§ On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
§ *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)said, that the Inspector General of Recruiting drew attention in his report to the difficulties which arose in recruiting from the strict limitation of the number of the regular forces, and declared that the restriction led to the rejection of many eligible recruits who presented themselves for enlistment during those portions of the year when the Army was full. They were, therefore, sacrificing the interests of the Army for what was now a mere punctilio. The Army Bill itself, in its recital, gave the number of the Army at 155,403 men. That was never to be exceeded, and, therefore, at the portion of the year referred to, recruiting had to be stopped, not because there would be too many on the establishment for the whole year, but only because that would be so for a short time. The Government ought not to allow the Army Bill to pass without doing something to extend the limits of the Army, so that recruiting might be carried on at a time when the best class of recruits were ready to enter the Army. He suggested the desirability of adding some further exceptions, such limitation as this at the end of line 13, where the troops serving in India were excluded from the enumeration, which would allow a little more latitude. Another way of accomplishing this object would be to make an exception with regard to men of less than six months service. Having had such a short training they could not add to the effective strength of the Army, and if this 135 suggestion were adopted they could, without any violation of the substance of the Mutiny Act, get rid of the difficulty which restricted the entry of the best class of recruits into the British Army.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)observed that the hon. Gentleman was more royalist than the King, and he was anxious that the War Office should have facilities which they did not really desire themselves. The present system gave them sufficient elasticity even at the critical time of the year to which the hon. Member referred. There would, no doubt, be a greater elasticity if the restriction were removed altogether. This restriction, however, did not arise from the Army Bill, but from the general law, which enabled the Auditor General to intervene if they exceeded a certain number of men. Having every desire to have all possible latitude in that respect, they had not found it necessary to apply to Parliament for any alteration of the law.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)did not rise to oppose the Second Reading. There were not any material alterations in the Bill, and, therefore, the Government ought, under the circumstances to have the Second Reading. He wished, however, to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of giving them time to discuss certain Amendments in Committee.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAre they the same old Amendments as we had last year?
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESSome of them are.
§ Bill read 2o.