HC Deb 17 April 1930 vol 237 cc3098-186
Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS

I wish to occupy the time of the house for a very few moments to call attention to the action of 12 noon the Government regarding the cadets. May I just remind the House what the position is? In the Army Estimates the usual sum was inserted as a grant to the cadets, but on the morning, apparently, of the Debate on the Army Estimates, the Secretary of State changed his mind and struck out, or rather, determined to withdraw, the grant from the cadets, and not only to do that, but to refuse them the official recognition that they had hitherto had. He apparently did that as a sort of sop to those on his own back benches who were threatening to attack him with regard both to the cadets and to the Officers Training Corps. He told us that he had consulted the National Union of Teachers, and I have no doubt that he did; but I understand that it has been made public that the National Union of Teachers, whoever he consulted, had not, apparently, obtained from their own members their own members' opinion on the subject. Be that as it may, there were at least two other bodies that might have been consulted by the Secretary of State if he had wished to hear both sides of the case. There was the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, an association which represents all the secondary schools that have cadet corps; and there was also the Council of Territorial Associations, who have hitherto administered the grant and administered the Corps. Neither of these bodies was consulted, and both have since protested at the action of the Secretary of State for War. Resolutions are being passed by the Territorial Associations regretting the abolition of the corps, and asking the Secretary of State for War to reconsider his decision.

I do must humbly ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. If he says that the financial pressure is such that he cannot afford to make a financial grant, even though it be only £15,000, to the cadets, I would say to him at once, "Then withdraw the grant; do not renew the grant; but at least do not withdraw official recognition from these cadets. Test them if you like. There are 50,000 of them now. Let them find their own money, and, if they are not able to find their own money, you may say that there is no real demand for them and the movement is not worth keeping alive if it cannot support itself. Let it support itself by withdrawing the grant if need be, but do allow recognition, do allow the Territorial Associations officially to father the cadet corps, so that they may be inspected, so that they may feel that they are some part of an organisation."

I hope the House will realise what official recognition means. It means that these cadet corps are affiliated, very often, to a local Territorial regiment. It means that they are a unit; it means that they can borrow miniature arms from the Ordnance Department of the War Office. It means also that they have the use granted to them by the Territorial Associations of the Territorial drill halls, and, frequently, of the camping grounds; and I want hon. Members to realise what that means to these 50,000 boys. These 50,000 boys, in this form of club, if you like—because it is not much more—meet together, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; they have marches out—days out together; and then they have their annual holidays, their annual camp, and to many of them this is the only chance that they have of getting a holiday away from their homes.

These cadet corps are not only attached to schools. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, having consulted the National Union of Teachers, he had done everything that was necessary, but I have here a communication from two units which are not attached either to any religious organisation or to any school. They are the Manchester Royal Engineers Territorial Cadet Corps, and the 1st Battalion of the Manchester and Salford Regiment, which is the cadet corps of that regiment. These units could, if necessary, if the War Office grant were withdrawn, probably make themselves self-supporting, because the people in the neighbour- hood would come to their rescue with contributions, so that they should not be suppressed; but they cannot go on if recognition is withdrawn, if they are not allowed the privileges that I have enumerated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. If on financial grounds he cannot afford the money, let the grants be withdrawn, but it is doing no one any harm to keep these units in existence, and it is doing the boys an immense amount of good.

Mr. EDE

I hope I shall be able to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his speech as regards both its brevity and the calm with which he has managed to discuss this matter to-day, after the somewhat heated references that were made to it a few days ago. He made one or two statements that I do not think he would have made had he been fully informed on the facts. He said, for instance, that the National Union of Teachers had not consulted their members on the matter. I wish to say, as a member of the National Union of Teachers, who has been very actively connected with it for the past 25 years, that this matter has been the subject of several discussions and resolutions at the annual conferences of the union. The policy of the union in regard to it has been laid down over a long period of years, and, while it is true that, as in all organisations, even in organisations with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, there are minorities who express views that are not held by some of the leaders, and there may be some members of the National Union of Teachers who do not agree with conference resolutions. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the members of the union undoubtedly take the line that was embodied in the views put forward by the deputation that waited on my right hon. Friend. They do that entirely on educational grounds.

I have been very surprised that so sound an educationist as the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) should have been concerned with securing the retention of these bodies as a part of ordinary school work, because I know from my own personal experience that the hon. Member for Windsor was a pioneer in many educational ways which are concerned in this matter. We have tried in the elementary schools and in the municipal and county secondary schools to get out of the education of the country the idea which George Meredith satirised as teaching the pupils, like Prussians, to walk and think in step. We desire to see the end of that. I was the victim on one occasion of a very skilful piece of work that the hon. Member for Windsor did in that respect over 30 years ago. As a boy at a secondary school, I was taught my French out of "Somerville's French Exercises," and the hon. Member knows very well the trap that he set for the boy who would walk and think in step and who would try to use the French idiom as he would the English. He put down, I think in Exercise 5, the phrase, "The great forest trees," and nearly all English boys, instead of saying in French, 'The great trees of the forest," used the French word "forât" in exactly the same order in the sentence as he would the English word. We desire in the elementary schools to get out of the rule of thumb military discipline that we had to have in the days when classes were larger and teachers were less skilled.

From that point of view we have long desired to get rid of this connection with the military, and I am bound to say that many parents have come to me—I should think a dozen within the past three years—to complain that, because they desired their boys to be outside the Cadet Corps, the boys had to suffer inside the secondary schools an amount of social ostracism that ought not to be put on any boy because of the conscientious belief of his parent. I doubt whether at the age of 14 or 15 a boy has a conscientious belief of his own that can be regarded as well founded, but undoubtedly it is an iniquitious hardship to inflict social ostracism on a boy, and make him feel that he is out of the general swim of the school, because of the faith of his parents.

Let us think now of the things that the boys get. They get a uniform, but really I desire to see, at the time when children are most formative, as little of uniformity in dress and manners as possible, and putting a boy into uniform and giving him the ability to walk and think in step are to my mind the absolute negation of the education that should be given in a democratic country. Then they get arms—miniature arms. I believe that most of them are dummy arms, but cer- tainly, on this side of the House, we should resent very strongly the use of the State system of education to establish in the minds of children of that age any connection with arms as a laudable following for the adult when he arrives at riper years. With regard to the use of drill halls and camping grounds, I understood my right bon. Friend the other day to say that general officers commanding have the power, where a ground is not otherwise required for the purposes of the Army, whether the boys in the Cadet Corps are connected with a Territorial Association or not, to lease the ground to them, and I should have thought that that would have met all that was required on that point.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue on the path on which he has started. I am by no means sure that he has gone far enough. I am not sure that some of the so-called officers' training corps do not include in their numbers boys far too young to be properly brought into the military system as members of officers' training corps, and I hope that this move of his will lead, so far as annual camping holidays for boys in secondary schools are concerned, to an extension of the principle of the School Journey Association, which has done so much in the elementary schools and in some secondary schools to give the boys all the advantage that comes from an outdoor holiday, combined with greater freedom from discipline and greater opportunities for educational activity than they can possibly get while they are part of a military unit.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech this morning, was careful not to define whether he was pleading for this from a military point of view or from a social point of view. We were told, when this was being discussed here last, that we were only concerned with it from the social point of view, but it was interesting to observe, when it was being discussed at the other end of the corridor, that a great deal more attention was paid there to it from the military point of view. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend can feel assured that in this matter he has the support of every Member on this side of the House. He has also the support of all those people who desire to see the schools of this country so conducted that they shall send from them a body of youths who will be able to think and act for themselves, who will be able, when the time comes, and they are of sufficient age, to judge dispassionately whether to follow the profession of arms or not. I object to the earmarking of any child for a particular profession at too early an age, and I certainly think that in doing what he has done, my right hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the views of his own party in this House, and acted in accordance with all progressive educational opinion.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

The ex-Secretary of State for War has put the case for the cadet corps in a very short and, at the same time, complete manner. May I add a few words? This subject of the cadet corps has aroused a very strong feeling of regret through the country, and that is why we on this side desire to mention the subject this morning. With reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, I am glad to find that he bears me no malice because 30 years ago he was afflicted with a book that I happened to publish. I am afraid the instance he has given from that book does not go very far to prove his case. Let me try to answer two of the points he has raised. He said that the National Union of Teachers is, by a great majority, in favour of the decision that has been taken by the Minister of War. That may be so, but our point is that that great body does not represent the schools which have cadet corps, and has not real experience of the matter for which they speak. That body represents the great number of elementary teachers of the country. It does not represent the secondary schools of the country.

Let me give the hon. Member the facts. In the beginning of last year, the latest date for which I have accurate figures, there were 91 secondary schools in the country with cadet corps. They contained 8,740 cadets out of a total of 25,350 boys. Now those figures, when you compare them, do away at once with the contention that is so often urged that there is any compulsion in the matter. There is none. I speak as one who for many years was a member of, and for five years commanded, a school volunteer corps, which later became an Officers Training Corps. There was no compulsion to join that corps. There was inducement to this extent. There was a public opinion amongst the boys. That public opinion grew very strong during the War, and that corps sent out leaders to the War who were of great value to the country. Now with regard to those 91 schools, what is the body that can speak for them? As my right hon. Friend has said, the Incorporated Association of Headmasters consists of 800 members. If you take the London schools, 14 have cadet corps, and the staffs of those schools contain 290 members of the Assistant Masters' Association in secondary schools, and 54 members of the National Union of Teachers. I think the House will say that that Association is much more representative of the staffs, the masters, in those schools than is the National Union of Teachers. In the Debate on the Estimates, the Minister for War said: I have come to the conclusion that representations made to me on educational and moral grounds are unanswerable. Teachers in elementary and secondary schools appear to be, in a large majority of cases, against this particular training on educational grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1930; col. 87, Vol. 237.] Let me analyse that statement in view of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about consulting the National Union of Teachers. We know now what weight their opinion carries. They can speak as teachers, but they cannot speak for the experience of the schools which have cadet corps. Let us see what the bodies which can speak for these corps say. Take the Association of Headmasters. Hon. Members, no doubt, have seen a letter that was sent to the Press by that Association. That letter, after protesting against the action of the Minister of War, goes on to give their considered opinion: The schools value their corps very highly because they provide a training which can be furnished by no other school activity. Unlike games, which are applied for pleasure, and bring their rewards in the shape of 'colours,' or school studies, which earn certificates and prizes, and advancement in the future, cadet work means self-sacrifice, subordination to the common good, the placing of duty before pleasure, and, above all, the realisation that the privileges of education carry with them responsibilities to their country and their fellows… The suggestion that cadet training, as carried on in secondary schools, fosters a spirit of militarism hardly needs refutation. It carries about as much weight as the assertion that teaching boys to box fosters pugnacity"— I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields would object to boys boxing.

Mr. EDE

I quite agree that it does teach them pugnacity. I refused to teach my boys to box for that reason.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

I was very fond of boxing as a young man, and I do not think it fostered a spirit of pugnacity. The letter continues: and tends to induce boys to become professional pugilists. Moreover, it is noticeable that those countries which have aimed at a highly developed military organisation have avoided the establishment of this method of voluntary training. That is what the headmasters of the schools say. What do the boys say? I have in my constituency two county boys' schools which have got efficient corps—Windsor and Maidenhead—and I speak from knowledge of the good those two corps are doing. Here is an unsolicited letter from the Windsor County Boys' School Cadet Corps. I did not ask for it; it came to me asking me to protest on their behalf against the injustice done to them both in withdrawing their grants, and especially recognition of their corps"— Recognition is the main point, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend— in the proper quarter, and, further, that you will endeavour, if it be possible, to arrange for similar protests from all the cadet corps in the United Kingdom to be presented to the Minister for War. I have not the slightest doubt that I could get protests from every cadet corps in the Kingdom. Then there follow the names of 91 past and present members of the Windsor County Boys' School Cadet Corps. What does the Territorial Army Association say? I got this letter quite unsolicited from the Chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Association: Dear Sir, With reference to the recent announcement in the Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of War regarding the Government policy in connection with the abolition of the cadet force, as chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Asociation I am writing on their behalf to ask whether you could kindly do anything in the matter. So far the association has received no official intimation of what is intended, but it would appear that the official recognition of cadet corps in future is not to be recognised. This ruling at such very short notice seems most unfair on the cadets concerned. In many cases cadet units have been put to very considerable expense, the boys having to pay for their own uniforms, and in many places, probably, headquarters had to be hired or purchased, and band instruments, etc. The cadet units administered by this association have been looking forward to their annual camps during the coming summer, and no doubt in many cases have already made their arrangements. When one remembers how the cadets themselves, poor boys most of them, have been putting by their pence to help to pay for their summer camp, it is heartbreaking to think of their organisation being broken up. The letter proceeds: The organisation of the cadets in this county is for the purpose of turning out boys as good citizens, and no pressure has ever been placed on any of them to join the Regulars or Territorial Force. It would appear, therefore, that the policy that it is understood the Government are to take in abolishing officially recognised cadet units will be a very great mistake, and unfair to all concerned. That is from the chairman of the Berkshire Territorial Army Association. What do the higher ranks of the Army say? Field-Marshal Lord Allenby, who is President of the Public Secondary Schools Cadet Association, says: I can personally testify to the value of the training of the boys, morally, mentally and physically. There was no compulsion on the boys to join the corps, and not the least of the services rendered by the corps was that they turned out a body of potential officers who were ready in an emergency. And so they were. In the first month of the War, with some friends we formed a battalion of volunteers who wished to train themselves for service. In the battalion there was a company of lads from the Church Lads Brigade. That was the best company in the battalion. A little later the whole of the company did splendid service. Lord Allenby goes on to say: They were taught self-respect, self-control and self-reliance. If deprived of official recognition, I am afraid their case would be desperate. Field-Marshal Sir Claud Jacob, who has been in camp with the cadets, speaks with the same voice. Now who are these boys in the cadet corps in the secondary schools? They are boys from the elementary schools who have won their places in the secondary schools, and they do not belong to the better off classes of the community. The Minister of War said he wished to find more ways to la carrière ouver aux talents. Is not he closing one of those ways by his decision? More and more of these boys from the elementary and secondary schools who join the cadet corps get Certificate A, and that means that they are becoming of greater potential value as future officers.

The late Minister mentioned that the total number of cadets in these corps is something like 48,000. 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of them belong to the non-school corps—bodies like the Church Lads' Brigade, the Boys' Brigade, the Jewish Boys' Brigade and so on. There can be no question of compulsion in their case. Who are those boys? Till they come into those corps and come under the influence of the training and the discipline and the example that they find in them, they are many of the roughest members of the youthful community. They learn some sense of discipline—and it is needed in the country at present—some sense of responsibility and care for those under them, and that is what is also needed in the industrial world today. They put up their pence in order to help to pay for their annual camp. It is grievous to think that all this useful effort, teaching self-denial, responsibility and care for others, is on the point of being destroyed. The effect of wearing uniforms is not uniformity. The hon. Member shows very little acquaintance with the military methods of today, because the main object of those methods is to teach initiative—scouting, map reading and knowledge of country, which is most useful in developing the powers of the boy, in which he delights

The reproach is cast at us by some of our more militant colleagues that we are fostering militarism in the cadet corps. That is ludicrous. I know of no militarists in England. A militarist in England is an anachronism, but the soldier is a necessity. It is many a long year since the British Army was anything but a powerful instrument for the defence of freedom and the development of civilisation. Witness the Sudan. When Gordon was slain in January, 1885, the Sudan relapsed into barbarism and savagery, and for long years Cromer and Kitchener worked in silence in Egypt. Cromer rescued the fellaheen—and it is well to remember it—from misery and misrule, while Kitchener with the British non-commissioned officer, as Kipling told us, made a man of Pharaoh. When the time was ripe he marched South with the British soldier and Pharaoh, that new-made man; he won the battle of Omdurman and made Khartoum a centre of order and law and civilisation. The Sudan to-day—I was close to it some 18 months ago—is a region of law and order and prosperity. It is well to remember this to-day, and it is well to remember that that was the doing of a British statesman and a British soldier.

As to militarism, is it not the case that the first impulse of any man who has red blood in his veins is to defend his home and his country? When I was chairman of the Assistant Masters' Association, there was a man in a secondary school in the district in which I lived—not Windsor—who was a militant pacifist, and he preached his doctrines in season and out of season. The governors of the school objected and summoned him to appear before them. In our association it was a principle that we should afford help to any member who was in trouble with the governors, and I was asked to appear with him. I did so, at the same time telling him that I was absolutely opposed to his views. The governors treated him very fairly. One of them asked him, "If you saw a German ill-treating your wife, what would you do?" "In that case," he said, "I am afraid my impulses would get the better of my principles." I ask the Minister of War to allow his generous impulses, not indeed to get the better of his principles but of those mistaken counsels which would lead him to abolish a useful national work. Is he not large-hearted enough and large minded enough to reconsider his decision and, at any rate, not to withdraw recognition, which would go a long way to abolish these corps. Will he not continue to give a helping hand to what is a great useful work for our young men?

Mr. SORENSEN

This discussion is one more revelation of the fact that between this side and the other side, though there are shades of opinion and convic- tions, there is really a great gulf fixed. It is well for all of us to recognise that for it means that, instead of trying to disguise convictions which are very deep, we shall face them honestly and frankly and, as the result of the clash of battle, we may perhaps come to a clearer understanding of our respective points of view. I can fully understand the point of view of the hon. Member who has just spoken and of the right ion. Gentleman on the Front Bench. They have grown up to feel that what are known as military virtues and moral virtues are identical. We on this side believe that the aim of civilisation should be to eradicate what are known as military virtues and to distinguish the moral virtues which at present are closely intertwined with militarism so that they can have a full chance of development. Thus, for instance, our friends on the other side have to make up their minds on this matter whether they are urging the continued recognition of cadet corps on the ground of the assistance that they render to the moral and physical well being of the youth of our land, or whether their basis is that recognition may be granted in order that sufficient recruits for the Army may be forthcoming.

If it is on the former ground, there is at least one other large organisation that does all for the youth of the land that Cadet Corps are alleged to do without any association with militarism, that is in the wearing of military uniform or in the bearing of arms. I refer to the boy scout movement. If recognition is to be granted to cadet corps, why should it not be granted to an organisation very much larger than the Cadet Corps of the country? On the other hand if it is suggested, as it has been here and in another place that the real value of the Cadet Corps is that they will supply suitable recruits and officers for the Army, it is not a matter of the National Union of Teachers being against this particular organisation or some other organisation being in favour of it. The whole question is whether we feel that public money and assistance should be granted to the youths of our land to encourage them to be familiar with military arts.

I can appreciate to the fall the hon. Member's argument that it is necessary to develop, in some measure at least, an understanding of militarism and all that goes with it, in order that we might safeguard the interests of civilisation in the future. I do not say that I necessarily agree with it, but I can appreciate the point of view. But I would plead that whatever might be said in that direction in regard to preparation for future conflict should not apply to those whose minds are still not matured. It is degrading to the mind of young boys to associate them, at a period when they cannot properly discriminate or judge for themselves, with the idea that discipline and duty and service and sacrifice must be bound up with wearing a uniform, with military formation and with all the arts of war.

I was very interested in the hon. Member's reference to his colleague in a certain school to which he was attached. I think I know that gentleman. I quite understand his position. None of us know, in face of the dilemma that was then indicated, exactly how we should react. Our impulses are very strong and. pacific as I am, I do not know, nor does anyone know exactly, how we should act when face to face with a great critical emergency. But the whole purpose of education is to teach the coming generation so to control their impulses and their reactions that, instead of reacting automatically, as an animal may do, we should act as civilised beings should do, and it seems to me that the best way by which we can do that is, at least in the earlier years, to dissociate the training of the mind from training for war. Let men arrive at man's estate before they decide how best they can serve their country and, if war is to be foreseen and prepared for, let, us realise that, at the very best, it is a dirty game. Those who were engaged in the last war admit that it was a dirty game. It may be an evil necessity but it is a dirty game which involves the steady deterioration of the body and the mind.

Sir GERVASE RENTOUL

No.

Mr. SORENSEN

If there is denial of that, all I can say is that those with whom I have spoken, those who have been in the forefront of the battle, those who lived through the four years of carnage on both sides all confirm what I say. In those four years our moral standards steadily deteriorated, although at the end of the War the whole of this and every other country was countenancing methods and practices at which at the beginning of the War they would be aghast. As a matter of fact, religion was pawned at the end of the War and the ideals of Christianity were put into cold storage. We dare not talk at the end of the War about loving your neighbour as yourself—we should have been locked up—and any talk of forgiving one's enemy would have brought upon one the scorn and hostility of the mob and of those in high places. We know, and hon. Members opposite know, that between our nominal faith on the one hand and war on the other hand there is a great gulf fixed and the longer the war continues the more is Christianity prostituted. I am not saying at the moment that any of us could stand the part. When war is being waged we are all involved. Every war drags us into the whirlpool of moral deterioration.

I would suggest if the great tragedy of war and its necessity is thrust upon us at this stage in our developing humanity, at least let us try and keep the coming generation clear of the poison and help them to realise that, although war may be a regrettable necessity, it must be anticipated and prepared for only with higher judgment and with a full understanding of all that it involves. Boys of 12, 13, 14 or 15 years of age cannot understand all that it means. I say very deliberately—I am not imputing for a moment against the conscience of hon. Members opposite—that to associate boys of adolescent years with all the horrors of war and destruction without their understanding and appreciating ail that it means is a prostitution of their understanding and of their ignorance. If this is so, I trust very earnestly that the right hon. Gentleman in front of me will stand by his previous decision and that we shall withhold recognition from this particular corps.

I want to say, in addition, that I appreciate the claims that are held out that it undoubtedly provides recreation and exercise for a large number of boys in secondary schools. I do not deny that for a moment. I am not going to deny, for instance, that those who join the Army do not have a healthy life. No one would deny that in the last War, in spite of the terrors and the horrors, a large number of young men who were fortunate to come through were made for life physically because of the open-air life which they were forced to live. Taken from factory, office and shop and forced to live in the open air and to brace themselves up, given decent food and decent recreation, undoubtedly it made them for life. But that is not to condone the accidental circumstances which brought them that particular fortune. So it is with the Cadet Corps of this country. Undoubtedly, a great deal of benefit is achieved, but that benefit can be achieved in other ways without association with the so-called military virtues. I would urge once more that it is of no value at all to the youth of to-day to teach them to shoulder a gun; to teach them to think of themselves as little soldiers; to teach them to think of themselves as ready to defend their country in that particular way. Rather do we want it to be understood by the youth of to-day that the best method of defending one's country is not by a gun but by one's thought, by one's mind, and by one's willing creative service.

It is in one sense rather ironical that we should be having this discussion on Good Friday eve. Whatever one's views may be about religion—and I do not wish to bring that in at the moment—at least this will stand out in the celebration of Easter from to-morrow and the next three days—the method offered to the world for the settlement of disputes and for the healing of the wounds of humanity other than by the method of destruction. I repeat that it is ironically significant that on the very eve of this particular celebration, when we more or less declare our acceptance of that method, we should be pressing for the restoration of recognition and support to a body which has for its real object not merely the moral and physical training of the youth but also the familiarising of them with methods which are directly counter to the methods which Easter Day celebrates.

Sir G. RENTOUL

I can agree with the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) in one thing at all events, namely, that there is on some subjects, but on this subject in particular a wide, and, I am afraid, an unbridgeable gulf between many of us on this side of the House and those who sit opposite. I welcome very much the opportunity of adding my protest to the protests of those which have already been uttered against what I consider to be one of the most deplorable administrative blunders that have been made by the present Government during the last few months. I am hopeful that even now, before it is too late, the Secretary of State may see his way to reconsider the matter. I am encouraged in that hope by the reflection that he has on several occasions shown a remarkably robust commonsense and courage in standing up to pressure from within his own ranks. On this occasion, he seems to have yielded to ill-informed clamour coming from a certain section of people on his own side, and certainly coming, as far as I can judge, from a section which is not distinguished in this House for demonstrating a particularly well-balanced judgment or sense of proportion on such matters.

It is obvious that originally no change whatever was intended in the practice which has been pursued. The Minister then received a deputation from the National Union of Teachers. I should like to ask, in passing, wha[...] particular claim the National Union of Teachers has to express an opinion on this matter? It seems to me to be as unjustifiable an interference for the National Union of Teachers to send a deputation to the Secretary of State for War in connection with the Cadet Corps as it would be for cadet officers to send a deputation to the President of the Board of Education in regard to the size of classes or the scale of teachers' salaries. The great majority of the Cadet Corps in this country to-day are not part of our educational system at all. They are composed of boys who have left school and who are for the most part engaged in industry and are commencing to earn their own living. Their work is carried on outside school hours, and it is particularly on behalf of those cadet units that I desire to make this appeal. I speak with considerable feeling on this matter, because I have devoted a considerable portion of my life to active work with a cadet unit and I know well the enormous value which has resulted to the boys. If this decision is adhered to, all that work will be utterly destroyed. I am not going to discuss the military value of cadet units. I do not think that it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two. I can justify the continuance of cadet units on both grounds, and I do not want to take up the time of the House by discussing their military value, although I think that an altogether overwhelming case can be made out on that ground. All that I would like to say on that matter is that every argument against the continuance or against the official recognition of cadet units applies with equal force to the Officers' Training Corps. Every argument in favour of the Officers' Training Corps applies with even greater force in respect to the cadet units. We must face the fact that we cannot draw any distinction between the two. The Minister has attempted to do so. He has admitted that there is an unanswerable case in favour of the other. I wish to deal for a few moments with the social and moral value of these cadet units. I agree that the suggestion that they are militaristic is utterly absurd to one who has had direct experience of them. As a distinguished ex-Secretary of State for War, Lord Derby, says, in a letter in the "Times" newspaper to-day, "It is antimilitarism run mad." Really, one cannot help agreeing with that view. One almost wonders whether very soon the National Union of Teachers will be sending a deputation to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to put an embargo on the sale of tin soldiers and pop-guns because they breed a militaristic spirit in the minds of the young. I see that some hon. Members opposite would be in favour of that. That shows, at all events, the state of affairs at which we have arrived.

I want to look at this matter from the point of view of the effect upon the boys themselves. For several years—if I may refer to personal experience. because naturally one's views are formed very largely by such experience—I had the privilege of being in control and command of a Cadet Corps in the North of London. It was composed for the most part of the roughest type of boy, of boys who were brought up for the most part under poor and very unsatisfactory surroundings, boys who possessed very little self-control or idea of self-discipline. The change that was brought about in those boys after they had belonged to the Cadet Corps for a few months was almost unbelievable. They began to show signs of discipline, they became self-reliant, and they were beginning to be formed into self-respecting and valuable citizens. It is suggested by the hon. Member for West Leyton that you could do that by other means. By the Boy Scouts, I suppose, and by boys' clubs, and so forth. I agree that a good deal of valuable work can be carried on by these methods, and in connection with every cadet unit to-day, I believe, there is a very effective troop of Boy Scouts. In fact, you have to run the club side of the work in close connection with the actual cadet side; otherwise, you would not be able to get hold of the boys you are anxious to get hold of.

That does not disguise the fact at all that it is by an appeal to tradition, by impressing on these boys that they are part of the British Army, that they are wearing the King's uniform, that if they do anything which is discreditable they are not only bringing discredit upon themselves but discredit upon the honour of the regiment of which they are a part; that it is by these vitally important factors that you influence these boys in the direction you desire, and that you make them into self-reliant, self-respecting citizens. In addition to that, there is the physical drill and so forth. The wearing of the uniform is a matter of great importance, not from the military aspect, but from the point of view of the boys, because it teaches them smartness of appearance, personal cleanliness. You also inculcate the team spirit in a way that can be taught by no other method of which I am aware. I feel that one of the greatest dangers with which we are confronted at the present time in regard to the rising generation is the lack of discipline, the resentment of any order, not because it may be unjustifiable or unreasonable, but simply because it is an order and something which they have to obey. Surely, hon. Members opposite would not be in favour of that kind of thing. After all, everyone has to learn, as part of his ordinary formation of character, to obey orders, otherwise he would never be in a position to undertake authority or, in his turn, to give orders.

1.0 p.m.

No greater mistake could be made than to suggest that war has simply been productive of nothing but brutality and beastliness. I realise, as everyone must, the horrors of war. I admit that another war would mean the utter destruction of civilisation itself. While one admits that, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that war has been productive of the highest civic virtues. It has afforded opportunities for courage, patriotism, self-sacrifice, esprit de corps, endurance, comradeship and loyalty. That is an aspect of the matter that ought not to be overlooked, because it is that aspect and not the military side that we are endeavouring to teach by means of cadet units. The withdrawal of the grant is an unimportant matter. Of course, we were glad to have the grant, but we had to raise the bulk of the funds that we required, and it was often hard work to do so. The vital point for the cadets is the withdrawal of official military recognition, and it is on that point that I hope the Minister will reconsider whether he cannot alter his view regarding the grant.

Most of our great Dominions have cadet corps, which they are developing to the utmost of their power. In Australia there is a cadet movement containing over 40,000 cadets. Does anyone suggest that that is a militarist movement or that the Australians are a militaristic people? I hope the Minister will come to the conclusion that his first thoughts were best. The cadet movement teaches, not blood-thirstiness, but real idealism, based upon a great tradition. It teaches the true elements of leadership and, what should appeal particularly to hon. Members opposite, by bringing boys of all classes together in camp it tempts to promote a better understanding and to do away with class divisions and class distinctions. Therefore, I am very glad, in the interests of hundreds and thousands of boys, mostly of the working classes, who have had experience in the movement, to have this brief opportunity of adding a very sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this matter.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE

The last speaker has said that the speakers on this side who are against this particular grant have revealed themselves as an ill-informed body of opinion and wanting in balanced judgment. Upon those main features I have closely investigated the substance of the hon. and learned Member's speech. I thought that, at least, he would be well balanced and well informed, but I am bound to say that my analysis of his speech shows to me that he has forgotten to display the qualities which, apparently, are necessary for this discussion in a much more pointed way than has been displayed on this side. Let me take an instance from his speech. He said that boys in the Cadet Corps were taught not militarism but idealism. That shows that he has not grasped the facts regarding young and receptive minds playing in a uniform at a thing which is dangerous and which if carried to its full conclusion will lead to very disastrous things—things which the hon. and learned Member has described as barbarous. To suggest that it is idealism to cover up a thing of that kind, is not to be well informed or to be well balanced.

I say this very feelingly, because I happen to have had a family of boys. I know that a boy is very susceptible of idealistic ideas, and when you put him into a uniform at a very early age, you immediately idealise the thing for which that uniform stands. No wise parent will do that for a child. No wise parent will suggest to the child that the thing that has been described by the hon. and learned Member as so dangerous that if it recurs it is likely to destroy our civilisation, is idealism. What we ought to do with a growing child, especially in a dangerous matter of this kind, is to teach him realistically and to let him see the thing as it is. That is exactly what the cade[...] classes do not do. They cast a glamour over the whole military career. They take a boy of a most susceptible age, and put him into a uniform, and we know what happens. In a secondary school for instance, they generally get an ex-sergeant as instructor. The headmaster tells him to be very careful how he carries out his functions and to remember that he is dealing with respectable boys and not with a lot of new recruits. Having thus taken every precaution to c[...]amp the style of the sergeant, they place these children under the sergeant and, in accordance with instructions, he endeavours to make them feel that it is very nice to play at being soldiers. I know the effects upon the child mind. He loses the sense of the possibilities of a military career, because everything that is unpleasant and distasteful is carefully removed from his ken. The result is that he grows up, even more than the child who does not come under that training, utterly unconscious of the real facts about war and militarism. I should apply to youngsters in these cadet classes the old couplet: Alas, regardless of their fate, the little victims play. It is in order that they may be regardless of their fate that every care is taken to hide from them the most awkward and the most unpleasant facts about the military career. The last speaker put the whole thing in an idealistic light. He talked about comradeship. Comradeship can be acquired in peace as well as in war, and to an even greater extent. It requires far more a sense of comradeship to live for a long time with a man in the same workshop or the same office and to maintain towards him a fresh and lively sense of fellowship than under the stimulus of military discipline a man can feel that every man is a comrade towards his comrades. In the great trade union movement there is a more true spirit of comradeship than can be brought about by any military training.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) made a carefully thought out speech, and, unconsciously perhaps, military bias coloured everything that he said. He declared that in this country we have no militarists. He said that we have soldiers, but no militarists, and he then proceeded to show that he was a militarist. If there is no militarist known in this country to the hon. Member for Windsor, let him turn to the looking glass and he will see one. He said, a very true and trite thing, that while red blood flows in our veins, we will fight for home and country. That is true; we shall do that. That instinct is very strong in all of us. But how did the hon. Member illustrate it? He went to the Sudan, and pointed to the English soldier in the Sudan Was the English soldier in the Sudan fighting for his home and country? He was fighting in the country of other people, and possibly destroying their homes. We see to what extent military bias can interfere with the logical processes of an otherwise intelligent man.

It is not without significance that a Labour Government makes a gesture by disapproving of this grant and not want- ing the young in our schools to be imbued at an early age with military leanings or military idealism, because we have arrived at a period in the world's history, when, whatever may have been said at one time about the necessity of keeping up armies and of keeping the military spirit alive among the people of this country, that time is disappearing. What have we done as a nation? Side by side with hon. Members opposite, despite their unconscious militarism and their desire to keep up the teaching of militarism to the children, we have agreed with them to assent to the Kellogg Pact, which outlaws war. The children may hear their parents talk at home about the Kellogg Pact and the number of countries which have signed it. The child will hear his father, for whom he has still some slight respect, say that the Kellogg Pact has been signed and that, "Thank God, war is outlawed," but when the child goes to school he is put into his little uniform and trained in the arts of war. He is trained to carry a gun and to march down the main streets of his town, like a little soldier, and his mind is in confusion. You cannot teach a child two opposite things at the same time. It is possible to teach a grown-up person, especially if he happens to sit on the other side of the House, to hold two illogical opinions that are self-contradictory, but you cannot do that with a child.

A child is a child still at the age of 14 or 16. I know how long children remain children. My idea, as a parent, has been to keep them children as long as possible. It was only when the War came along that a youngster of mine, under 18 years of age, told me that he could no longer stay in the laboratory where he was learning chemistry because, as he said, "There are only old women of both sexes left, Dad." It was not until then that he was initiated into the full mysteries of war. It began with something very nice, but went on step by step until he found his way into the shambles in France. I received a letter from him which I dare not show his mother and which I have never dared to look at again myself. When you take these young children and tell them that the Kellogg Pact has been signed, that there is a League of Nations, and then clap them into a uniform, what are they to think? You simply confuse their minds; and perhaps the object is to confuse their minds so that when they grow up they will be ready to respond to the deceptive steps which are taken to mislead the masses of the people into a war which is seldom in defence of their own country.

Something has been said to-day about the lack of discipline. Hon. Members opposite appear to regard discipline as something very different to the conception on this side of the House. The people who say that we must keep the Cadet Corps going because it gives a sense of discipline are the very people who voted against the abolition of the death penalty in the Army. Discipline to them means to subordinate the will of the growing generation to that of a few carefully trained people, who will shoot them if they do not carry out every order that is given to them at the crucial moment. That is not my meaning of discipline. Discipline, to me, means self-control; and the best way of teaching self-control is not to put the boys into uniform and make them do the same thing at the same time, it is not teaching them to form fours, but to go out on their own, to find their way here, there and everywhere, to do this and that on their own initiative. The discipline that is taught by methods like that is entirely different from that taught by military discipline.

I maintain that body and mind are deteriorated by military discipline. What do you do with your old soldiers? You make them commissionaires and place them on the doorstep. You do not give them a job which requires initiative, fluency of mind and quickness of judgment. You put them on the doorstep, in a uniform, and then you think that you have done very well by the old soldiers. Hon. Members opposite by their actions show that they think the man has deteriorated in mind. As to the deterioration of the body, no one can be a Member of Parliament for a big constituency, and mine is the biggest in the country, and come into contact with people who have been wrecked by the late War without realising that the body does deteriorate. This may be a very small step but a significant step because it does not stand by itself, and it is a sign that we are bringing a fresh fountain of thought to play about these matters. Over and over again in this House, when military subjects have been raised, I have heard Members of the old militarist school say that we must preserve discipline, we must shoot the man if modern warfare frightens him out of his life.

On this side of the House we believe that a new era of international thought is rising. In making this gesture, in taking the children out of the influence of the older school, we are asking that the mind of man shall be emancipated from the old restraints and that we shall realise that it is no longer absurd or ridiculous to say that the world can be envisaged without the possibility of war. The time has come when we can by these various actions lift up human thought in all countries into an atmosphere where they will realise that arrangements can be made by which war will become an anachronism. We are trying to take our children away from every remaining association of the old order as a proof to the world that we believe in the possibility of such a future and are prepared to take what steps we can to bring it about.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

I desire to add my voice to the appeals which have been made to the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision in this matter. Those who have been brought into contact with the right hon. Gentleman know that he is always ready to consider representations that are made to him, and many of us have the advantage of knowing that, whether he agrees with our particular views or not, he nevertheless brings an open mind to bear upon the representations we make to him. I hope in this matter that he will pursue the same course as in other minor matters which we have placed before him. For some 15 years I was intimately concerned with the working of a boys institution in London, and it is because of the knowledge I possess as a result of that work that I venture to intervene in this Debate. There appears to be in the minds of some hon. Members who have spoken this morning an idea that boys in cadet units are never taught anything else. I am afraid they have a very little knowledge of the way in which working boys units are conducted, and whilst I will not venture to discuss the question as to whether there is or is not a case for some administrative change in regard to the money which is granted to secondary schools, I think the Minister so far as these working class units are concerned, might consider the possible outcome of his action.

In 1889 there was established in London, in the borough of Southwark, a working boys' club, and as a result there have been set up in various other parts of London, in Stepney, in the slums at the back of Notting Hill, and other districts, working boys' clubs. These boys came from very poor homes, that is poor in the sense that they were bad homes, and it was extremely difficult to preserve any kind of decency and order in the clubs themselves. I am speaking now from personal experience. It was found that some form of discipline was necessary to prevent the clubs being broken up by these lads, in perhaps an excess of animal spirits which were not under proper control. Some form of discipline was needed, and in the particular club of which I am speaking, the first cadet battalion attached to the London Regiment, which took in boys over 14 years of age, it was found that some form of drill and military organisation was of great advantage in controlling them.

When I hear statements made about these boys being taught the glamour of war and being inculcated with military ideas I begin to wonder whether I was awake or asleep. I had the honour, during a great part of the time, of being in command of a company in a district which is really an appalling slum. I saw what went on. The club was open for five or six nights in the week throughout the year, except in one of the summer months. The amount of military organisation consisted of a weekly drill of one hour, and as a rule they did not come in uniform. They had to attend 12 parades during the year in order to remain members of the club, and only on rare occasions did they wear uniform. Once a year they had the advantage of going to Kingston Barracks, where they were given a very happy time in the open air during the Easter holidays, and in the summer months they went largely at their own charge, assisted by such funds as we who were running the organisation could manage to collect, eked out by a very small grant from Government resources, for a happy week's holiday in the country. The glamour of war! Why one of the first duties we inculcated in the mind of our officers was that they were never to teach the boys anything except this, that war, if it came, was a horrible and beastly necessity.

And what about the officers? In this House there appears to be an anti-officer complex. The officers were, and I have no doubt are at the moment, busy working people. We had a schoolmaster or two giving their spare time to help in educating these lads. We had a barrister or two—both of us are here—we had a bank clerk or two, an insurance clerk or two—people giving up their scanty leisure in order to assist in a useful social work. On behalf of these working boys' units, I desire to emphasise the social character of the work. As to inducing the boys to join the Army, I do not think that anyone who has had any experience of the units will agree for an instant that there is any sort of attempt made or influence used in that direction. We have been enabled, during the 41 years in which the organisation has been in existence, to do a very great deal for the benefit of the lads. The withdrawal of the Government grant from units such as I have described is serious enough in its way. We have had to struggle to get subscriptions. We were none of us people in a position to spend very much more than our spare time in the work which we were doing, and the withdrawal of the Government grant will undoubtedly make the work incomparably harder. But notwithstanding that withdrawal, we can, I think, still manage to carry on; we can still manage to do the work which we are doing if we get just that little help which enables us, for example, when we are appealing to the generous public for subscriptions, to tell them that we are attached to some unit, which incidentally we never see, and that we really are a recognised organisation. Often, when charitable appeals are made, it is an advantage to answer shortly and to the point the question, "Who are you, and what are you doing?"

The little assistance of Government recognition is one of the things that help units very much more than is generally understood. That is the position, I understand, with regard to a large percentage of these cadet units. It is on these grounds, emphasising, as I do, the social value of the work that they are doing, that I venture to ask the Secretary for War to reconsider his decision. As to the other speeches we have heard to-day, I cannot help feeling that they seem to regard the cadet's mind as entirely opposed to every other form of instruction, as if the cadet spent his whole time in uniform and as if he was taught nothing except how to form fours and what the effect of firing a rifle would be. I suggest, with great respect to those who, I am certain, have firm convictions upon what they think is the military spirit, that they are exaggerating the whole matter beyond an inconceivable possibility of right. I ask them to think whether, in attempting once more to strike a blow in favour of a principle, they are not also striking down something which is really doing useful work, which is a credit to those who are responsible for it, and of infinite value to the boys to whom instruction is given.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw)

I take this opportunity of restating the Government position, although I have already stated it with as great clarity as I could command on two or three separate occasions. I shall restate the position in order that there may be no misunderstanding, no misconception, and I hope no misrepresentation of the Government's attitude. It seems to have been assumed that when I considered this matter I went to consult the National Union of Teachers. Nothing is farther from the fact. The National Union of Teachers came to consult me, as people who took an interest in the matter. I would have met any responsible body, as indeed I met Members of this House who desired to see me on the subject. Obviously I could not send round the country a kind of advertisement, "Would anyone like to meet the Secretary for War on the question of Cadet Corps?" Naturally, if anyone is interested it is his business to approach the Minister. I have approached many Ministers in my time, but I never knew one to run out of his way to approach me.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

We had not the least idea that you were going to withdraw recognition of the Corps.

Mr. SHAW

How anyone, knowing the record of our party, could have dreamt that the matter would not come under consideration, I do not know. Anyone who heard the answer that I gave before the Estimates were introduced, and who heard me state that on questions of policy the Estimates must be awaited, could scarcely have doubted that the subject would be considered. If anyone in the House had any doubt as to whether the subject would be considered, I suggest that it was not the fault of the Labour party. The curious thing is that not only did I not consult the National Union of Teachers and that they consulted me, but I believe that after they had consulted me, they were very dissatisfied with the reception they got. I state that to the House in order to show that the theory that the National Union of Teachers was sent for by me and that it half bullied me into this conclusion, is absolutely erroneous from beginning to end. It was quite the opposite. I think I was quite justified in dealing with the delegation as I did, but they were evidently dissatisfied with the way in which they were treated.

Let me refer to one or two of the things that have been said during this discussion. I may be able to remove one or two misapprehensions. After my decision had been given I was appealed to "to play the game," so to speak, with the Cadet Corps, on the ground that many organisations in perfect good faith had entered into arrangements for this year without having the knowledge of what was going to take place. I went to the very limit of concession there. When I examined the matter and found that unquestionably a number of organisations had definitely entered into commitments in the belief that they would get the grants, I at once said, "We will have a clear edge to this, and the whole of the grants shall be paid for this year. The conditions shall go on until October, in order that no one can say that he has not been properly treated."

Let me try to put, as logically as I can, the position as it appears to me. Either this body is for military purposes or it is not. That is a plain and simple statement that no one can controvert. If it be not for military purposes, as was asserted in another place by half the speakers, or if it be for military purposes, as was asserted by the other half, we have to face the p[...]ins either way. If it be not for military purposes, the War Office ought not to have anything to do with it. It is not our business in any sense to deal with social institutions for boys. They could infinitely better be dealt with by the Minister for Education. I do not mind expressing the personal view that I would look with the greatest approbation on anything that the Minister of Education could do in order to give to boys who are just emerging from the elementary schools and are entering the secondary schools, an opportunity of physical training under healthy conditions, by methods that would make both for their moral and spiritual uplifting. But it is not my business as Minister for War to deal with social institutions. After the grant had been removed by the last Government it was reintroduced not on military but on social grounds.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I reintroduced it.

Mr. SHAW

I must give the information that is supplied to me. Did the right hon. Gentleman reintroduce it for military purposes?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I did it for both.

Mr. SHAW

So far as I am concerned as Secretary for War, I decline to have anything to do with social institutions. It is not my business, and, frankly, I do not intend to make it my business. Let me turn now to the other side. If this be a military institution there are two things that we have to consider. The first is, does it fulfil the object for which it is apparently created? If it does fulfil the object is it a thing that we ought to do? On both grounds I object to the Cadet Corps. I object to it because, even if I believe it has a military object I do not believe, from the facts submitted to me, that it attains its object; and, secondly, I have an unconquerable aversion against children of tender age being drafted into semi-military formations. It was with the greatest reluctance that I accepted advice with regard to the Officers Training Corps, but there the boys generally are older, or old enough to form an opinion. It is true that the older end of the Cadets shade into the younger end of the Officers Training Corps, but generally the Cadets are much younger. I could not stand here and defend a semi-military formation for children of tender age. If there is one thing above all others in which a mature judgment is required, it is as to whether one will or will not embark on a military career.

It may be that our ideas on the matter differ, but that is my idea and the idea of my party. If there is a conflict between the two ideas, the side which is in office must try to apply its own policy and not the policy of its political opponents. That is where I stand on the matter. I have done my level best to ensure the keeping of every engagement which anybody could say had already been entered into, or to which anybody by implication could be bound. I have said quite clearly that the corps can go on to the end of this term, because it is impossible to distinguish between those who have entered into commitments and those who have not; but when the end of this year comes, as far as we are concerned, the military or semi-military connection between the cadets and the Territorial Force will be broken. The cadets will not suffer any deprivation in comparison with other boys' organisations. If Boy Scouts, Boys Brigades or other organisations apply for the use of lands, and if the lands can be spared under reasonable conditions, commanding officers have power to grant the use of that land on certain terms for outdoor exercise.

There is no intention of treating these cadet bodies any worse than other boys' organisations. But if an attempt be made—I might as well be quite frank about it—to get round the decision of the Government and the House, by carrying on in the old way, by subterfuge, then, of course, action will have to be taken to see that the Government policy is carried out. I have tried to state concisely the Government position. Whether this claim be urged on the ground of the social desirability of these corps, or on the ground of the military advisability of these corps, or on both grounds, the Government are equally opposed to it. In those circumstances it would be idle for me to pretend that there is any chance of a reconsideration of the Government decision, and I make that statement quite frankly to the House in order that there may be no misapprehension. I hope I have made the Government's position perfectly clear.

Commander SOUTHBY

I am sure the House will appreciate the candour and frankness of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed the whole of this Debate has been conducted with extreme candour and frankness on both sides and although it is obvious that there is marked cleavage of opinion between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side, at any rate those opinions have been expressed with great sincerity. Where the difference of opinion really arises is that hon. Members opposite feel that military training is harmful. That is the basic supposition upon which the objection of the Government and the Government's supporters to these cadet corps is founded. The right hon. Gentleman just now asked whether the object of this movement was social or military. I think the answer lies between those two alternatives. The movement is not for purely military purposes but it teaches what I may call quite fairly and truly military virtues.

I do not think that hon. Members opposite really think in their hearts that military training—not militaristic training, not training inspired by militarism and a desire for war, but military training in the sense of disciplinary training—is a bad thing in itself. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken with such sincerity from the other side of the House believe in teaching children to think and judge for themselves, but anybody who is familiar with the principles which underlie military training will admit that one of the greatest beauties of our system in this country is that it teaches the soldier or the sailor to think for himself. [Laughter.] I think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who laughs at that remark, himself benefited very much from a military training and was a great ornament to the profession with which he was associated.

Mr. EDE

Although I rose to the rank of sergeant-major, I was never taught in the Army to think for myself.

Commander SOUTHBY

It was only as the result of what he was taught in the Army that the hon. Member rose to the rank of sergeant-major and was able, not only to think for himself, but to think for others. That is one of the chief charms of military training and the training which has been given to these boys—that it enables them to think, not merely for themselves, but for the other members of the company to which they belong. It has been argued that uniforms are unnecessary, but the uniform is an attraction to a certain type of boy who would not otherwise be brought into a movement which can do him so much good. It is also argued that the same results can be achieved through the Boy Scout movement and the dubs movement. I do not think that that argument holds water. There are many boys who are not attracted by the clubs movement but who are attracted by the cadet movement. There are boys from outlying districts who are influenced by the prospect of meeting a number of their fellows in organised and disciplined work, and who in that way are brought into the cadet movement, when they might not be attracted into the other movements which have been mentioned.

The whole range of this subject has been adequately covered during the Debate, but there are one or two points which I wish to put to the House. I have here a letter on the subject of the moral good which this movement does, as opposed to the idea that it is merely a movement which has in v[...]ew a future war, and which is training up reserves for such a war. This letter is from the commanding officer of one of the London units and, pointing out the good which this movement has done in training boys, he writes as follows: I myself have taken two boys on remand into my corps. The boys were considered perfectly hopeless by boys' club officials and social workers. Through discip1ine, uniform and physical training we have seen those boys take on responsibilities until both reached the highest rank among the noncommissioned officers of the corps. One of them is now a prominent organiser on a voluntary basis for Toc H. Anyone who knows the wonderful work of Toc H will realise that no harm but only good can have been done to those boys as a result of passing through a Cadet Corps unit. The fact that this boy is now prominent in Toc E proves that the training which he received was all to the good and that it was far from teaching him mere militarism in the worst sense of that word. One of the reasons why clubs cannot do what this movement does, is that the clubs are mainly recreative in character and that boys go into them largely for recreation. The Cadet Corps movement is more a character-forming movement and as such it ought to be fostered and maintained. The figures have already been mentioned of the number of boys in the movement but I believe that some 3,000,000 have passed throught these Cadet Corps with immense good both to themselves and to those with whom they come in touch.

The Secretary of State for War has mentioned his meeting with the National Union of Teachers. Surely if the National Union of Teachers came to him and expressed an opinion he might have considered the advisability of ascertaining the views of other representative bodies in the teaching profession and of other people who have first-hand association with young boys. In 49 London public and secondary schools there are 797 members of the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters, and only 123 of those are members of the National Union of Teachers. If there is one body whose views might have been sought by the right hon. Gentleman it is the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters. Although it may seem to be beating against a granite front so far as the Secretary of State for War is concerned I would suggest, even now, to the right hon. Gentleman that he might find it in his heart to make at least some concession, if proper representations were made to him. May I say here that I would like to express my personal thanks to him for the fairness and generosity with which he has acted in one respect. He has done something with which I do not agree at all, but at any rate he has played the game, by making a clear-cut line, in such a way that none of the units will be injured this year. For that concession both this House and the units themselves will be grateful to him. In fact one might say of the right hon. Gentleman that he has done a dastardly deed in the kindest possible way—but the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman does not alter the fact that it is a dastardly deed. It is not a question of money—the right hon. Gentleman himself has made that fact quite plain. It is a question of a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether these corps are for the good of the young of the country or not. I contend that if they teach self-reliance and the virtues associated with the military profession they are worth keeping for that very reason and I think it is possible for these young people to be taught those virtues without being taught any of the vices of the Prussian system of military training from which we suffered during the War.

In the course of this discussion references have been made to certain subjects which are not, strictly speaking, relevant to this discussion. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) said that orders were given to drill sergeants by schoolmasters to the effect that "they must treat the boys of the Cadet Corps as respectable boys and not as recruits." I resent that remark, because the recruit who joins His Majesty's Army is as much a respectable member of society as anybody else in the country. I do not like, even by implication, and I am sure the hon. Member did not mean his remark in that sense, that anybody who wears the King's uniform should be lightly spoken of in this House. I also gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Romford that he suggested that the average ex-service man was not competent to be given any particularly good job, and was only given the sort of job which any fool could do. If it be the case that the ex-service man, the old soldier, is not given any job which requires high mental capacity—and I do not admit it for a moment—at any rate members of the Corps of Commissionaires are called on to fill any jobs which require trust, honesty and faithful service, and we may be proud of the Corps of Commissionaires and of the way in which they and ex-service men generally fill the positions of trust which they are given.

2.0 p.m.

Reference has been made to the fact that war deteriorates the spirit and the mind of the people. It is my privilege to go from time to time to meetings and entertainments which are given to help those men and women who are still suffering from the effects of the War. I go in no political capacity at all, but I see some hundreds at a time of these men who are broken and shattered—men still living in homes such as the Star and Garter and the War Seal Foundation, and nurses who were bombed and gassed during the War. These men and women may be broken in body, but nobody can say that their spirit has deteriorated. It is as fine as ever it was when they were in France, and I do not like hon. Members opposite coming here and saying that war, horrible and beastly as it is, deteriorates the spirit of the people, because it does not. It brings out virtues which perhaps are only too latent in peace, such as self-sacrifice, heroism, comradeship, and the like, and when war has broken the body, as indeed it has in many cases, at any rate it has left the spirit of these men untouched, and has left them as shining examples for us.

I would like to put one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been asked to approach him—and I did not do so before to-day's Debate—to ask whether he would receive a small deputation which would be representative of the territorial cadet units of the home counties. I hope that he will not tell us that it is no good their going, because I am sure he will be the first person—

Mr. SHAW

I certainly shall not tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that. I will willingly receive at any time bodies of responsible people to talk on responsible matters, whether they are of my political views or not.

Commander SOUTHBY

The answer that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is one which I expected he would give, because nobody doubts his sincerity or his kindness in the execution of his particular duties. I shall be very grateful for the opportunity to introduce to him a deputation representing the territorial cadet units of the home counties, and it may be that when he has heard what they have to say he will remain still open to conviction, and we may hope that, having heard these representations, he may be able to say that, although the War Office cannot grant the money, it may still be possible to allow these boys to wear a uniform of which they are extremely proud, but which he has taken away from them. If facilities for the use of War Office equipment and camps are also taken away from them, it must mean—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—the extinction of these Cadet Corps. I do not believe, whatever views the other side may hold about these Cadet Corps, that it is really desired to do away with any movement which is for the good of the young people of this country—a movement which, unless there is some sort of War Office recognition, however hedged about it may be by the right hon. Gentleman, must become extinct, although it has done nothing but good during its existence.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I feel quite sure that the speech of the Secretary of State for War Will be received with the very greatest disappointment by every cadet throughout the length and breadth of the lard, and not only so, but it will be received with dismay by those patriotic people who have given so much of their time in the past, from both patriotic and philanthropic motives, to the fostering of the Cadet Corps movement; and I think too that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will be received with the greatest disappointment by the parents of the cadets themselves. If recognition is to be withdrawn, as we now understand, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more gracious in coming to his decision, and that he might have uttered a few words of recognition of the great good that this cadet movement has done in the past, and of gratitude for the services of those who have so ungrudgingly carried out the duties connected with the movement.

I must say one word as regards that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with the deputation which waited upon him from the National Union of Teachers. I think the story he has given to us of that particular interview makes the matter very much worse, because, after all, what is the locus standi of the National Union of Teachers in this matter? Let me remind the House that the composition of the National Union of Teachers is something 1ike one-third men and two-thirds women, and that seems to be hardly a body from which to accept advice on a matter of this kind, dealing with youths 50 per cent. of whom have already left school. That is the proportion to-day. Therefore, why should the right hon. Gentleman pay so much attention to this particular body? If he really wanted to get at all the facts of the case, when he had received this expression of opinion from the National Union of Teachers [...]he least he might have done would have been to consult the Headmasters Association and the other bodies concerned.

The Cadet Corps movement exists for the improvement of the mental, moral, and physical training of the boys of our country. True, it is a semi-military organisation, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) said so well, although it may be a semi-military organisation, that does not mean necessarily that it is a militaristic organisation, and I entirely agree with the clear distinction which he drew in that matter. Why has the right hon. Gentleman come to this decision, as he told us in the Debate on the Estimates, entirely on his own authority; why has he ignored the weight of opinion on the other side; and why has he taken his decision in face of the opinion of his military advisers? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that he has taken this decision in face of that opinion, and I think we are entitled to have had some explanation as to why he has chosen in this matter to ignore the advice of his military advisers.

I should like to give one expression of opinion from a body which has been dealing with the Cadet Corps movement. A meeting was held yesterday of the Essex County Territorial Association, and this resolution was passed unanimously: This association deplores the action of the Secretary of State for War, who, without consulting any of those directly interested, decides no longer to give recognition to cadet units, and is thoroughly in agreement with the headmasters of the schools concerned, the organisers of the Church Lads Brigade, and others connected with the cadet movement in Essex, who, at a special meeting, passed a resolution to the effect that the parents of 2,000 voluntary cadets in the county are the better judges as to the moral effect of their children joining cadet units than the National Union of Teachers or any Government in office. This association is of opinion that it is essential to re-establish cadets as an integral part of the Territorial Army. We have had evidence from headmasters and from territorial associations, and, as we know, we had the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers also, all coming down on the side of maintaining recognition of this Cadet Corps movement. An hon. Member opposite alluded to the gulf which exists in these matters as between this side of the House and the other side. Obviously, there is a gulf, and I think it is just as well that the country should clearly understand what that gulf is. The fact is, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) mentioned, that this decision of the Government is a pacifist gesture, but that does not in the least mean that it is a gesture for peace. The two things, peace and pacifism, are quite different. Every Member of this House probably desires peace, but what kind of peace does he desire? There are two quite distinct kinds of peace. There is the right kind of peace, peace with honour, which is the peace supported and sustained by the moral character of the manhood of the nation, but that is not the kind of peace for which the pacifist cares, which is peace at any price, even though it be purchased at the sacrifice of the moral manhood and boyhood of the country. That is the distinction between the ideas of peace on this side and on that, and I hope the country will take note of the difference.

I fear it is too late to think that anything I can say will now influence the decision of the Government. I deplore that decision, and I only hope that an opportunity may come when there may be found sitting on the Treasury Bench a Government which has a different mentality in these matters and that this movement for fostering the manhood and all that is best in the moral culture of the youth of this nation may receive encouragement at no far distant date from a Government which appreciates the value of those virtues to the nation as a whole.