§ 4. Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under W. O. 20, No. 3604 (A. G. 1), dated 19th November, 1914, the Army Council undertook to recognise volunteer corps on condition that such corps obeyed the rules of the Central Association, and such Central Association agreed to certain conditions; whether Rule 4 of such conditions is permissive as regards the wearing of the red armlet or brassard; whether the fourth edition of the rules of the Central Association just issued is in like manner permissive in respect of wearing the said armlet; if so, whether the Central Association is exceeding its powers in making the wearing of such armlet compulsory; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for War will desire the Central Association to withdraw a requisition which is unauthorised, unpopular, and, for corps with uniforms, unnecessary?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Rule 4 of the Army Council letter of the 19th November, 1914, is permissible; but as the brassard is the authorised mark of recognition by the Council of a corps or an individual, the action of the Central Association in making the use of the brassard obligatory cannot be considered as in any way in excess of its powers, and its use for military exercises or duties is desirable. The answer to the last part of the question, therefore, is in the negative.
§ Sir J. D. REESIf the volunteers are no use why are they recognised, and if they are any use why are they ignored?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am not quite certain what the hon. Gentleman wants. He says the volunteers are useless.
§ Sir J. D. REESI did not.
§ Mr. TENNANTI understood the hon. Gentleman to say so.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only possible effect of wearing the brassard as well as uniform is to throw some doubt upon the validity of the uniform, and that that is the reason why it is so much objected to?
§ Mr. TENNANTInasmuch as the volunteers find it easier to obtain the brassard than the uniform, it is considered desirable to place the smaller obligation upon the volunteers; therefore they wear the brassard.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANDoes the right hon. Gentleman not understand that where they have got uniform the question is a totally different thing, and that where they have got uniform the only effect of wearing the brassard is to throw some doubt upon the validity of the uniform?
§ Mr. TENNANTI can only reiterate what I have already said about the smaller of the two obligations. That is a very important point. We cannot demand a uniform of all these volunteer corps, because they would not be able to obtain them. Therefore we have demanded that for them to be affiliated they must have the brassard. To say that because they can have a uniform as well, the brassard is unnecessary, would not be a good policy to adopt.