§ On one subject I may appeal to the House. I think it is most important that, 400 whatever our deficiencies are or have been in the conduct of the war, they should not be exaggerated. We should preserve some sort of equilibrium, because Members are, after all, not merely engaged in giving advice to the Government that will enable them to correct mistakes that have been made, but every word that is said in this House and the attacks which are made are made use of by those who are not merely hostile to the Government but hostile to the country. There is a tendency in some quarters to depreciate our preparations, to magnify our failures, and exalt our deficiences in personnel and matériel. So far as that discredits the Department, so far as it filches from the reputation of Ministers, I do not complain of it; but remember these aspersions are greedily drunk in and quoted by foreign newspapers, and that it is universally believed abroad that our officers are ill-trained, our warlike stores defective, and our War Office incapable, if not corrupt. This is not due to hostile critics on the Continent, but is largely due to encouragement given to exaggerated statements made even by those who are friends to the Government and as good Englishmen as any of us. These things, I can assure the House, are felt very acutely by the Army in South Africa. Remember, the prestige of an Army is as valuable to the Army as honour is to a woman. Moreover, you cannot take away the prestige of an Army without taking away the prestige of the country to which that Army belongs. You are not only robbing the diplomatist of his best weapon by depreciating his own Army, but in this case you are also robbing the soldier of his due. It is represented by hostile critics, not in this country, that our Army is not merely worse organised, but is worse manned, than foreign Armies. We have had not only experience of South Africa, but we have had experience of China. Man to man, side by side, organisation for organisation, with the troops from several nations, coming from all parts of the globe, I make bold to say that, although our troops were largely composed of our Indian fellow-subjects, they came behind those of no foreign Power, either in organisation, discipline, or in all that goes to make a soldier.
401§ It is difficult to listen with patience, and to read, as perhaps I do more than some others, the continued cry in Continental papers that ours is an Army which serves for pay, and that our soldier is not equal to the conscript soldier. No British Minister can perhaps properly speak on these questions; but I do not think that the foreign military men who served with our Army in South Africa will justify that libel on the rank and file of our Army. Whatever happens, whatever may be the changes for the defence of this country, whether it ever occurs that compulsory service for home defence should be adopted, at all events we know this, that for the defence of India and our colonies, and for foreign expeditions, we shall always have to rely on an Army which is not made up of conscript soldiers. And our experience in the past justifies us in believing that our soldiers are equal to those of any of the Armies of the Continent in their own way. Our best soldiers who fought on the Continent in the Peninsular war were not conscript soldiers. The men, scattered remnants, half clothed and half starved as they were, who stood on the hill of Inkerman and pushed back a much larger number of Russians, were not conscript soldiers. And the men who, side by side with Nicholson at Delhi, fought their way into the town against a horde of fanatics, as well drilled and as well armed as themselves, who defended every inch of the ground—they were not conscripts. I cannot help feeling that, though the opportunities of this war have not been such as to give a chance for the display of such qualities as were evinced on those three occasions, they have brought out in our Army a patience in the enduring of hardship, an endurance proved during two years, a courage and a humanity second to that of no Army in the world.
§ I hope the House will forgive me for saying as much as this tonight, in view of the attacks which have been made, and seeing, as I have said, that they are bitterly felt by those who are enduring all that a soldier can endure for his country, and who are not able to reply to them. It is because I feel that our Army is well organised, is well manned, and well equipped, that I ask 402 the House to take the step forward which I have put before them tonight, and to secure, in this day of progress, when we must go back if we do not go forward, that the personnel of our Army shall not be allowed to fall behind its traditions in the past. When we remember that a generation ago sacrifices were made of cherished traditions at the instance of the Ministry of the day which resulted in giving us short service and a large reserve, and when we think of all that has been done to provide an Army to, carry on this war in South Africa, I think this House should be encouraged to make some sacrifice to carry on that policy; and I believe that in so doing we shall not only have the support of our fellow-countrymen in the present day, but shad earn the gratitude of those who come after us.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."