§ Mr. W. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War under what circumstances the Royal Regment of Artillery (Horse, Field, and Garrison) was split up into two lists for promotion, namely, one branch the Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery, and the other branch the Royal Garrison Artillery; is he aware that though a promise was given them that neither branch would suffer as 232W regards the officers' general list for promotion, etc., owing to this division, the Royal Garrison Artillery promotion has since been much slower than the other branch, and that the Royal Garrison Artillery officers are to-day dissatisfied with the comparative rate of promotion, as illustrated in the official seniority and distribution lists of January, 1917; whether he is aware that the promotion to the rank of major compares as follows, namely, Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery, page 4 of the lists, junior major first commission July 1904, whilst Royal Garrison Artillery, page 21, junior major first commission July 1901, whereas if promotion in the two branches were equalised, as originally promised, the Royal Garrison Artillery captains would be to-day promoted major down to and including 194 on page 22 of the January lists, so as to place such promotion on the same scale as the other branch (in respect whereof promotions to the rank of major down to No. 24 on page 4 have been made since the January list was issued); and whether he will explain why 194 captains in the Royal Garrison Artillery should thus be inequitably treated in the matter of promotion?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe object of dividing the Royal Artillery into two-branches was to secure greater efficiency in view of the advance in artillery science by keeping officers in the mounted or dismounted branches for the whole of their service. In answer to the second part of the question, promotion in the Royal Artillery is now under consideration, in accordance with the promise which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentford on the 14th ult.