I desire to call the attention of the House to certain aspects of the speech made on 3rd May at the Royal Academy banquet by the Chief of the General Imperial Staff, Lord Cavan. I need hardly state that, having served in a very junior capacity in the army of which Lord Cavan was commander during the War, nothing I am about to say is intended to reflect upon a very excellent officer and a very great gentleman. But there is, as I have said, an important public side to the question, and it is that which reflects, as it does, entirely upon the Minister, and in no sense upon the officer himself. It is to that aspect of the case to which I wish to draw attention. Hon. Members will probably agree that it is most important and most essential that a great public servant like the Chief of the Imperial General Staff must have, in the discharge of his duties, the full confidence and support of hon. Members of this House of Commons. It follows, as a corollary to that, that he must never be dragged into any of the controversies, or implicated in the Debates, that take place here. As to the kind of thing that is most undesirable, it will be remembered that in the last Parliament there was considerable heat aroused amongst hon. Members above the Gangway and also amongst hon. Members of my own party, on a certain occasion when the First Sea Lord was invited to the House to address Members on the question, purely controversial, as to whether or not a dock should be built at Singapore. The speech of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff seems to have got very near to that dangerous ground.

What took place at the Royal Academy banquet? Lord Cavan replied to certain criticisms of what has been called the mechanicalisation of the Army, which would develop in the course of the Debate on the Army Estimates, by two very distinguished officers of the Army, members of the Liberal party, one of them a former Secretary of State for War. Lord Cavan was perfectly within his rights in speaking on the general question of the efficiency and morale of the Army and on the subject of general military policy—that was obviously within his province. But beyond that he would not be entitled to go without authority. He did not go without authority, for we have heard the statement of the Secretary for War that the whole of the subject-matter of Lord Cavan's speech was settled in consultation with him beforehand. In these circumstances I feel it is no reflection whatever upon Lord Cavan to raise this question and to put certain specific questions to the Secretary for War.

In the first place, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he authorised Lord Cavan to name Members of this House in a public speech, and comment in strong terms upon the opinions they expressed in the Debate? The second question is—as distinct from the reply to criticisms made in speeches in the country on public platforms, to which an appropriate reply has always been by some other speech at some other public meeting, or even at some function like the Royal Academy banquet or the Lord Mayor's banquet—as distinguished from occasions of that kind; not officially to reply to criticisms of policy on the efficiency of the Army made in this House, The question is this: When he was authorising the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to deal with these questions in this public way, did he authorise him to make use of phrases such as, "There is not a word of truth in it," "entirely incorrect," and strong expressions of that kind, with which to qualify the opinions which had been put forward in the Debate on the Army Estimates? And if he did so authorise Lord Cavan, does he consider it proper to sanction the use of epithets of that kind by a very high public official, when he is dealing with speeches made in this House by hon. Members, one of whom is an ex-Secretary of State for War. Finally, will the Secretary of State explain this? He said in answer to my supplementary question: I was aware of every statement the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was going to make in my absence. If the Secretary of State for War was incapable of replying to the criticisms at the time of the Debate in the House, would it not have been possible for him to select some further occasion in this House to develop the subject and reply to these points? I know other hon. Members are equally interested with myself in the purely constitutional aspect of this matter, and they will also wish to speak to this question. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us a full reply.