§ COLONEL ANSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the retirements of the Officers of the Indian Army, although less than two-thirds of the number of the Officers of the Royal Army, costs no less than £880,000 a year, according to the report in "The Times," of General Norman's financial statement?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be in error as to the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter of importance. It is not a departmental question, to be dealt with by him, but it is one to be dealt with by the whole Government. I have sanctioned this expenditure in no other sense than my colleagues sanctioned it when it was brought before them. I had, however, asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for information on the subject, and he gave me just the information he gave to the House—that is, that it was vain to ask him, because data did not exist on which calculations could be based. As to the statement in The Times, I am not aware whether it is correct or not, and I am not aware that it is my duty to be aware.
§ COLONEL ANSONI asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is impossible to get any information from the Secretary of State for War.