§ SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Paper stating the important particulars, if there are such, in which the new organisation of the Army differs from the recommendations of Lord Airey's Commission?
§ MR. CHILDERSSir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend I am afraid that I could hardly make a formal Return as to the important differences between the recommendations made by Lord Airey's Committee and those contained in my two Memoranda without raising a question as to the word important. The Report of Lord Airey's Committee is on the Table, and its conclusions can be compared by my hon. and gallant Friend with those of the two Memoranda. But, perhaps, I may 845 say in general terms that the two great differences between the proposals are that Lord Airey's Committee proposed to increase the soldier's contract of service to 14½ years, 8½ with the Colours; whereas we leave it at 12 years, 7 to 8 with the Colours; and that Lord Airey's Committee proposed to abolish the two battalion system, breaking up the first 25 regiments and the rifle regiments, unlinking the rest, and adding 15,000 men to the Army; whereas I have carried linking to its legitimate result, the universal double-battalion system, with an addition of some 2,000 men only.