asked the Secretary of State for War why the application to raise the precedence of the Royal Scots Fusiliers from the 21st to the 4th regiment of infantry has been rejected by the Army Council.

Careful thought was given to this proposal, which raises a matter of principle. Many other regiments would be affected if it were agreed.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the aggressive and rude letter which was sent to the Colonel-in-Chief of this regiment? Surely it is up to him to institute or re-institute an inquiry to find out whether the allegations made in that letter have any substance.

The letter concerned contained an extract from the regimental history of this regiment as issued to recruits. It said that it should have been the 6th, but it has so long owned 21 that no other would now be acceptable; in fact most Fusiliers go through life persuaded that 21 is their lucky number. So may it always continue to be.

Is it not historically accurate that the Royal Scots Fusiliers, with which I had the honour to serve, have the right and have earned the right to the fourth place in the line? Will my right hon. Friend receive representations on this very important matter?

It is a very important matter, but also a highly complicated one. The present order has been good enough for some 250 years and it would be very unwise to tamper with it.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the rude language used by a civilian official of the War Office to the Colonel-in-Chief of the regiment? If not, would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister? Has the Minister himself seen the letter?

I know of no rude language. But if the hon. Member would like to show me anything of that nature, I should certainly be interested to see it.