70. Mr. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the French Government does not consider it advisable, even at this crisis of the War, to employ lads under nineteen in the fighting line; and will he say how lads under nineteen with only three months' training compare with lads of nineteen with six months' training from the point of view of fighting efficiency?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am afraid I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the latter part, it is obvious that the comparison is in favour of the lad with the longer training, but I would remind my hon. Friend that no lads are sent overseas until they are sufficiently trained to take their place in the firing line. In no case is the period of training less than fourteen weeks, and in a great many instances it is five months.
Mr. HARRISDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that three months' training of a lad of nineteen will make him fit for the front line trenches? Will he inquire from the French Government why that Government, with its many years' 1459 experience of Conscription, has not thought it a good thing to take boys under nineteen?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in April, explained the circumstances in which the Government were compelled to make the change.
§ Sir E. CARSONIs it a fact that the French Government do not consider it advisable to employ lads under nineteen in the fighting line?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot answer definitely offhand, but I am quite willing to answer definitely if my right hon. Friend will put down a question.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHas not this question been asked before, and do not the emergency conditions to which the Prime Minister referred apply to the French equally as to our own Army?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have got a great number of questions on the Paper.