11. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an attested man who has been rejected since August, 1915, and to whom notice has not been sent before 1st September, 1916, calling him up for re-examination, is excepted from the operation of the Military Service Acts?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI must remind my hon. Friend that the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916, do not apply to attested men whose liability for Military Service accrues from their attestation, and not from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916. On attestation an attested man passed into the Army, and the fact that he was not accepted for service on medical examination subsequent to attestation, did 422 not discharge him from the Army. The written, notice required to be be sent by Section 3 (2) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2) only applied to men who had offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, and did not apply to attested men.
Mr. SCOTTIs the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Gager case the Law Courts held that a man who had attested was not liable under the Military Service Acts?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am quite aware of the case; but that, of course, is not binding on any other Court. That case was decided upon its own merits.
Mr. SCOTTDoes the War Office refuse to recognise the validity of the decision of the Law Courts in that case?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes, we do, because it was an exceptional case.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWill my hon. Friend say whether the undertaking given by Lord Derby that an attested man would be in no worse position than a man to whom the Military Service Acts apply still continues to affect the administration of recruiting?
12. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an attested man who has been rejected as medically unfit on examination is given a discharge; since when has the practice of giving a discharge been discontinued; and what is the reason for its discontinuance?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe matter raised in this question is at present under consideration. As was stated on the 19th December, it is not intended to call up again for military service or for medical re-examination attested men who have, on re-examination under the instructions issued on the 30th October, 1916, been again found unfit for any form of military service.
Mr. SCOTTDid not the hon. Gentleman in the reply to which he has referred tell me that these men who are rejected are given a certificate of discharge?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am not quite sure about that. I do not remember.