§ 41. Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that, in spite of the official announcement that boys under eighteen years of age would not, in cases where satisfactory evidence of age is produced, be sent abroad, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee are now officially answering inquiries on this subject, and are stating that nothing can be done to give effect to his promise; and whether, not withstanding the fact that many of these lads gave a wrong age on enlistment in their zeal to serve the country, he will, in the national interest, when satisfactory evidence of age is produced, release them in instances where they could be doing more useful work, and in other cases at least give an assurance 1866 that the lads will be employed for Home service only until the age of nineteen is reached?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November remains a correct statement of the principles on which these cases are dealt with. I do not think my hon. Friend correctly reproduces what he describes as the official announcement. Boys who have enlisted being under the minimum age are not sent abroad unless they are found to have physical qualifications of a youth of eighteen and a half.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIn view of the numerous questions placed on the Paper relating to this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman not now save time by saying that no boy of eighteen shall be sent to the front?
§ Mr. THOMASIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he originally made that statement in the House, and that it has been disregarded?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir. I never made any statement of the kind. I would suggest my hon. Friend should look at the statement I made. The statement I made was, as I have often said, a locus classicus.