§ Major LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILDIt has always been the practice of the House of Commons to allow a personal explanation, and I hope that the House will allow me to make a reply this afternoon to the attack which was made upon me, as military representative to the City of London Tribunal, on Monday afternoon, and to explain details which were not quite clear. I am aware that I should have been present during the Debate, but recruiting officers and military representatives are so hard-worked at present that it is impossible for them to give any attention except to the work before them. The reason of my explanation lies in the fact that hon. Members have accused me, as well as other recruiting officers and military representatives, of trying to evade the wishes of Parliament and drag men into the Army by bullying and improper action. I wish to deny this as strongly as possible, and here I should like most emphatically to assert that recruiting officers are instructed in every case to give every possible consideration to the man, and that orders have been issued to them to obey the spirit of the law rather than the mere letter.
The case I wish to refer to especially is where I was reported to have stated that a Territorial certificate of rejection was of no use, and this I deny absolutely. 1215 A newspaper report is rarely full and often, through lack of fullness, misleading, and that is so in the present instance. The application which came before the City of London Tribunal was for the exemption of a clerk employed by a firm of distillers, on the ground that he was indispensable to the business of the firm. The man had attested under the Derby Group system, and his employers, as an argument to show that the man was of no use to the Army, produced a Territorial certificate of unfitness issued during the summer of last year, which stated that the man was physically fit but had been rejected because he was short-sighted and had to wear glasses. As the man had since that, in the autumn, attested of his own free will under the Derby Group system, I remarked that the certificate was of no use, and I further stated that whereas the particular Territorial Regiment in which the man had tried to enlist at that time did not accept men who wore glasses, when the man offered himself for enlistment later on in the year, conditions had altered, regulations had changed, and men were accepted providing they had reasonably efficient sight.
I made those remarks to the tribunal in order to show the tribunal that the whole question was whether it was in the national interest that the employer should retain his clerk or whether he would be better employed in the Army. I again wish to emphasise that it was in no way a personal claim, and that it was not a claim which came under the Military Service Act. I should like here to add that if, when the man attested voluntarily, his Territorial form had been torn up (as is only right and proper for a man who offers himself for service again and is accepted after having been refused once), the whole mistake would never have arisen.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long on a personal explanation, but recruiting officers and military representatives are really trying their best at the present time to carry out the expressed wishes of the House of Commons. Their work is new and difficult, and, as a rule, the day is not long enough for the accumulation of work. Both military representatives and tribunals fully realise the important duties with which they are entrusted, and from what I have seen of the working of the scheme I feel sure that 1216 they are only too anxious to allow full consideration to each case of individual hardship and to give as ample relief as the exigencies of the military situation will allow. I thank the House for having listened to me, and for having allowed me to make this explanation.