Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to sanction the publication by a prominent official of the War Office of a volume setting forth the arguments in favour of compulsory service, and replying to the case against compulsory service as stated by Sir Ian Hamilton; and whether he is prepared to write a non- 220 official preface to the work in question, in order that the public may have an opportunity of hearing an impartial statement of both sides of the case?
§ Mr. HALDANEAs I have explained to the House, I was so impressed with the number of speeches of various officers on the active list and other eminent persons advocating compulsory service, that I considered it necessary to furnish the public with the facts relating to the actual organisation and policy of the Army, so as to provide statements of both sides of the case. This object has now been accomplished.
Mr. PEELDo I understand that his policy is only to sanction publications on matters of military policy by his military advisers when those views on military policy coincide with his own?
§ Mr. HALDANENot the least. We encourage officers to discuss questions of policy in the hope that we may get some light, but what we had to face here was that a large number of persons, a great many of them laymen, were stating opinions about the organisation of the Army which were entirely and wholly opposed to the fact.
Mr. PEELIs it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this volume is weighted by a preface from himself and that in the opinion of the public rather unfairly weighs down the scales against anybody else who might write about compulsory service?
§ Mr. HALDANEI do not think so. In regard to an elementary exposition of the actual organisation and policy of the British Army, it is not unnatural that the Minister primarily responsible should contribute a few words of introduction.
§ Mr. LEEWill the right hon. Gentleman strengthen his statement of the case by giving the opinion of the Army Council, which we have not yet had.
§ Mr. HALDANEI think on the whole that it is just as well that the Army Council should give their views when their views are wanted on matters that come before them. They have done so. For instance, you have had a paper by the Chief of the General Staff (Sir William Nicholson) on mobilisation, signed by all the members of the Army Council. On this particular question I do not think you want the opinion of the Army Council in practical agreement on an elementary exposition of actual facts and policy.