been conciliatory and satisfactory, but I press my point. The administration of the tribunals in London, at any rate, in some 834 cases, does not deserve the same epithets. In all parts of London men have been very hardly treated, and have found it quite impossible to obtain that consideration for their case which this House intended. Seeing the tribunals do not consist of skilled lawyers and deal with matters of the gravest importance, I do think the Government ought to take this matter into consideration. If my right hon. Friend can answer the question which has been put: Where the tribunal refuses—and I have heard them even speak slightingly of the War Office and of my right hon. Friend. These tribunals refuse to be bound by what is said from the Front Bench, and I should like to know what is to be done?

§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL
I should like to put a case to the Under-Secretary in regard to some of the cases that come before these tribunals. It is with respect to those who have been medically examined, but who have no certificates. I was going to throw out a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, which, I think, would possibly be satisfactory. In every case where a man has been examined officially by a doctor the doctor must keep a record of the physical condition of that man in his register. The doctor marks the register, or ought to do so. In the case of a man being medically entered as medically unfit the register ought to be placed before the tribunal. Where the man has not got a proper certificate, in such a case he would have the right to put in a claim for exemption. It may be impossible that there should be a record of all examinations, but if the record is in a medical register, or in a registered book written up by the doctor that such-and-such a man was medically unfit, that ought to be produced before the tribunal as evidence, and satisfactory evidence. I have had several letters upon this point—where in the rush of a number of men for attestation the doctors did not give a medical certificate. If this book is not to be brought before the tribunal—

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)
No, Sir. May I interrupt my hon. Friend. It is not the 835 case of a book coming before the tribunal, it is a question of the case coming before the tribunal.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
How is a man, if he is called upon, to put himself right, if he has been medically rejected since 14th of August? How is he to prove his case without he has a certificate? Has he to tell the War Office or the local tribunal?

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us if the position is not really that the man who has been rejected since 14th August is excepted from the Act, therefore he cannot be called upon to join? If, however, he is called upon to join he will tell the military authorities that he is outside the Act? If they do not accept that statement from him, then he has a remedy. The remedy, as I understand it, is to summon the man before a Civil Court and say that he is within the Act, and he will then have to produce before the Civil Court some evidence which satisfies the Court that he is outside the provisions of the Bill. The Act does not lay down what that evidence should be, but I understand, as in every Act of Parliament, it must be sufficient to satisfy a Civil Court that he has been rejected. The simplest evidence, of course, is the certificate. But there are certain cases where a certificate has not been granted, and I understand any satisfactory evidence that he has been rejected which satisfies the Court will be sufficient.

§ Mr. WATT
I should like my right hon. Friend to elucidate the answer he gave to me yesterday.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I shall be delighted.

§ Mr. WATT
And I hope it will be something that will penetrate my mind. Yesterday his elucidation did not. This is a case, as my right hon. Friend knows, where the man has a double case—the question of employment, on which he has to appeal to one tribunal, and the question of domestic conditions, as to which he has to apply to another tribunal; the first tribunal being that in the district in which he 836 works, and the second that in the district which he lives. The right hon. Gentleman's reply yesterday was that whichever ground is subsidiary is passed by, and the main point is carried to the tribunal of that district.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Both points.

§ Mr. WATT
I want to know on whom the initiative lies. Has the man himself the choice first of all as to which is the subsidiary point, and then the tribunal before which he is to have his case decided? It would be most unfair to have half of the case tried before one tribunal and half before another. In each instance he might lose, whereas if cumulative he might win his point. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give instructions to tribunals to make some arrangements by which these cases are dealt with.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
There is one point that has arisen since I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend on Tuesday, to which I should be grateful to him if he would give a reply. There are some cases of people who do not hold an actual medical certificate since 14th August, but who hold a statement "Rejected: not up to standard." I know one person particularly who is very uneasy as to whether he is now compelled to go before the tribunal or is in any way subject to military service. He has been summoned to attend, and he has, under advice, answered that he holds a certificate or statement that he was rejected as not being up to standard. I understand my right hon. Friend to say, and I am very grateful for it, that the real rule is that anyone who has been rejected at all since 14th August is not now liable for military service. But this particular point "Rejected: not up to standard" is one that actually arises, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend can specifically deal with that, if convenient to him, when he replies shortly. If not, I will put down a question next week, but my right hon. Friend will understand that time is short and these are practical points.

§ Mr. RADFORD
I should like to put to my right hon. Friend a question about the 837 conduct of recruiting officers, for whom, I take it, he is responsible to this House. I will only mention one instance to save time. A Constituent of mine, who was in doubt as to whether he was liable to be called up under the Act or not, he having attained the age of forty-one on 15th November last, did perhaps a foolish thing: he consulted the recruiting officer as to whether he was liable. It is the business of recruiting officers, like commercial travellers, to lie in the course of their profession, but, as my right hon. Friend has said before, he does not necessarily support them in all their actions. This recruiting officer I have in my mind advised the inquirer that he had better go and attest. He knew he was not liable, under the law as a single man who had not attested, but he knew if he got him to attest he could secure him for the Army. I think my right hon. Friend will probably repudiate the action of the recruiting officer. I hope we shall not seek to recruit our Army by discreditable tricks, but that we shall take those men who are legally liable to serve and not attempt to cajole or trick men into the service of their country.

Mr. E. HARVEY
I wish to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that my right hon. Friend will take opportunity to clear away as far as possible the misconceptions which exist, and I am sure the House will welcome an opportunity of having an authoritative statement from him on these points. With regard to one particular point, the difficulty has already been brought to the attention of the House by a question by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson). It was shown in that question that a case had arisen—and I have had four similar cases brought to my notice to-day from the London area—where men applied for exemption forms and were officially informed at the town hall where they applied that they could not have an exemption form unless they attested; and in some cases these foolish men have taken the word of the authorities and have attested in order to claim exemption. I 838 think it is very desirable that their position should not be worse through a mistake not due to their own fault, and that there should be some authoritative statement by the right hon. Gentleman that men who have been led into attesting by an official statement, either by the recruiting officer or by the officer of the tribunal, shall have their position in no way made worse by so doing, when their object in attesting was merely to bring a claim for exemption. It seems a strange thing that men should make a mistake of that kind, but undoubtedly quite a number of men have done it, and they have been induced to do it by direct misrepresentation made to them by the authorities. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would disapprove of any such misrepresentation, and one has merely to bring it to his notice to have the case corrected; but it is very important from the point of view of the proper administration of the law that his statement should be made as early as possible, and in as firm and clear a manner as possible.

Mr. T. WILSON
There is just one little point to which I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. In December last I asked him whether soldiers had the right to affirm if they had conscientious objection to taking the oath, and he replied, "Yes, they have that right." I am getting letters now saying that the magistrates at certain recruiting offices are refusing to allow men to affirm and threatening them with all sorts of penalties if they will not take the oath. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was well known in the Army that men could affirm. It is not the military officers, but the magistrates attesting these men who are refusing to allow them to affirm. I want it made clear that a man has the same right to affirm for the Army as in the Civil Court, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this clear.

§ Mr. HASLAM
I do not see why the slightest difficulty should arise. Surely the question is merely one of carrying out the law of the land, which is absolutely incontrovertible that men who have got the proper certificate after 14th August should not be enlisted. I have been in- 839 formed of a case, and I have sent the papers to the War Office, of a man who has been enlisted against his will when he had such a certificate, and I want to be assured that if such cases arise justice will be done to these men. If we wish to have the law altered that is another matter for which a special Act should be passed, but, as long as we have an Act of Parliament, let us carry it out honestly and to the letter.

§ Mr. ROWLANDS
I want to bring another case before the right hon. Gentleman and to support the plea of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford). I do hope that, in the strongest possible manner, the right hon. Gentleman will give the recruiting authorities to understand that we want this law carried out in a legitimate and honest manner. It cannot be said of some of us that we have stood in the way of recruiting. We have done our best, and therefore no prejudice in that direction can be urged against us. I have had a case sent to me to-day where one of my Constituents had attested in December last and had been given the Blue Form as medically unfit, and then he was written to to come and fetch his armlet. When he got to the place where he supposed his armlet was, not having applied for it, he was told that his papers were of mo use, and they were taken away from him, and he was given an armlet, although he is now an invalid on ambulance work. He may have been willing to enlist or otherwise, but he had been exempted and was forced into this position. I think it is disgraceful that such conduct should take place. One of the effects, if this kind of trickery goes on, will be to make it most difficult indeed in the recruiting work which some of us have carried on, and are willing to carry on still for the Army. I therefore ask that my right hon. Friend should, as strongly as possible, request recruiting officers to learn what is the sense, of the House on this subject.

§ Mr. HINDS
I wish to raise the question of men being called before tribunals, especially in London. I know many cases where men have been before one tribunal and, after having had their case considered 840 by that tribunal, they have been called before a neighbouring tribunal. There is something wrong with regard to that, and I want to bring it before the Under-Secretary so that it may be remedied. With regard to employment in one place and residence in another, I see no reason why the two points should not be taken together and the whole case considered by one tribunal, wherever it is.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I am very glad to have an opportunity of trying to settle in men's minds what undoubtedly are a certain number of difficulties. I have had already two essays at this, and I had hoped that I had made certain points clear in a speech of considerable length on Tuesday. When a new Act of Parliament is passed, undoubtedly its administration is not always a very easy and clear thing, and, although there have been a large number of cases where action has been taken, sometimes, I think, with folly displayed, not unequally perhaps, between the recruiting authority and the person involved—certainly I think very often a man has been very unwise in the action he has taken, and sometimes, of course, the recruiting authority probably has been to blame—in spite of those instances which have been given, I think, on the whole, we may claim there has been wonderfully little disturbance in the country over this Act. I gave an answer at Question Time this afternoon to the effect that I was issuing further instructions at once. I hope to get them out to-day, but I am sure the House will realise that I have been a little overwhelmed in the last few days, and I really cannot overtake everything, so much so that I had to send my letters in a trolley to-day to another office to have them answered. That will give the House some idea of the amount of correspondence with which we have to deal. The recruiting authorities have issued, through the War Office, this notice: If a man who has been attested and classified in a group receives a notice paper (Army Form W. 3236) calling him up under the Military Service Act, he should return it to the officer who sent it to him. At the same time he should enclose the following information:

1. His full name and address.

2. Date of attestation.
841
3. Address of recruiting station as on his white card Army Form W. 3194.

4. His group number.
In the great pressure of work it is likely that such, cases will occur, particularly in respect of men only recently attested, or who are attested between now and the closing of the single men's groups. That gives some information, although I know it is only a small point. The main gravamen of the charge made against the Recruiting Department of the War Office is that the men have been cajoled into joining after they have been previously rejected as medically unfit since 14th August of last year. I would say that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred where that has been done it is not where the man has come forward at all for a certificate of exemption, but where he has come forward for an armlet. I have already dealt with armlets, and I do not think I need repeat my answer. What I promised to issue is recorded in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that will be issued to-day. I cannot quite carry the whole of the points in my mind, but they are, roughly, these: That a man who has been medically rejected since that date in August, and has produced proper evidence of that which can be accepted at once, is outside the scope of the Act. If he has been medically examined, and if the medical officer has got his name in the book for that purpose, that evidence will certainly be accepted by the military authorities as being quite sufficient, if it can be proved that he is the right person to whom it is applicable, and can show that he has been so medically rejected. On the other hand, if a man has nothing to show, and merely relies upon his own ipse dixit, we cannot, and I do not think the House can expect us, to accept that.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
Whose fault is it?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Really my hon. Friend must ask me a better question than that. How on earth is it possible to say whose fault it is? It may have been the man's fault, and he may have been hurrying to catch a train or something of that kind, and there are a hundred and one reasons. The man may have lost it, or he may have given it to the recruiting sergeant.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
In the case I gave he was asked for it.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Does my hon. Friend do everything that he is asked to do?

§ Mr. PRINGLE
If I was asked to produce evidence of my rejection and I produced it, and the recruiting officer took it out of my hands and tore it up, I should not be responsible.

§ Mr. TENNANT
That is a very unusual case.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
It has been done frequently.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I agree if that were done it would be very reprehensible, but I cannot think that it has been done often. I know what has been done. Occasionally a man has given up his certificate of rejection in order to receive an armlet. He has been given the armlet, and then the certificate of rejection has been destroyed in order that it might not be sold to somebody else. The armlet is quite sufficient evidence that a man has been rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) raised a point about conscientious objectors, and he said that different treatment was being meted out by different tribunals. If a man has attested under the Derby scheme I think that is primâ facie evidence that he could not have a very strong conscientious objection to killing. There is no ground for maintaining that a man who has attested, and declared that he is willing to fight for the King, has any strong conscientious objections against killing. It is conceivable that there may be an exceptional case, but where there was such a case it should be brought to headquarters at the War Office. Obviously we cannot deal with great blocks of men in such an off-hand manner, but what I am suggesting is only for a very small number.

§ Mr. HOGGE
If a man addresses you in the ordinary way, will the case be attended to?

§ Mr. TENNANT
If he makes an application to me I shall try and deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) asked 843 me to elucidate the point to which I gave an answer yesterday at Question Time. I quite agree it is a perfectly legitimate point, but I do not really think it is of great importance. A man who is trying to arrive at a conclusion on the point raised by my hon. Friend surely might consult his employer and by arrangement come to the decision which is necessary. They might produce the case on private grounds and public grounds at the same time, but we do not want to multiply appeals to the tribunals. With regard to the case of a man tried by one tribunal and then referred to another, I agree that that is a difficult point, but it is quite wrong, and this ought not to be done. I do not understand how the case cropped up, but if the applicant had asked the second tribunal whether he was being properly referred to them, having originally been brought up before the first tribunal, I think they would have said to him that he must complete his case in the first tribunal, and that would have been the right tribunal to deal with his case. One can quite understand, however, that in a new and novel set of circumstances such as those which now confronts us, there must be some difficulty of this kind crop up from time to time. That is the course which I should pursue if I were the man concerned, and I should say, "I do not want to bring this to another tribunal." I do not think it is really necessary for me to repudiate once more what has been said with regard to acts of dishonesty and so forth, because I have done this two or three times already.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point as to whether a person who has received a certificate that he is not up to the standard is in the same position as the man who has been rejected on the ground of medical unfitness; and whether that does not come within the fact that he has been rejected since 15th August, and is therefore not subject to the Act?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Of course, that is a new point. The hon. Member who puts the question is a better lawyer than I am, but 844 I think it will be found that the phraseology of the Act provides for that case.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
Then it covers my case.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I think that would be the interpretation put upon it by any person learned in the law.

§ Colonel YATE
Have any steps been taken to deal with men who were not up to standard in order to bring them up to the standard? I know a great many who were not able to join because they required a little training.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the instructions issued to tribunals?

§ Mr. TENNANT
I think my right hon. Friend will do well in all seriousness to put himself in communication with the President of the Local Government Board, who will inform him of the actual steps which have been taken with regard to tribunals. My right hon. Friend opposite will realise that it is not any part of the function of the War Office to issue instructions to the tribunals. That matter is entirely in the hands of the Local Government Board. I am acquainted with the fact that the President of the Local Government Board has already issued some instructions, but whether they are of an official or unofficial character I would not like to say. I believe he has communicated with the Central Appeal Tribunal, giving them his views as to certain interpretations to be put upon alleged reasons for being exempted from the provisions of the Act. In fact, my right hon. Friend was good enough to let me see what he was going to say in order that the War Office could make any observations upon it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) need fear that the local tribunals are likely to disregard promises made by Ministers in this House. My information is rather that the local tribunals feel a little difficulty in dismissing appeals owing to those very promises. I understand that they have been greatly restrained. I am a little relieved to hear that what reaches my right hon. Friend is different from what reaches me, because 845 that looks as if we might get more men into the Army, and in point of fact, as I think the House realises, the number of men who are being exempted by the tribunals is very large indeed.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Not in London.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I do not say that it is improper for a moment, because I do not wish to make any reflection on the action of tribunals who are only carrying out a very difficult task imposed upon them for the first time under a new Statute. Of course, the object of the Act is to get men to serve in the Army, and that ought to be borne in mind.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I am sure my right hon. Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy in the question which I ventured to put to him during his speech as to whose fault it was when an applicant had not got a certificate of rejection. The right hon. Gentleman, at an earlier stage in to-day's proceedings, definitely stated that in a number of cases, although applicants had been rejected, no rejection papers were given to them. That was why I asked whose fault it was that those applicants had no rejection certificates to show, and I repeat, whose fault was it? The fault surely was that of the Army officials who failed to supply them with certificates of rejection. What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman ask for in those cases? I. would suggest that in all cases of rejection records are kept, and, although an applicant may have no certificate because no certificate was given to him, it yet ought to be easy to check the fact of his rejection from the official records. Surely it is very unfair that such an applicant, who has been rejected but who has not been given a certificate of rejection, should now be told that he is subject to the terms of the Military Service Act and will become a conscript unless he again attests. Such a man ought to be protected from any such statement. For my own part, I very much welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman replies to points in connection with this Act. He has shown, if I may venture to say so, the utmost fairness in 846 the Debates in this House, and he has disclaimed, I believe with entire sincerity, any intention of or sympathy with any trickery or unfairness.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I wish to associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said. It is true that we have come into rather serious controversy with my right hon. Friend on this question, but I wish now most sincerely to assure him that whatever may have appeared there has not been the slightest intention upon the part of any Member of the House to throw any doubt upon his own good faith in this matter. Nobody who knows the right hon. Gentleman would for a moment think that he has been anything but straightforward throughout this transaction, and indeed in regard to everything connected with the administration of the War Office. Some of us, however, feel that there has not been quite absolute fair dealing on the part of someone in the Department, though we appreciate the chivalry with which the right hon. Gentleman has defended his subordinates, and we regret that inadvertently some blame may have been directed at his head. We appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concession in regard to the men medically rejected, but I should like to know what procedure will be required to be adopted by a man who is aggrieved in the way mentioned in order to obtain his rights under the Act. My right hon. Friend will remember that in the course of the last Debate he challenged me to bring any case before him, and he said that if I would do so he would deal with it. The result has been that a great many people in all parts of the country have been sending me cases, but I do not think that I am the proper vehicle of all the cases arising in consequence of this procedure, and it would be well if an intimation were made what course these men ought to adopt.
There is a second difficulty in regard to evidence where for any reason the documentary evidence has disappeared. Some intimation should be given what nature of evidence is required to show that a man has been actually rejected. Nobody wants bogus cases to obtain relief by any 847 concession which my right hon. Friend may have made, but if a man can bring any evidence to prove that he has been medically rejected since 14th August, 1915, then, though the documentary evidence may no longer be available, he should be entitled at least to have consideration given to his evidence. There is another point in relation to the man who has a double claim for exemption and who resides in the area of one tribunal and has his business in the area of another tribunal. I quite understand the reasons which make it necessary that a man should go and present his whole case to one tribunal, but he should have liberty to choose the tribunal, and his choice of a tribunal should rot be taken as indicating the relative value of the grounds of his application. If a man by selecting one tribunal indicates that in his view one claim is stronger than another and the tribunal before which he goes thinks that his claim on that ground is invalid, they will be prejudiced in their consideration of his second claim, because they will say, "If your better claim is bad, we are not inclined to pay very much attention to the second." I say that a man should not only have free choice of the tribunal, but his choice should not be taken as indicating upon which claim he wishes mainly to rest his right to exemption.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Yes, I think that a man ought to have the choice.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
If my right hon. Friend says so, I am quite satisfied. I will put down a question as to what procedure should be adopted.

§ Mr. RADFORD
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the Appeal Courts? It would be a great relief to many men contemplating appeal to know if the Appeal Courts have been set up, and, if not, when they will be set up.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I believe that they are in course of being set up, but, if my right hon. Friend will put down a question, I will answer it on Tuesday.

§ Colonel YATE
Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins) on the subject of men who have been rejected as not coming up to standard? We have been able by a little training and by helping them to get voluntary drill to bring a large number of men up to standard. Some 800 came up for voluntary drill, two-thirds were made fit for enlistment and about one-third were enlisted. In Leicester we do our best to help to get men into the Service and not to help men to get out of the Service. It would be a great thing if those rejected were given some encouragement to try to bring themselves up to standard and to enlist.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the action which has already been taken. It seems to have been of great use. I do not know exactly what he expects the War Office to do in the way of giving encouragement, but I will express here every encouragement to such men and the hope that they will utilise the agencies which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned for the purpose, but beyond expressing pious sympathy I really do not know what I can do. I can only intimate to men who are anxious to improve their physique and to join the Army and serve their country the procedure to be adopted and the place to which to go in order to have this physical drill. That is one of the grounds why we welcome voluntary training corps. Beyond that, I do not really know what I can do.

§ Colonel YATE
Will the right hon. Gentlemen consider the matter? Perhaps the recruiting officer could help, or some little allowance might be given to the instructors or to these bodies, which are entirely voluntary.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I know, but I must not mortgage the public purse.