§ 11. Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War why, when the general Army pay for all ranks under sergeant was raised by 3d. a day, lance-sergeants were classed as sergeants, while under the White Paper sergeants received an increase of 7s. 6d. a day and lance-sergeants only 7s.
§ Sir J. GriggThe increases made in Army pay in April this year, to which I think my hon. Friend is referring in the first part of his Question, were not general increases throughout the Army but were confined to the lower non-tradesmen ranks. The lead which the lance-sergeant had over corporals was such as not to justify any increase in his pay under that scheme. The increases given for length of service last September applied to the Army generally and there was nothing unusual in grouping the lance-sergeant with the junior rather than the senior non-commissioned officers. I take it that the 7s. 6d. and 7s. 0d. a day mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question are intended to be 1s. 6d. and 1s. 0d.
§ Sir H. WilliamsI apologise for the error, which may be due to my handwriting. But why does the War Office call a sergeant a lance-sergeant in one case and for another purpose call him a sergeant?
§ Sir J. GriggWhy do we not call a lance-corporal, a corporal?
§ Sir H. WilliamsWhy, for some purposes, do the War Office call a lance-sergeant a sergeant, and for other purposes make a differentiation?
§ Sir J. GriggThe hon. Member might just as well ask why we do not call a lance-corporal a corporal. He is a lance-corporal.