BRITISH ARMY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19887, 26 March 1930, Page 11

BRITISH ARMY.

THE ARMAMENTS PROBLEM.

REDUCTION BY AGREEMENT.

(BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.)

(Received March 25th, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, March 24. Referring to a motion demanding annually extensive reductions in the Army, Mr Tom Shaw, the Secretary for War, sneaking in the House of Commons, said that the Prime Minister had spocifically declared that this country stood for a reduction of armaments by agreement. It was also the method of the Leaguo of Nations. It was assumed by some theorists and Speculative philosophers that if we reduced considerably and consistently, without regard to other nations, we should help along general disarmament. Unfortunately the facts had confounded the thoorists. The Government, while not merely willing to take part in an agreement for international disarmament but - to take a leading part, was not prepared at the present moment to go further in unilateral action. It seemed to him that if one thing had become clearer than another since the war, it was that both economically and politically, whether we liked it or not, we were bound to the international system. With regard to the question whether public money should be spent On Officers' training corps and cadet corps at public schools, Mr Shaw said that he had come to the conclusion, on definite expert advice, that officers' training corps were really valuable organisations for providing a supply of officers. So long as the Army existed on a voluntary basis there would have to be some fcuch form of Army recruiting. No compulsion was exercised by • the Amy Council or on the part ot the Government to compel any boys to join these corps, which would epn'tinue to receive the Government's grant. He could not, however, take the same attitude regarding cadet corps. Teachers ih elementary and secondary schools appeared to be, in the great majority of cases, against this particular training on educational grounds. He agreed with those representations and intended, with the consent of the House, to cease to give War Office assistance to these bodies when the existing contracts expired. FALLING OFF IN RECRUITS. REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURE. (BMTISn OFFICIAL WIRELESS.! RUGBY, March 24. In the House of Commons Mr Tom Shaw, Secretary of State for War, introduced the Army estimates. He said they amounted to £40,500,000, showing a not reduction of £605,000. The decrease in expenditure was £1,343,000, but this was largely counter balanced by a diminution in receipts of £738,000. More than half tho latter was accounted for by the loss of receipts to the Army funds from Germany through the evacuation of the Rhineland. This loss in a full year would amount' to £950,000. The actual number of the forces, exclusive of India, was estimated at 148,900, compared with 641,000 in 1921. As regards tho 60,000 men of the British Army in India, Mr Shaw pointed out that actually there was one British soldier for every 5000 of -the native population. He was afraid there was a somewhat exaggerated opinion regarding the number of white troops in India. Sir Laming Worthington-Evana former Conservative Minister for War), following Mr Shaw's presentation of the estimates, said the Army recruiting problem was most serious. They were 10,000 men short at Home, and 4000 in India. He believed the main causes were the expectation of a large increase in unemployment benefits. and the general disarmament talk. "We might some time have to consider whether a man can be treated as unemployed when the State is ready to employ him as a soldier or sailor," he said. (Labour dissent.) He said, however, that - legislative compulsion was out of the question. If they could not compel they must attract. Probably *he real reason for the falling-off of recruiting was uncertainty ijs to an ex-soldier's future. They must somehow train the soldier for a career after leaving the Army. During service they should either be taught a trad§ or given a secondary or university education for a higher position when they left tho ArmyMr W. G. Cove (Labour) moved a motion declaring all warlike expenditure wasteful, and calling on the Government to realise its policy of disarmament. - Mr J. Brown (Labour) seconded the motion, and, said Mr MacDoaald had demanded that risks should be taken in the cause of peace. In the Army estimates it had only taken one per cent, of risk. Mr E. Shinwell (labour) vigorously attacked the back-benchers for supporting "an academic policy which was not practical politics." The Labour Party's policy was disarmament by international agreement, not by theatrical and foolish gestures. Mr G. Mander (Liberal) said the Government must press . forward Geneva's call on all Governments to honour their disarmament pledges. Mr Cove's amendment was defeated by 274 votes to 21. MEAT AND BREAD SUPPLIES. (Received March 2oth. 7 p.m.) LONDON, March 24. Mr E. Shinwell (Labour), dealing with the question of supply of British meat and bread for the Army, pointed out that the Conservative Government previously insisted that the cost of purelv British supplies' was prohibitive. Moreover the bulls of the Army beef was drawn from the Dominions Were they to de. strov the Dominion trade because of a, dubious advantage to the British farmer ?. To supply the Army with Britishgrown beef for six months cost £200.000. ,