§ LORD RATHCREEDANMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the proposed reduction of four Cavalry regiments and the statement that the dominant principle in the selection of regiments for disbandment was the period of continuous existence, why the dominant principle has been departed from.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMy Lords, I rather expected that my noble friend would introduce his Question with a preliminary speech, because he has brought this subject before the House on two occasions already, and I thought that the preliminary efforts were mere reconnaissances and that this was the real action which he was going to develop. Therefore, he will perhaps excuse me for answering the Question, not as briefly as his own speech, but a little more briefly than I did on previous occasions.
I think I explained that when the decision was arrived at to abolish or disband four Cavalry regiments it was naturally necessary to proceed to the painful task of selection; that; generally speaking junior regiments would be selected for disbandment, and the main reason why the 18th Hussars, which is three weeks junior to the 5th Lancers, was not selected on this occasion was that, the 21st Lancers having been already selected for disbandment, it became necessary, owing to the administrative difficulties of the linked regiment system, with which my noble friend is very familiar, to select another Lancer regiment rather than a Hussar regiment for disbandment. The question arose then, Which was the junior Lancer 109 regiment?, and it appeared quite clear that the junior Lancer regiment was the 5th Lancers, taking the rule that you counted the life of the regiment from the last occasion on which it had been called into being.
That really summarises the whole statement. Of course, it is unfortunate that these regiments should have to be done away with, but I think my noble friend will agree that I stated very fully on a previous occasion all the considerations which led up to the necessity of doing away with the 5th Lancers, and I am afraid I am unable to add anything to what I have said already. I may, however, add that I followed up the promise which I gave on a previous occasion, and I represented very fully to the Secretary of State for War all the arguments—I was going to say almost more than all the arguments—that were used on that occasion by my noble friend.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANThen I take it I am quite justified in presuming that the answer to my Question, why the dominant principle has been departed from, is an admission that the dominant principle has been departed from.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI think my noble friend must accept my statement in the form in which it was delivered.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANNamely, that the dominant principle has been departed from.
§ House adjourned during pleasure.
§ House resumed.