§ SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is now possible to indicate a date when a special opportunity will be afforded for discussing the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee and the changes consequent thereon.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think it is possible yet to indicate a date such as my hon. and gallant friend desires; but, of course, such an opportunity must be given. I would, however, suggest to the House that it would be more convenient that that date should be deferred until we are in a position to state whether, and how far, we desire to modify the recommendations of the Committee. I cannot give a day first to discuss the Report of the Committee and afterwards to discuss the policy of the Government with regard to that Report. I, therefore, think it would be better to defer the matter until the Government are in a position to state what is their exact policy as regards War Office reconstruction, in addition to what they have already done and propose to do.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEDoes the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to those points in the Report which are affected by the Estimates of the present year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I ask whether it is not the fact that there is a S third and even more startling part of the Report to appear, and whether my right hon. friend will consider the advisability of postponing the discussion until after that appears?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANMay I ask whether, if the Government have definitely adopted the first part of the Report, the Army Estimates ought not to be remodelled in order to exhibit the I effect of the change of policy upon the Estimates, so that some notion may be 82 given to the House of what the cost of the change may be?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI do not exactly follow the right hon. Gentleman's Question; but if he refers to the cost necessitated by the changes in the staff at the War Office, I have already given him my undertaking that if I find that there will be any additional cost, which I do not anticipate, it shall be brought before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to any organic changes in the distribution of the Army on a large scale, I do not think it is possible to bring any alteration that may be due to them into the Army Estimates for the coming year. I do not think that any alteration of expenditure can possibly be decided upon in the present year.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask the House of Commons to vote the salaries for offices which have been abolished?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Baronet asked me whether the first part of the Report would come up for discussion on the Army Estimates. I would remind him that the whole of the first part of the Report has not been adopted by His Majesty's Government, though certain recommendations have been accepted; but, personally, I think if the House would abstain from leading the debate on the Army Estimates into a channel which deals with these changes it would be an advantage. I think it would be more convenient if we could discuss the changes as a whole when the Government are in a position to state what they are. That, of course, is only advice which I am not able to enforce. My hon. friend behind me asks me whether the general discussion which I have foreshadowed could be postponed until the third and, I believe, the final instalment of the Report of the Committee is before us. I have not seen the remaining instalment, and I have no idea of its contents; but I should think it would be better that we should discuss the Report as a whole and the action of the Government as a whole. The House will the a be in a position to criticise the Report of the Committee, and if the action of the Government differs from 83 the Report of the Committee to criticise the Government for their departure from the Report.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEShall we not have to discuss reductions in cost and in the number of men? Also the decision of the Government on the linked battalion; and Army Corps systems?
§ MR. WHITLEYAre we to be asked to vote the money first and discuss the abolition of the offices afterwards?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThere is no proposal in the Army Estimates for an alteration of the army corps system or of the linked battalion system. Neither of these suggestions has been adopted by the Government as specific acts of policy. The Estimates will be framed on the basis of continuing the present system until it is decided to alter it. No alteration in the existing system will be made until the Government as a whole has accepted the Report and the House has sanctioned any action of the Government that may be taken in consequence.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt is somewhat difficult to understand the precise degree of approval or consent which the Government have given to these proposed changes. There was a curious little note before what was published in The Times on Monday, which certainly did not appear in all the other papers—perhaps in no other paper—stating that the King had given his leave for the publication of the Report. Was that intended to convey any additional authority to the recommendations of the Report, either on the part of the Government or of His Majesty himself?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not aware of the note to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I do not think His Majesty's name, ought to be dragged into this discussion.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI did not drag His Majesty's name in. The person who dragged it in was the member of the Government or some other official authority, and who sent the note to The Times.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI meant no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman. It was the last thing I intended. All I meant to say was that the Government, and the Government alone, in fact, in this case the Prime Minister alone, is responsible for the permission to publish the Report on Monday. I was asked whether I had any objection, and I said I had no objection, and it was done, and done under circumstances which, I am sorry to say, have prevented Members of the House from being in personal possession of the Report as soon as they ought to have been. For the permission to publish I am wholly responsible. That publication does not carry with it any indication that the Government approve or intend to act on the Report. That we shall probably adopt a great many of the recommendations I do not personally deny; but there is absolutely no suggestion that we are bound to accept the Report. It ought to be in the hands of the public, and it is in the hands of the public. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: But not in the hands of the House.] It is in the hands of the House and of the hon. Gentleman, if he desires it, through the newspapers. I am sorry it was not in his hand as a Member of Parliament, that he did not have it on Monday morning with his official Papers. I do not know that I can say any more than that by the way of explanation or apology for what has occurred. I hope our attitude towards the second Report of the Committee has been made perfectly clear by what I have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to my gallant friend behind me.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked by whom the communication was made to which the right hon. Gentleman's answer was that he had no objection.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI must remind the House that it is now past Three o'clock, and the Standing Order does not allow a fresh series of Questions to be entered upon.