§ 44. Mr. SHERWELLasked how many males of military age who ought to have been canvassed under Lord Derby's scheme were not canvassed, distinguishing between married and single; and whether the figures are actual or estimated?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)I fear it would be quite impossible to give figures on this point, many men, married and single, who were canvassed did not enlist, and, on the other hand, many men, married and single, attested in the last weeks of the Group System without waiting to be canvassed.
§ Mr. SHERWELLAre we to understand from that answer that the Government is not in possession of information showing how complete or incomplete the canvass has been?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think that is quite a fair interpretation of what I said What I said was that very many men 1272 attested without being canvassed, and that, therefore, the figures for the canvass must necessarily be incomplete.
§ Mr. HOGGEHow is it impossible for the Government to get this information when we all know the figures for our own constituencies?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am very glad to think that my hon. Friend is so well informed.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIf it is known how many men there were to be canvassed and how many were canvassed, cannot it be arrived at as to how many men were not canvassed?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think it is possible to get all the information. A man may say, "In what does canvassing consist?"
§ Mr. ROWLANDSAre not the valuable figures those who attested, and not those who were canvassed?
§ 55. Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether men with the Colours or who have already attested under Lord Derby's scheme who have conscientious objections but who enlisted to prevent any form of Conscription will be treated in the same way as those who have not attested?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think that this is a case which ought to be met.
§ Mr. W. THORNECan the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of what is a conscientious objector?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI tried to do so last week. I will try again.
§ Mr. THORNEYou will have a job!
§ 56. Mr. HOGGEasked whether the tribunals are prepared to consider any suggestions for dealing with only sons, such as using them for home service, etc.?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe local tribunals have no power to allocate a man to any particular branch of service in the Army.
§ Mr. HOGGEHas my right hon. Friend noticed that the question is whether in the case of only sons making a suggestion to the tribunal that they should be postponed or exempted under the Bill that that will be considered by the tribunal?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe existing practice is to relegate such cases to a later group. Then, I think, my hon. Friend is aware 1273 that there are provisions in the Bill by which men who can prove that there are persons dependent upon them who would otherwise be unable to live in decency and comfort can claim exemption.
§ Mr. HOGGEWould my right hon. Friend make this clear? Is he aware that the Prime Minister has already stated to the House that when one man is left, having brothers serving at the front, he may possibly be exempted by the tribunals; will an only son be placed in the same position?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is rather undesirable to make a pledge at the moment upon that matter.
57. Mr. D. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any substantial number of the single men of military age who have applied for attestation under Lord Derby's scheme had previously applied for enlistment in the Army and been rejected as medically unfit; and what is the estimated number of these?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am afraid it is impossible to give an estimate of the number of men in question.
64. Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether the continued enlistment under the Derby scheme announced by the Prime Minister will be under the same conditions as before, and will give volunteers the option of joining the Territorial or Regular Forces and as far as possible of choosing their regiments?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer to this question, taken as a whole, is "Yes, as far as possible," but I would point out that men hereafter entering groups already called up may not be in as favourable a position as regards admission to such arms as the Royal Army Medical Corps or Army Service Corps as men who have already been called up for those groups, the reason being that the number of enlistments in those arms allotted to each group is and must be limited.
§ Mr. TENNANTI will consider that; I do not know what the exact definition.