§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 420,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at 665 Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903." (8.12.)
§ (8.42.) MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said the debate this evening had been mostly on the statements in the speech of the Secretary of State for War with reference to the Volunteers. He thought the case of the Volunteers had been sufficiently discussed, and he did not wish to pursue it. He quite recognised with hon. Members who had spoken the immense utility of the Volunteer force and the great effect it had on recruiting, and the popularity it brought to the Army and on all concerned. He should like to return to what the Secretary of State said about the scheme he had introduced for remodelling the land defences of the country and the Army generally. His first statement was that there was going to be a continuance of the Army Corps system. That system was very considerably criticised last year by many hon. Members, who said that it was merely a scaffolding and nothing else. They stated that it was a system by which the Government were producing staffs and Generals when there was yet no Army for them to command, and that while the expenditure would be very considerable the result would be very small. Since then that opinion had spread, and was now pretty well recognised, not only in all ranks of the Army, but throughout the whole country, It was pretty well acknowledged that last year's scheme was a dead letter so far as the remodelling of the Army was concerned. Those who criticised the scheme pointed out at the time that the first thing necessary to start this great edifice was to put in the foundations in the way of recruiting. He himself suggested that an extra sixpence per day to useful soldiers would bring about that. He congratulated the Secretary of State on having accepted the advice that had been so freely offered to him in years gone by as to the pay of men who were efficient and useful in the Army, and of men who were engaged on foreign service. That was the beginning of the great scheme of which decentralisation was to be a part. But decentralisation seemed to go on 666 very slowly, while the expenditure on the staffs went on at a great pace. The Estimates showed that in two years they would have spent £94,000 on staffs and Generals to command visionary Army Corps. There was a well-known picture of Napoleon reviewing a phantom army on the Champs de Mars. The hon. Member thought the Secretary of State's Army Corps were phantoms, except as regards staffs and Generals.
As to decentralisation, they were told that this, that, and the other would be delegated to the commanders of divisions and brigades, but they were still waiting to hear that some of the work had been delegated. Many who had been advocating the change for years were delighted that the Secretary of State had started the combined system of long and short service—that was for increasing the short service and making a large and powerful reserve, and giving facilities for the soldier to continue his term, so that when he went to India there might not be the same expense as in past years in bringing him home. The result of the system would be that we would have to have battalions at home, because we could not draft practically half of a regiment to stay at home and send those who re-engaged for six years into another battalion to go abroad. This scheme must eventually lead to what he had always advocated, namely, a system of territorial brigades instead of territorial regiments, and consequently large instead of small depots. He knew that there was the expense of building barracks, but the Government were at present spending money on the building of barracks for the visionary Army Corps who were to come back from South Africa. Figures had been given in another place, and he thought they had been practically confirmed here, that when the war came to an end the number of regular troops to come back would be exceedingly small and would make no Army Corps at all. If, instead of building barracks and preparing for the mythical Army Corps likely to come home some day, they spent the money on training recruits for foreign service, they would do more advantageous work.
Referring to the question of the cost of recruiting, the hon. Member said that the large sums spent were always 667 grudged by the taxpayer. He did not say it was grudged for the Army more than anything else. Of course it was more grudged for the Army than the Navy. The expenditure was divided into £1,048,000 which England had to pay, and £760,000 which India had to pay. He thought £760,000 would be found to be too large an amount to expect India to pay, because India now paid a certain amount for the training of troops in England, and in future we should have to consider the training India, did of native troops whom we used elsewhere, and also the 10,000 men always ready to be taken from India and whom we regarded as a reserve for other parts of the world. There was another thing he was sorry to see in the statement, namely, the pay of the Yeomanry. The new Yeomanry were practically mounted Militia. They had tried the bounty for serving in the Militia and found it a failure, and yet they were starting a £5 bounty with the Yeomanry who offered to serve abroad. That was sure to prove a failure. If they got men to accept the bounty they would only weaken the Yeomanry regiments left at home. He thought this exploded fallacy would be done away with in the case of the Yeomanry in less time than in the case of the Militia. It would give the War Office an opportunity for counting men twice over, and of course they knew the War Office was fond of doing this. He thought the Militia had a real grievance in that they were not to get the extra sixpence when they were embodied. This was not fair, and he believed it would be found to be a mistake. He insisted that the Milita were entitled to the additional sixpence a day, the same as the Regulars. In accordance with the present ridiculous system the Militia had to volunteer before they could be sent abroad, but he held that if they were enlisted on terms of foreign service as many recruits would be got as at present, and the War Office would not require to go down on their knees to ask them to go abroad.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted and forty Members being found present—
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he would not press further the Militia grievances. But he wished to point out that under the general scheme the Militia Reserve would be enormously increased without an increase of officers. In times of emergency they had always to depend on the Militia Reserve, but the War Office scheme neglected to consider that Reserve. The Militia was the cheapest branch of the Army. The pay of the Regular Army amounted to £16,000,000, that of Militia to £2,260,000, while the cost of the Volunteers was £1,780,000. That was to say that the Militia cost a seventh of the Regular Army, and the Volunteers a ninth. But what were the proportions of the different arms sent to the front? Leaving out of account the Colonial Forces, there were 70,000 Regulars at the front, 20,000 Militia, and 10,000 Volunteers. The Militia ought not to have been neglected as it had been in the new scheme.
§ *(9.12.) MAJOR BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal)said that it had taken a great many years and a great many Secretaries of State for War to come to the conclusion that if we were to draw to our Army the most desirable class of working men we must enter into competition with the labour market. He thought that a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day might draw good men to the Army; but he was of opinion that if the scale of living amongst working men was to go on improving in the future, as it had done in the last twenty-five years, even this addition to the pay of our soldiers would not be altogether sufficient to attract the class of men required. He admitted that a very great improvement had been made in the social status of the British soldier during the past twenty-five years. When he first joined the Army, nearly thirty years ago, the old Colonels would have thought it was contrary to discipline to allow a soldier to go on furlough in plain clothes. If the British soldier was to be encouraged, he should not only have an increase in his pay, but be allowed more freedom when off parade and drill. The only one Army which could be really compared with the British was the United States Army. The pay of the private 669 in the latter Army was 1s. 9d., after three years service 2s., and after five years service 2s. 6d. That was a very considerable advance on anything we proposed to give to our soldiers, but he did not think, taking into consideration the difference between the conditions of this country and the United States, that it would be necessary to go on to the American scale of pay. He was, however, quite sure that there was no comparison between the general freedom given here and in the United States to the soldier when off parade and out of barracks. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say that he was going to give the British soldier a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day, but he could not come to the conclusion that that was the case. At no date had the British soldier ever pocketed the clear sum of money promised him on joining the ranks, and which really induced him to go into the Army. There were always deductions. Were these stoppages to be abolished? The stoppages for barrack damages, for instance, were excessive when the so-called damages were only fair wear and tear; and they were difficult to collect. One instance had been given by the hon. Member for East Somerset, to whom he himself had sent from South Africa a paper, in which a claim for damages against a regiment stationed at Devonport had been sent out all over South Africa to recover 1d.! Perhaps the most important, because the most expensive, of all the stoppages, was that which a man had to meet when he went into hospital as the result of some illness or accident, not his own fault in any way whatever. It was perfectly right in certain circumstances that a man in hospital should have his pay stopped, but under ordinary circumstances he maintained that there should be no stoppage whatever. It was the business of the medical officer to find out whether a man was genuinely ill or shamming. If his right hon. friend would state that a soldier would in future get a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day, he was perfectly certain it would be a great inducement to recruiting. The previous history of the War Office dealings with the Army had been in the direction of giving with one hand very 670 publicly and taking away with the other privately.
He next drew attention to the question of the future system of musketry to be carried on in the Army. He rejoiced that his right hon. friend had realised how extremely important good shooting was, and he had also realised that, up to the present, soldiers had been paid in a manner which no private employer would permit. Skilled and unskilled were paid exactly the same wages, and a third-class shot had as much pay as a first-class shot. His right hon. friend proposed to alter that, and to do away with the third class and have only two classes of markmanship. Men in the first class would receive a clear 1s. 6d. a day, but he noticed that a man who did not get into the first class would be mulcted 2d. per day and would only receive 1s. 4d. Although that was an excellent system in itself, and one which would induce men to use every endeavour to be good shots, it might act unfairly on the individual soldier. No doubt the scheme had been drawn up by gentlemen who had given a great deal of attention to the theory of musketry, but he was not sure that they had thought very much of the practice. Musketry was conducted from the 1st of April to the 1st of October. Take two private soldiers, both of them in receipt of 1s. 6d. per day, and each having to get into the first class. One man fired his course early in the season, say on the 15th of April, and failed. He was thereby immediately mulcted 2d. per day and did not get any chance of recovering that sum for at least a year, and possibly for sixteen months, which would mean a loss of about £4. The other man might fire his course towards the end of the season and, supposing he failed, he would have an opportunity of getting back his 2d. per day within six months; and would have a great advantage over his fellow soldier by a mere accident. There must, of course be good and bad luck, but still, he thought the element of chance which he had mentioned might be removed. He should have preferred, himself, to have seen a gratuity, a substantial gratuity, paid to each man who became a marksman, and also that his company officer should give him the 671 indulgences, such as passes and clothes, which would have to be adopted if the Army was to be made popular. By all means let good shooting be encouraged, but under the present system one man might be deprived of 2d. per day for sixteen months, whereas another man might be deprived of that sum for only six months. He was perfectly certain that the question of good shooting was really of the very greatest importance. Under the short service system men would be put into the Reserve for nine years. That was a very long time, and if towards the end of that nine years a man, who had only three years practice of shooting in the Army, were called upon, he did not believe be would be of the slightest use as a rifle shot unless some system of annual rifle training for the Reserve was introduced. It would be a comparatively easy thing to give the men in the Reserve a course of training, if not every year, at least every two years, unless they had passed a high standard. With the exception of these matters, he thought that the Secretary of State had put forward a really genuine proposal which would result undoubtedly in a very substantial increase in the number of recruits, and also a better class of man to serve in the Army.
§ *(9. 25.) DR. FARQUHARSON(Aberdeenshire, W.) said that in common with every hon. Member who took an interest in the question, he had read with great interest the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. While, however, it contained a great, deal of valuable information, the Inspector-General had given no opinion of his own as to the best methods of getting recruits. He thought that such an exceptionally able man as the present Inspector-General, who had special facilities for getting information, could give very valuable advice as to the best way of getting recruits, and as to what should be done to get better conditions of recruiting generally. What interested him very much was that recruiting had been greatly stimulated at Woolwich by having better quarters for recruits. Had the right hon. Gentleman ever visited the recruiting station at St. George's Barracks? It was in charge of most a 672 experienced recruiting officer, but over the door might have been inscribed, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." They were told in the Inspector-General's Report that recruiting for the line was unsatisfactory. He did not wonder at it. If he might use the phrase without offence, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather living in a. fool's paradise if he supposed he was going to compete with the skilled 1abour market. That was not possible. All he could hope for was to compete with the unskilled labour market, where he could get a certain number of very good men who would make excellent soldiers. One of the reasons why recruits could not now be got was that the Imperial Yeomanry were being paid 5s. a day. He had talked to recruiting sergeants, and had asked them why they could not get more recruits, and he had always been told the same story, namely, that they could not get more recruits because the Imperial Yeomanry were getting 5s. a day, and the ordinary recruit, would not enter the service at a 1s. per day. Another question of very great importance was the question of the physical training of the soldiers. He thought that the physical training of the recruits was being overdone. A recruit was sent to Caterham or elsewhere, and had to go through an elaborate course of training. He saw opposite an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an old comrade of his in the Coldstreams, and he knew that the young soldier was underfed, and that every farthing he could scrape together was spent in providing himself with enough food, literally to keep body and soul together. Why were not recruits to get increased pay? He considered that, most of all, the recruit was entitled to it, because he was undergoing physical training which placed a very great, continuous, and exhausting strain on his physical development. It should be remembered that he was a growing lad, building up his constitution, and if he were not fed well he would afterwards break down in all directions. He was glad to hear some discretion was given to the doctors with regard to the physical development of recruits, but the doctor should be a man of great practical experience; it was no use for these doctors to be mere general 673 practitioners. The Yeomanry were examined by general practitioners in the districts where they were recruited who had special instructions not to examine them in the same elaborate way in which the ordinary soldier is examined.
A great deal had been said lately about the examination of the officers. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid Essex described the process as the selection not of the fittest but the fattest. If a young officer was sent back for not being of a sufficient weight, all he bad to do was to feed on a particular diet, or like the "Jumping Frog" fill himself up with shot, and he could pass the examination. He had heard of a young fellow who was sent back for being under weight He went away and took a large meal of bread and water, and got his weight up so well as to be able to turn the scale in his favour. He noticed that medical officers Were to look at detective teeth, and to ascertain in the first place whether they were due to constitutional taint or not. How were they to get at the constitutional taint?
Then it was said we must give better pay in order to get a better class fighting material. Was it really required to get a better man than the best; was it to be said that we had not the best fighting men in the world? What we wanted was light-hearted devil-may-care kind of men who would fight our battles; who wore not afraid to go to battle and be killed for their country. Small men were the best, big men broke down with hernia, flat-foot, varicose vein, and, above all heart. It was the small men who wore the best fighting men in the world. We wanted, not men of a bad character, but men of not too good a character men who would fight well and die well for their country. The right hon. Gentleman also wanted to encourage marriage off the strength, which was an illegal action on the part of the soldier; he did not see why they should be encouraged to break a fundamental condition of military life. A married man was a much worse soldier than a bachelor; he had his hostages to fortune at home to consider. A larger army was not required; we could get all the fighting men we required in time of war. When war came we should get recruits in the same numbers as we 674 obtained them for this war. He was fundamentally opposed to this system of Army Corps, and to the proposed increased pay to the soldier, which was quite unnecessary. What we ought to do was, let the soldier get his full pay and not stop anything out of it; give him his pinch of salt and his dust of pepper and his drop of milk for his coffee, and let him have his full pay. It was an unmitigated swindle to make the soldier pay for anything. We should encourage him to wear plain clothes on furlough, and treat him like a human being, allow him to go inside an omnibus or into a box at the theatre in Ins uniform; let him be received everywhere. And when his service is over, we ought to give him a good pension. The right hon. Gentleman, he perceived, did not intend to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, who were the backbone of the army, and who did all the work. The regimental officers, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite knew perfectly well, did nothing whatever.
§ * COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)I Cannot agree with you.
§ * DR. FARQUHARSONsaid we ought to feed our soldiers better, and bridge over the gap between their dinner and their breakfast the next morning. At the present time the soldier had his dinner at 12 o'clock, and nothing more until the next morning. That was not the way to make the army popular. The soldier ought to be better fed and be given more amusement, and above all be taught a good trade, so that when he returned to civil life he would become a useful member of society. The Government did very little indeed to give the soldier a reasonable employment when he retired into private life. If a soldier retired on a good pension, with a good character and a good trade, he was a recruiting officer far more useful than any of those who now went about bamboozling the poor fellows who were now induced to join.
§ * (9.42.) COLONEL LEGGEsaid lie entirely repudiated the accusation which had been levelled against the Regimental Officers by the hon. Member who had just sat down. If it had not been for their devotion to duty we should not 675 have attained the position we now had in South Africa. However brilliant the Staff Officers might be, they had to depend in the day of battle on the fighting men.
§ * DR. FARQUHARSONdisclaimed intention to make any imputation against regimental officers.
§ * COLONEL LEGGEsaid that he would not, in that case, further labour the matter, With regard to recruiting, that question was two-fold. There was the question of getting the recruits, and the question of keeping them when they were obtained. In order to obtain recruits, it was necessary to make the Service attractive, and in order to keep them they must be made comfortable and contented. He hailed with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office was about to increase the pay in the Army. To increase the pay was the only way in which the necessary number of recruits could be obtained. He agreed that it should be made certain that a soldier would get all he was led to expect by the promises made. When a man enlisted, instead of getting the money announced on the posters in every recruiting station, he found himself liable to a large number of stoppages. Under the Royal Warrant he would be liable to hospital stoppages, to a stoppage of 4½d for messing—but, as a rule, it does not exceed 3d. or 2d.— a penny for washing, and he had to pay for hair-cutting, to subscribe to the library and regimental institute, to keep up his clothing—though the clothing scale now was very liberal, and a careful man would have little to pay in that respect—and also had to pay for his "necessaries." The last-named, he thought, was a very great grievance. When a recruit joined he received a full kit of necessaries—i.e., underclothing, brushes, and various articles for keeping his accoutrements clean—but he never received another issue. With great care many of the articles would probably last the whole of his service, but the underclothing and brushes certainly would not. These necessaries should be treated in the same way as clothing, and periodical issues made. Such a course would relieve the recruit of great expense and 676 much disappointment and annoyance. These were matters which required to betaken into consideration in connection with the question of improving the condition of the soldiers and encouraging men to enter and remain in the Army. Another point in the direction of making things comfortable for the recruit was the accommodation in barracks. Last year he called attention to the barracks at a station in Ireland with which he was acquainted. Those barracks were then in extremely bad order, but since then he was glad to say considerable improvements had been made. He hoped the Secretary of State would go on improving the barracks, so as to make the men as comfortable as possible.
Then there was the question of messing allowance. A soldier received the Government allowance of rations, but everything else—groceries, vegetables, bread and butter, and so on—he had to pay for himself. There was a daily stoppage on that account, and in 1898, in order to enable the men to live better, a messing allowance of 3d. per day was granted. But this was denied to the recruits. The recruit, however, was the very man who most needed the extra food. The conditions attaching to the issue of the messing allowance were that the private soldier must have attained the age of nineteen years, have been the full period of six months under training, and during that period have made satisfactory progress. In reply to a question on the subject last year, the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that the matter had been carefully considered, but there would appear to be no justification for the relaxation of the regulation. He, however, thought there was every reason for such a relaxation. It was not desirable that the recruit should receive the same pay as the trained soldier, but the very last thing that should be done was to deprive him of any portion of his food. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to granting this messing allowance to the young soldiers who so much needed it. Possibly the War Office was getting out of the difficulty in another way, as he was told that recruits now had not to do any work before breakfast, and were not put on guard until they had been six 677 months in the service. He did not think that was a judicious way of getting out of the difficulty. It would be far better to give a man, when, as a growing lad he particularly required it, the full benefit of the messing which he got as a trained soldier, and to make him do the duty he had always been required to do. He could not see what object was to be gained by allowing a recruit to do nothing before the breakfast hour. Under certain circumstances, especially in cavalry regiments, it would be impossible properly to train recruits if such a system were carried out. In regard to recruiting, a good deal was sometimes heard about lowering the standard and "specials." To lower the standard was, of course, one way of getting recruits when the Army was hard up for them, and it was not an altogether objectionable plan. A short man, if he was strong, well-made, and active, might be just as good a shot as, and perhaps a better one, than a tall man. But with regard to "specials," there were greater objections. In the regiment he had commanded, he was very particular about the recruits. He used to have them weighed and measured when they entered, and again after they had made some progress, and he found that while they would always grow in chest measurement they did not necessarily grow in height. When, therefore, he was asked to take a "special," under a certain height, he, as a rule, declined to do so, but he had no objection to taking him if he was only under chest measurement. His mason for making the distinction was that his regiment was a Lancer Regiment, and a lancer could not properly wield his lance unless he had a certain length of leg to enable him to get a good grip of his horse.
A further point he desired to touch upon was that of consulting the Colonies with regard to assisting us in keeping up the strength of the Army. Last year he asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the advisability of inviting the Colonies to raise a regular force for service in the Imperial Army at home and abroad during peace and war, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that the proposal had been repeatedly considered, but had not hitherto been 678 found practicable, though he hoped the beginning of some such connection might be made through the Imperial Yeomanry. He (the hon. Member), however, failed to see how the connection could be so made, as the Imperial Yeomanry were neither "Imperial" nor "Yeomanry," being under the regulations of last year mounted Militia for home defence. He believed that in course of time the Colonies might raise regiments, each Colony in its own area, having the depôt in the Colony, to be part of the great Imperial Army of the Empire, to take their turn of service at home and also abroad, and be treated in every way like other regiments in the Army. Such a scheme was, he believed, possible. One battalion raised in that way in Canada had been working with us, but not long ago a demand was made that it should be repatriated; that it should have its depôt in Canada again. The localisation of that Canadian Regiment had been rather peculiar. The original regiment was the 100th of the line, the Prince of Wales' Royal Canadians. When the amalgamation took place some years ago, it became the first battalion of the regiment, and had for its second battalion the 109th Regiment Bombay Infantry. It was possible that the Secretary of State at that time had some germs of imperialism in him, and that he thought the connection between Canada and Bombay a judicious one, but, having been thus connected, the two battalions were given the name of "the Prince of Wales' Leinster Regiment, Royal Canadians," and the depôt was at Birr, in King's County, Ireland. He did not think that was quite the way to bring about a connection with the Colonies. But it was possible to do something to bring Colonial regiments into line with our own regiments, and he would like to see such regiments take their turn on home service, and, among other things, be quartered in London, and take their turn at guarding the Royal Palaces.
§ *(10.0.) SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said this was the annual occasion for discussing these questions from a military point of view, and but for one or two interesting speeches they would hardly have gathered from the debate that they were face to face 679 with a great war and with a great scheme of Army reform for the future. There were many active Volunteer officers in the House who al ways took the deepest concern in matters affecting Volunteer regiments which they knew so well. But if they put it as high as they liked, the Volunteer question was, after all, not the most important question before them. He would say nothing on this occasion upon the war, although this was the only opportunity they might have of discussing the military arrangements in connection with the war. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War knew his views upon that subject, and all he had to say was that they remained unchanged and unaffected by the action which the Government had taken in South Africa. He regarded the loss of the convoys and the defeats which we had suffered in the last month at Uitspanfontein and Klerksdorp as being in the highest degree damaging to our military character in the world. He believed that those losses were due to the feebleness of our cavalry work, and that they could have been guarded against by precautions taken in advance. All the promises made to them two years ago that in future the horses should never be sent up at once, to be worked to death, directly after their arrival at Cape Town, had been broken. He believed the whole Intelligence Staff work of the Army was affected by these considerations. If there had been a proper organisation of the headquarter staff of the Army, and a proper use of the intelligence branch, which they knew was a failure at the beginning of the war, these events would not have occurred.
He thought, however, that on this occasion the most useful thing to do would be to consider the plans for the future, which the Government had placed before them. The Secretary for War in his interesting statement two days ago, made some reference to the unfortunate scheme of last year. It was not necessary, perhaps, to revive all that was then said, but the Secretary for War did tempt Providence a little in using such unfortunate language about his Army Corps. The right hon. Gentleman said triumphantly that the Army Corps scheme of last year still held the field [Laughter.] A statement of that sort was no argument. 680 Then there was the most unfortunate quotation about the French officer who, when asked by the Emperor Napoleon where his troops were, said, "Sire, they are there." He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant that his Army Corps were buried in Africa. While they were there this organisation was a premature device. Then the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to complain that he had been attacked most unjustly about many matters, one of which, as to the German guns, seemed particularly to rankle in his mind. It was an entire misrepresentation, however, to say that the Government was attacked because the guns were bought in Germany. The Government was attacked five years ago for not having any quick-firing guns—German, English, French, or anything else—and it was shown also that they hail been offered quick-firing guns of the most improved type by a foreign firm—French guns they happened to be. But the Government at that time did not even seem to know what quick-firing guns were. They were taught by painful experience in South Africa, and then, in a great hurry, they ordered some German guns, which were imperfect. The point was, however, that they ought to have had quick-firing guns in their possession years before. A general attack was not made upon German guns, but because guns had to be ordered in a hurry which were imperfect. A few years ago the then Financial Secretary to the War Office admitted that they had no quick-firing guns, and he admitted that this class of guns had been offered to them by foreign firms and refused. He stated that they were refused, because the Government felt that changes were still going on, and they thought the best thing they could do was to wait for further improvements.
But there was a further complaint, and it was that the House of Commons never had an opportunity of discussing this question at all. They were told that one of the greatest needs of the War Office was that they should be able to spend small amounts without the preliminary sanction of the House of Commons. But there was the power which, with the consent of the Treasury, enabled them to transfer money from one head to another. By taking advantage of this power these 681 German guns were paid for out of the Clothing Vote, and be believed it would be in order to discuss that question when in August next the transfer came before the House. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought 80 much ancient history into a statement so important that it needed no garnishing. It was a completely new departure which they ought to consider carefully upon its own merits. It was, he thought, useless to consider in that House anything but the in main lines of these proposals. There was one matter, however, which ought to be touched on; it was by no means certain that we ought, to apply the same system of enlistment to the infantry of the Line as to the special branches of the Service—the cavalry and artillery. To introduce a uniform system all round was now admitted to be a mistake by France and Prussia. In Prussia there was now a different period of service for cavalry, and the deficiency and difficulty had liven with regard to the infantry of the Line. It ought not to be assumed by the Government that any welcome or sanction given to their scheme with regard to the infantry of the Line, was also extended with regard to the cavalry and artillery. There were some hon. Members who felt very deeply on the point that the Government roust not be allowed to trust for the mounted services of this country to scratch forces of one kind or another. In the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman two days ago, he referred to the Yeomanry. He saw some distinguished officers of the Yeomanry present, and he believed lie should have them with hint when he said that the Regular Army of the country ought to contain its own regular cavalry in sufficient numbers, and it ought also to have its mounted infantry regular regiments. They could not expect to have their Army in a condition to meet the calls which might be made upon it unless they had more mounted troops of a regular description. With regard to the main part of the scheme, it was that to which his noble friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office referred, when he said that lie (the right hon. Baronet) was like a squirrel in a cage, always making the same motion. He was not one of those indi- 682 victuals who, because his principles were not accepted, thought he ought to change them. It seemed to him that in these maters they should be importunate like the widow in the Scriptures. They had gone on repeating those principles, and they had now got their way, and had made a real impression upon the Government.
Dealing with the main points of the scheme of the Secretary for War, he said that they seemed to him to be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman admitted to the full that which no Government had ever before admitted—the complete breakdown, the hopeless and discreditable breakdown, of the existing system. Instead of palliating the deficiencies, the right hon. Gentleman stated, without concealment, the horrible wastage of the British Army, which prevented the Cardwell scheme from working in practice and their getting in the Reserve the men they had paid for. This was an advance. Before the publication of the Report of the inspector-General of Recruiting, he and several of his hon. friends joined together in putting on the Paper notices which called attention to the state of recruiting for the infantry of the Line. They said that the conditions must be Unproved. The only omissions he noticed in the statement of deficiency and failure consisted in the right hon. Gentleman making no reference to the breakdown of the linked battalion system, for the state of things now was, worse than it was last year. Four battalions were disbanded last year, or before last year, and the Navy had refused to take over the coaling stations which made matters worse than last year.
The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a breakdown of the Reserve. He put this somewhat mildly in his written statement, for he said that the Reserve at the end of the war would be "somewhat short of the establishment." But when he made the revelation to the House of the wastage and the causes of wastage which the War Office had glossed over in the past, he used words which were not sufficiently recognised outside as being the death-knell of the conscription remedy. He had seen with astonishment 683 in the Press that it had been suggested that the words of the right hon. Gentleman pointed towards the possibility of the adoption of conscription. To his mind, the right hon. Gentleman's statement had destroyed conscription forever. In the Channel Islands a universal liability to bear arms had existed, but the Government had allowed that liability to go by the board. He confessed that the abolition of universal service in the Channel Islands was good enough for him, and that the Government, in assenting to the abolition of the principle there, was not likely to introduce it here. But the House was saved from all need of discussing the applicability to the peculiar circumstances of the British Empire of the system of conscription by the words which the right hon. Gentleman had used. If the remedies in this scheme were not sufficient, other remedies in the same direction could obviously be tried, and that seemed to him to concede the whole position.
We had been enlisting and training large numbers of unsound and valueless men. It was now proposed that we should have a double system of enlistment, which many of them had always asked for. If he might say so, the Government had reached the point at which he himself stood a few years ago. He had gone a little further since in the same direction, but the Government had adopted the scheme which other hon. Members and himself had put before the House some years ago. The Government had now adopted three year enlistment and eight year enlistment. He had gone further because, personally, he adopted the view which was put before the House last year by the hon. Member for Oldham, that in the interest of the country they ought to accept the services of men for the shortest time which would enable the authorities to make them of some use. A great advantage was gained by allowing men to try our military system; and although be admitted that they could not have men coming in at all periods of the year, yet even in a year's service, if they could get all the men at the same period, a great deal of good could he achieved. He thought that the Government would 684 be driven to that system of taking men for one year provided that they could get them all to join at the same time of the year. He was confident there were a great many men in the country who if they were made fairly comfortable would make trial of the system of service, but, to use their own phrase, they would not "sign away their liberty" by entering for a long term. With regard to enlistments for India, he agreed with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire on the question of age. There was a terrible piece of evidence given by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught before the Wantage Committee. He said—
Half the men were really much under the nominal age, and made no secret of tins fact. He had himself received drafts in India, men so young that lie had said on looking at them that half would die during their service, and half did die.That was a terrible piece of evidence, and if, in connection with this point, the Government could do something to prevent this enlistment of boys for India, and see that they did not make mere fraudulent statements in regard to their age in order to enlist, they would be doing a great deal for the interests of this country, and they would also be doing what the Indian taxpayer demanded. India paid for an article of good quality, and it was a gross fraud on India to send out men under conditions of that kind. In the same evidence, the Duke of Connaught laid great stress upon increased food for the b younger men when engaged in gymnastics and drill.Members who had become acquainted with men who had just left the Army would know that these men gave the Army a bad name. The men might be wrong, but their opinions were of vital moment, for it was what they thought rather than what was the fact that affected recruiting. It was therefore, worth while to inquire why they held these opinions. The men were apt to give the military service a bad character because of breach of faith, and there seemed good ground for the complaint. They very often heard civilian servants of all classes complain of the hard conditions of their life and the lowness of their pay, but, at any rate, they knew what they were going in for. A soldier did not know, and, therefore, he thought there was great justice in his 685 complaint. Some time ago his noble friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office made a speech at Bolton which the private soldier was continually quoting. In that speech the noble Lord said that the soldier was getting—
Lodging, free clothing and food, and seven shillings a week to put in his pocket.Every British soldier seemed to know that speech by heart, and some of them used language with regard to it which was neither Parliamentary nor polite, and he thought the private had some ground for doing this. The hon. Member who had just spoken referred to stoppages. There had been in the past a tendency on the part of the War Office to count the same money twice over, and now that the Secretary for War was in a reforming frame of mind, he thought he might very well give his attention to these matters of which the soldier complained, and which were regarded as breaches of faith. He hoped he should be free from any accusation of doing anything which could do harm to the public interest in these matters. Although no complaints had been made in this House upon this point, Lord Lansdowne did go out of his way in the House of Lords to take to task the Duke of Bedford for some observations he made on the subject. But, after all, the British soldier knew all these things perfectly well, even if the ordinary British public did not know them. The British soldier knew them all by heart. The noble Lord opposite told the British soldier that he got all those things for nothing, together with one shilling per day pocket money. He had in his hand the actual pay sheet showing the actual stoppages referred to by the hon. Member for South Westmoreland and the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken. It should be remembered by those who were not soldiers that the stoppages were not everything. There were many things that had to be paid for out of what was called the pocket money, besides those which were stopped upon the pay sheet itself. There were such things on the pay sheet as messing, washing, hair cutting, library, rifle class (voluntary), games club (voluntary), barrack damages, Army Temperance Association (voluntary), necessaries from regimental store (shirt, trousers, 686 socks, etc.), boot bill and tailor's bill. Besides those, there were a still larger number of things which were virtually necessary, and which had to be paid out of the soldier's own pocket after lie got his money. There were such things as coal for extra fuel, plates, and basins, cleaning material (1s. per month)—boot blacking, pouch blacking, and pipeclay. For marking 1d. Per month and a ¼d per article. A most curious item, of which the soldiers bitterly complained, was the charge for shaving. It was an extraordinary fact, well known to the military Members of the House, though not to civilians generally, that the razor supplied to the soldier by the Government was only for show in his kit and was never used. Then there was the charge for extra washing, 1s. a month for walking-out gloves, hair brushes, walking-out regimental canes (4d. per month), supper, and also beer, which was not necessary, but usual. Now, leaving out the beer and the three voluntary items, which were not entirely voluntary, there were eighteen items—eight of them on the pay-sheet and ten out of the man's own pocket—which every soldier had to pay, and they came to a very considerable amount. The men complained not only of these stoppages, but of the discontinuance of the lodging grant of 4d. a day when on furlough, which had been given down to 1880. They said that the Government had set off against that what was called a concession by the railway companies with regard to travelling; but that was only what every football player, cricketer, and angler got, and was therefore no concession at all.The one other question which he wished to press was that of food. The right hon. Gentleman said that the recruit was to get an additional 3d. a day for food so soon as he was efficient, but a boy in the Navy got more than the able seaman—not less. Ought not the British soldier to be treated as the British sailor was treated? The Committee on the Food of the Navy, in their admirable Report, laid down the sound principle—and they were dealing with a system of 687 feeding which was already better than that of the Army—that—
The ration should be sufficient in itself to satisfy all reasonable requirements of the men and able to maintain them in a perfect state of health.They also said—We have taken into consideration the rise which has taken place in the standard of living of the class on shore from which the men are commonly recruited.Those principles seemed to him to be perfectly sound and perfectly applicable to the British Army. It was impossible to pretend that the food which was at present given as public food to the soldier was sufficient under those naval canons. The very best food, in the regiment where it was best looked after, could not be compared with the food provided for the police any day at one o'clock at Bow-street. The latter was infinitely superior. When we were considering this question de novo, they ought to look at what the men put first. The men themselves put food and comfort before pay. No doubt they might be mistaken in doing so, but what had to Le dealt with was what prevented men, and even soldiers' sons, joining the Army. Food and comfort was what the soldiers looked to, not cubicles and things of that kind.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)Do not cubicles promote comfort?
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEThey are all against cubicles; they sneer at them. This subject of food had been considered by scientific men. Dr. Haldane, of Oxford, who had gone into this matter with a good deal of care, said that the recruit got only 36 per cent. of what he ought to get to keep him in health—36 per cent. of what a Scotch convict got, and infinitely less than the ordinary factory worker. After receiving the threepence messing allowance he got 52 per cent. But he did not bind himself to Dr. Haldane's statistics. He preferred to rely on the opinion of the men, which pointed to the same conclusion. Now that they had gone so far, they ought at once to try to meet the opinion of the enlisting classes with regard to food and comfort. If their present scheme was not sufficient to attract the men, they ought to try a still shorter period of enlistment.
§ * (10.38.) LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (Bedfordshire, Biggleswade)said that as an old soldier of fourteen years service he felt most strongly that what the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had said was perfectly true. The scheme put before the House by the right hon. the Secretary of State for War, involving, as it did, our ability to maintain our land forces for the defence of the Empire, was most momentous. He would point out that everything that had been said by the critics of the War Office before the war, as to the insufficiency of the guns for our Army, had unfortunately proved true by events in South Africa. So much was the want of guns felt, that lie believed he was not exaggerating when he said that not only were the arsenals ransacked, but that even some of the show guns from the museums-were taken away to South Africa a year after the campaign was started and that the orders issued for new guns amounted to something like 500 pieces of ordnance. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the Army should be properly supplied with regular cavalry and regular mounted infantry. It was generally thought nowadays that a soldier could be made in a very short period of time. That was a dangerous theory. The old saying in cavalry regiments that it took two years to make an efficient soldier still held good. The main point in the speech of the Secretary of State for War was the question of the increase of pay, with the view of obtaining a better class of men for the Army, and he thought that every hon. Member in the House might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the steps he had taken to obtain more recruits. The next most important stage in his right hon. friend's speech was at the end, where he foreshadowed that after consultation with the Colonial representatives it might be possible that some seal effort night be made to re-organise the land forces of the Empire as an Imperial force, and to distribute it over the Empire, so that it should be ready to meet any attack or danger in any part of the world. As to the increase of pay, he had only a few words to say. No doubt it had been very carefully con- 689 sidered, but he thought that the noncommissioned officers would naturally feel some resentment, and it would he advisable for his right hon. friend to explain.
§ MR. BRODRICKasked if his noble friend's contention was that the noncommissioned officers should get an equal increase with the men?
§ * LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid he did not mean that for a moment, but the non-commissioned officers would naturally say that they were the men who had taken most trouble with their profession, and yet they saw the junior ranks given an increase of pay while they received no addition.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid that the noncommissioned officers would get the allowance for stoppages, and 6d. a day later on. That would be 8d. a day more.
§ * LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid lie was glad that the point had been made clear. As regarded the additional 6d., for his own part he believed that 1s. a day was quite sufficient for a recruit if he got a clear shilling, but after that he should have preferred a sliding scale rising from 1s. to 1s. 9d. or any higher sum. Human nature was human nature all the world over, and as long as men saw something in front of them, it was a great advantage. It was perfectly true that last year his right hon. friend drew the outline of several Army Corps, and many hon. Members were inclined to support him because of the principles lie laid down, namely, the principle of decentralisation, and the principle, which he afterwards departed from, and later returned to, that the officer who was in command of an Army Corps in peace should lead it in war. But surely the whole basis of that scheme was the distribution of the forces as far as the garrisons of India, South Africa, and other places were concerned. South Africa was to have twelve battalions of Infantry. He did not go so far as the hon. Member who said that it would be necessary to have a garrison of 100,000 in South Africa, but at the same time he had very little doubt that the twelve battalions of his right hon. friend, say 10,000 men, were obviously too few. Now that they knew that 50,000 or 690 60,000 men would be required in South Africa for some time, the scheme to that extent fell to the ground.
His own view was, although hon. Members on the other side who had sympathy with the Boers would not agree with him, that the war was nearly over. It was a bold statement to make, but it was his own feeling. He wished to ask the House what position they should be in as regarded the land forces when the war came to an end. He had read an admirable speech made in another place a few nights ago by the Duke of Bedford, whose contributions, on those subjects were always valuable. As far as he understood, the total strength of the Regular Army in South Africa had been returned at 137,000 men. The Duke of Bedford's figures were disputed by the Under Secretary of State for War, but, although he disputed them, he did not appear as if he knew how to criticise them. There must be released at the termination of the war in South Africa something like 67,000 reservists. The strength of the Regular Army now at home was 120,000 men, and that included the men who had been invalided home and recruits under twenty-one. Thirteen thousand men would be required for foreign service, leaving a residue of 90,000 at home, instead of the 155,000 on which Ins right hon. friend had calculated. The war was entered on with the reserve of 107,000 men, and when it was over there would be no field Army with the colours at home, but merely a depot, so to Teak, of 90,000 men, including invalids and boys, and that number would be called upon to supply drafts, for regiments abroad. No one could deny the gravity of that situation. No one could deny that the condition was a parlous one. His right hon. friend had attempted a solution of the problem. He would express no opinion on the subject, but he hoped his right hon. friend would be successful. He would like, however, to throw out one suggestion. His own belief was that there was one other way of obtaining the men required. The system of recruiting was a very poor system, and had been carried on without any modification for sixty or seventy years. At present it was carried on by military agents alone; that was 691 to say, by recruiting sergeants called away from their ordinary duties to stand about street corners and about the country and endeavour to entrap young men into their nets. He used the word "entrap" advisedly. The recruiting sergeants were making a feeble attempt to compete with the labour market. Surely that might be altered, if the system were put on a different basis. He saw no reason why it should not be put on a national basis, and why the other great Departments of the State who took very little interest in it at present, should not co-operate. He saw no reason why the lord lieutenants of counties and the mayors of cities should not form committees, and why some method should not be adopted to make what was after all a national problem a national question. In that way, he thought, the difficulty with which they were now face to face would be removed. But the War Office should do its duty and that duty was to see that no breach of faith towards the men was committed; and the nation itself had got its duty and that was to receive back again into civil life the men who had served in the Army. Some of the men of the irregular corps he had taken to South Africa, very respectable men who left the ranks with very good characters, had walked about the streets of London looking for work, and they told him that it was better not to say that they had been to South Africa, as they would have a better chance of getting work. The broad point he wished to make was whether the recruiting system could not be put on a national basis. If that were done he believed they would have a better chance of solving the problem they would have to face during the next few years.
§ *(11.0.) SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall)said he was very anxious to emphasise one point touched on by the noble Lord who had just spoken, and also by his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, and that was how absolutely essential it was to differentiate between the time of service for the infantry and that for the cavalry and horse artillery. He would give four excellent reasons, any one of which he thought would be well worthy of the consideration of the 692 right hon. Gentleman. The first was that, unlike recruiting for the line, recruiting for the horse artillery and cavalry was exceedingly popular at present. Whether it was prestige, or the dress, or the riding, or the nature of the service, the cavalry and horse artillery were exceedingly popular. Why therefore, interfere with them, and change the limit of service? He had another reason which was equally strong. The noble Lord, himself an officer in the Lancers, said that it took nearly two years to make a cavalry soldier. He himself did not know that it took quite so long, but he had always understood that the time required for training a cavalry officer and an infantry officer was eight months in one case and three months in the other. He could not imagine that it was good economy to enlist a man for three years when it took him more than a year to become an efficient soldier. It was too expensive a process altogether. That argument, as applied to the cavalry, applied with still greater force to the horse artillery. Then again, what was the use of a cavalry reserve? When he was at the War Office he had always been told that when a man ceased to ride he became unfit for active service. He thought it would be an extremely bad thing to allow cavalry soldiers to enlist, and then to pass the greater part of their time in the reserve. The last reason he had was that in the Report of the Wantage Commission it was distinctly and unanimously stated that the proper period of service in the cavalry was nine years with the colours and three years in the reserve. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider those reasons, and endeavour, if possible, to leave the periods of service in the cavalry and horse artillery as they were at present.
The main point that had to be considered in the new scheme was, of course, the increase of pay. He rejoiced extremely that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted almost en bloc the proposals made ten years ago by the Wantage Commission. In the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting they found that the system of bounties had almost entirely failed. An offer of £5 for an additional service of one year met 693 with no response at all in South Africa, The increase of pay would, no doubt, be a great inducement. He was glad to know that the pay of the lance corporal was to be increased. That was specially recommended in the Report of the Wantage Commission. He thought every military Member of the Committee would agree that a great many men gave up their stripe when they got it because they did not find the small increase in their pay was sufficient for the extra time, trouble, and responsibility that were involved. As he understood the scheme, it was intended to appoint ten corporals in each battalion. With regard to another very important point, he confessed he did not quite understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the alteration of the good conduct pay. He would, however, call his attention to the fact that the Wantage Commission strongly recommended that the period of service for obtaining the first good conduct stripe should be one year. The hon. Member for the Fareham division alluded to the fact that there was a progressive rate of pay in the American Army, and that it had been found very attractive. If one good conduct stripe could be earned in one year, two after three years, and three after five years—that was the recommendation of the Wantage Commission—it would give a man a chance of obtaining very early in his service additional pay.
There were other matters which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to keep in mind. There was the very strong recommendation of the Wantage Commission that the recruiting quarters should be in a popular part of the town. The Inspector General of Recruiting said that a recruit disliked nothing so much as to have to enlist in a low quarter of the town, and he pointed out two striking examples. Liverpool, and Woolwich. The recruiting quarters in Liverpool were in an extremely bad part of the town. At Woolwich a new house was taken in a popular part of the town, and the expense was amply repaid by a rapid increase in recruiting, mainly from that cause. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to the question of not overworking recruits when they first came in. He 694 understood that Lord Roberts had now under consideration a great many points with reference to the duties to be discharged by recruits. It was the greatest possible advantage that they should be able thoroughly to understand what was required of them, and that they should not be bullied by drill sergeants, and made uncomfortable when they first came into barracks. Another question ho would like to have answered was, why, considering the great want of men in South Africa, there had not been some interchange in the regiments. Why was it that certain regiments were not sent out at all? There was that splendid, regiment the 11th Hussars at Cairo, perfectly fit to go to South Africa. Then again why should not the 10th Hussars which, he presumed, was played out, be exchanged for the 15th Hussars; and why should not the 5th Dragoon Guards be exchanged for the 4th Dragoon Guards, so that there might be an influx of new horses and new men into South Africa. The right, hon. Gentleman in his speech alluded to the additional clerks who had been sent from the War Office to carry out local audits in the three Army Corp Districts. A sum of £8,800 was taken under sub-head B in order to pay those men. But there ought to be a corresponding diminution in the vote of the Accountant General's Department at the War Office. He saw no diminution, but a great increase. Hon. Members who took up the question of the local audit believed that it would be carried, out by clerks from the Accountant General's Department, and that there would be a corresponding reduction at the War Office, and Lord Wolseley and General Brackensbury distinctly stated before the Committee that if local audits were carried out the War Office clerks might be diminished by 100 men. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an answer later on as to why there was an increase of £8,800 and no corresponding diminution at the War Office.
§ (11.10.) MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would pardon him if he did not attempt to go in any great detail into the matters which he had brought before the Committee in his very interesting speech. No doubt there 695 were great reforms in the Army and in the administration of the War Office which, in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, should be made. He desired a greater elimination of the civilian element, and so long as the elimination did not compromise the authority of the Secretary of State he should be very glad to associate himself with the right hon. Gentleman in the matter. He desired to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon the marked improvement which his new scheme presented to the scheme he introduced last year. Last year they had entered on a new era. They were invited to become a military nation. It was, as his right hon. friend had said, by accident that they had become a military nation, and they were to endeavour to make that accident permanent. They were to make themselves a military nation almost regardless of expense, and any hon. Members who suggested financial considerations were very nearly voted traitors to their country. They were told that if lavish expenditure did not succeed in drawing recruits then they were to have conscription or even universal compulsory service. There was a great improvement now. His right hon. friend was quite tame and mild. The cloud of conscription had passed away, and they could approach the thorny question of Army reform with a great deal less prejudice than characterised their discussions last year. His right hon. friend last year produced a scheme which was to militarise the British nation. That scheme had now become a convenient method of decentralisation. The Army corps which were to have careered all over Europe were merely useful administrative units, and the militarism which was to have pervaded all classes of society was replaced by the doctrine, which the Secretary of State in a most luminous passage, in a most admirable speech, which made a great impression on the House, described when he said that:—
The more the soldier is merged in the civilian the better the discipline of the Army and the smaller proportion of crime.He hoped that that meant that his right hon. friend had finally and thoroughly abandoned the fatal and foolish theory of conscription, which no doubt would be still of some use in providing occupation for Members in another 696 place who had not got too much to do, but which never seriously entered into the practical politics of the country. His right hon. friend, in a very eloquent passage in his speech, said that conscript soldiers did not fight at Alma, Waterloo, or Delhi. He thought his right hon. friend might have said with equal force, that it was not conscript soldiers who had fought the long weary war in South Africa so steadily and so unflinchingly. He did not wish to say anything uncomplimentary to any foreign nation in view of their extremely delicate susceptibilities, but he should like to see the conscript soldiers who would do what the British soldiers had clone in South Africa.Then, the financial aspects of the present scheme were somewhat more satisfactory. He did not say they were everything that could be wished, but there were patches of blue in the cloudy sky. It was true the increased pay would add £1,048,000 to the cost of the Amy as a permanent charge. That somewhat falsified the hope in which some of them had indulged that when the war came to an end there would be some reduction in the Army Estimates. But, at the same time, there were compensating considerations, and in these days small mercies were not to be disdained. The right hon. Gentleman had boasted of having reduced the Army Estimates by £375,000 on the ordinary service of the year. That might not be a very large decrease, it might be only a nominal or even an illusory decrease, but it was a decrease, and it was one of which the right hon. Gentleman was proud. That was an immense advantage, because last year the impression was created that anyone who expressed a desire to decrease the Army Estimates ought to be ashamed at having uttered such atrocious sentiments.
Another very healthy feature about the present Estimates was that the gloomy anticipation which some of them had formed last year that the Army Estimates would be larger than the Navy Estimates had been falsified. Pride was taken by the Secretary to the Admiralty that the Navy Estimates were increased, and pride was taken by the Secretary of State for War that the Army Estimates had been reduced. That was a sign of steady progress towards a healthier and better state of things. If he might presume to lay 697 down any principle at all, he would say that the first and main principle which should animate British statecraft in the realm of Imperial defence was the promotion of a steady transfer of expenditure from military to marine; and the high ideal which should be held up before the eyes of the present or any other Government was that in times of peace the ratio of expenditure between the Navy and the Army Estimates ought to be, quite irrespective of the scale of the Estimates, something like two to one on the side of the Navy. If that principle were applied to the Estimates of the present year, the Navy Estimates would be £40,000,000, and the Army Estimates £20,000,000, and there was no Member in the House who looked at the question from an impartial point of view—and he rejoiced that so large a number did adopt that attitude in regard to Imperial defence—who would not say that was a much better position. It was, however, hardly within the range of practical politics at present. The Secretary of State for War had told the House that the scheme introduced last year held the field, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had somewhat unkindly recalled the phrase to the memories of the House. Naturally that scheme would hold the field while the right hon. Gentleman was the only person entitled to propound a scheme. If only one horse were allowed to enter a race, that horse would very probably be able to walk over the course. But this horse had not been able to walk over the course, and another, a much better one, had been employed to win the stakes. The right hon. Gentleman had stated—
Our experience of the year has fortified us in the position which we then took up.The House would regard those words not so much as an actual statement of fact as a pious tribute to the theory of Ministerial infallibility. This time last year the right hon. Gentleman propounded a scheme for reforming the Volunteers — without consulting the commanding officers. Was the right hon. Gentleman fortified in the position he then took up? If so, it was to be hoped he was strongly fortified, seeing the attacks which had been directed against him by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield and others. Then 698 there was the question of coaling stations. Coaling stations must be fortified, but it was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman was fortified in the position he took up last year on that matter. The Secretary of State also thought that Sir Redvers Buller was a fit person to command the First Army Corps, but was he fortified by the experience of the year in the position he then took up?There were some points in regard to which, without doubt or dispute, the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinion, and the most remarkable was on the question of pay. Last year the Secretary of State almost suggested that an increase of pay to the Army was a step not warranted by the circumstances and hardly to be justified by the results. It was in no factious spirit of antagonism or criticism that he raised these questions; but it was right that attention should be drawn to these changes of opinion because they justified a great deal that was said by the critics of the scheme last year. The Hon. Member for the Fareham Division of Hants was entitled to the congratulations of the House, because as a young Member, in his first session, in spite of the opinion of a great Department, he propounded a theory and put forward a policy which that Department had since adopted. He hoped his hon. friend was proud of the success he had achieved. It made it a good deal easier for people like himself who last year had their prejudices excited and their sentimental instincts stirred by the militaristic tendency which was in the air to support the right hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby this year, whereas on the former occasion they were not able to indulge in this satisfaction. Some objections of principle urged against the scheme last year had been modified, other objections of detail had been altogether removed; and although some of them still thought that it would have been better that consideration should precede action, that the great impetus to army reform which had grown up in the country—which might have been made supreme use of, but which perhaps had been allowed to fritter itself away in a false start— should have been utilised to its fullest extent, that it would have been much better for the Secretary of State to have 699 been occupied entirely and solely with the duty of carrying through the great war in which we were engaged, and that they should have waited to reform the Army until calmer times—yet, in spite of all these objections, and they were weighty objections, it was only common fairness to say that the scheme now put forward in its amended and revised form was a great advance upon anything they had had so far. It contained many minor provisions at once ingenious and practical, and it carried the tangled problem of Imperial defence one step, and a long step, nearer its ultimate solution.
If the Committee would allow him, he would look in some detail, but at no great length, into one or two points raised in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. First, there was the question of good conduct pay. No doubt good conduct pay had done a considerable amount of good in the past. Whether it was right or wrong partially to abolish it, as now proposed, he would not at present discuss. The point he desired to criticise was that of abolishing the pay but keeping the badge—abolishing the substance, the real emolument and privilege, and keeping only the shadow. Soldiers would look on their sleeves and say, "What is this badge for?" If they had read the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman they would realise that it enabled them to commit one pennyworth of minor military crime without having their pay mulcted. They would regard it as a balance at the Bank of Good Conduct, and would doubtless draw and utilise that balance on some really worthy occasion. Probably this was an oversight, and he was inclined to think that such a principle would be subversive of the general discipline of the Army. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should abolish the good conduct pay if lie liked, or establish a new system, but he should not take away the whole substance of the reward and leave only the empty shadow, or he would probably bring the reward for good conduct in the Army as a whole into some contempt.
Another, and a much more important, point to which he desired to draw attention was as to whether the proposed increase of pay was going to prove effec- 700 tive. He came now to the noble Lord. This time last year he most conclusively proved that the very scheme to which they were now committed was absolutely doomed to failure. The noble Lord showed that an increase of 9d. in the pay of the soldier involved an increase of £2,422,000 for the home service alone; but now with an increase of 10d. the additional expenditure only amounted to £1,048,000. No doubt the noble Lord's figures were susceptible of explanation. But he would venture to suggest that the figures he quoted from the admirable book referred to, showed prima facie that he was guilty of selecting from a number of statistics those which most fitted in with the general tenour of his argument. The noble Lord went a great deal further, and said they must not overlook the burden to be thrown on the Indian Empire; they might place a charge on India which it could not bear and which would ultimately fall on this country. There was, however, a more serious question involved in this increase of pay. They had obtained a supply of recruits under certain conditions hitherto in the labour market, but the moment they went beyond those limits they must either increase the attractions or reduce the standard. Either "efficiency," that great word—and perhaps the leader of the Opposition would excuse his mentioning it—
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLdesired to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for obtruding it on his intention. As a matter of fact they had tried first one of these expedients and then the other, and latterly they had tried both, In the present year nearly 9,000 men had been enlisted at great expense to the country, so that they had continually been in the position of paying more and more for an article that was worth less and less. But that was not the whole of the recruiting problem. They had no reason to know, although they had great reason to hope, that the attractions now offered would succeed. Once they got outside the class from whom they now obtained recruits they would have to appeal to an entirely different class. They had no longer to cater alone for the thoughtless or the poor man who did not know where to 701 go for a square meal; they must go to another and higher class. The inducements must be such as to attract the solid artisan. They had to compensate him for the loss of civic rights. He must remain a bachelor, and they had to compensate him for foregoing all the inducements of wife and home. He was very doubtful whether it was within the power of the State to offer inducements to more than a very small number of that class to join the Army. And they must remember that what they offered to secure some they must offer to the whole mass, including that class which for many years had done battle efficiently and successfully for the Empire.
That was the case against the increase of pay, and no one recognised that more than the noble Lord. Last year he pointed out clearly that if the soldier's pay were increased to 15s. clear— under the present scheme it was only proposed to give 10s.—the only class they would attract would be painters. He would not say there was not some use in the details of military organisation for painters or even whitewashers, but he ventured to say the response the noble Lord would receive from that quarter would hardly meet the demands of the six Army Corps he proposed to set up. Those who, like himself, thought that six Army Corps were more than our need, stood on secure ground, but he did not know what was going to happen to the Secretary of State if this scheme of increased pay failed in its object. If six Army Corps were necessary, they must compete in the labour market for men; but, apart from whether the increased pay was a utilitarian proceeding or not, it was justified on the ground that a private soldier had long been shamefully and scandalously underpaid, and the money offered under the new scheme was only a fair measure of justice.
He confessed that the part of the scheme which attracted him most was the proposal of shorter service. It was a proposal which Army reformers had advocated for a long time before he himself was added to their ranks. He heartily approved of the scheme which provided for shorter service at home and longer service in India, because it possessed the elements of elasticity. We 702 wanted a small Army capable of being brought up to much larger proportions in the hour of need, a large Reserve attached to that small Army, and a Navy to give us an opportunity for mobilisation. Any money that could be spared after that should be spent on the Navy. Shorter service at home would distribute healthy military training more widely among the population. He read lately a book describing the awful condition of the poor in large towns, and he could not help feeling glad that a larger proportion of the population would get good food into their bodies. He felt certain that an increase of the Army, however small, must upon the whole increase the well-being of the community and the prosperity of the State. Shorter service at home agreed with the lessons and experience of all modern war. In the old days, when troops were brought into the field in solid masses, great accuracy of drill, precision of alignment, and almost mechanical obedience, were the main qualifications of the soldier. Now all was changed. In these days initiative and individual judgment and determination were worth more than mechanical discipline and rigid obedience, and a long period of training was not required. The War Office should cater for all sorts and conditions of men who were prepared to accept some terms of service.
There was one point more to which he would refer, and it was rather a sentimental one. It was a reproach to our system that in the course of this absorbing war we had produced no single military invention which had attracted the attention of the world. In the great American Civil War, there were inventions which revolutionised the military matériel of the world. What had we produced during the South African War? We had discovered a cap—a monstrous thing which affronted Members on the way down to the House of Commons. We had borrowed that from Germany. We had utilised Navy guns for field purposes. We had imitated the Boers by adopting the pompom. There was room for originality and inventive talent in the Army. He did not think such a nation as the British ought to try to imitate foreign countries. Where would the Boers have been if they had modelled their Army 703 on the lines of ours? They did not form so many regiments of Lancers and Life Guards, and so many batteries of Horse Artillery. It did not follow, because this was good in some other country, that therefore it was the only way to win in war. On the contrary, nothing seemed more certain than that the short road to ruin was to imitate the military system and methods of your adversary. He said, once for all, let us abandon servile imitations of continental methods; let us leave off endeavouring to play the continental game on a scale of one inch to a mile; let us, on the other hand, endeavour to develop the unique resources of this country with its unique and peculiar dangers. Instead of trying to make a miniature German Army in England; let us try to build up such a force as would represent the natural and the military characteristics of the people.
§ *(11.50.) MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said that, in the speech which the hon. Gentleman had just delivered, he detected no single particular in which he suggested a reduction in the proposed expenditure. The greater part of the military expenditure of this country depended on the cost of the Army over-sea. He did not think that anybody who looked at the allocation of the forces in the garrisons oversea—putting entirely aside the condition of things caused by the South African war—could fail to see that there were a considerable number of fortresses and coaling stations which were admittedly undermanned at the present moment. The nature of these garrisons had been considerably altered during the tenure of office of the present Secretary of State for War. So far as European troops were concerned, the numbers had been greatly reduced. The hon. Gentleman opposite had advocated a small Army capable of expansion. Of course, it was easy to talk about calling out the Reserves in time of war, but those who had not closely studied the subject seemed to forget that it took 30 years to build up the Reserves to the dimensions they had now reached, and that even to get that number it was necessary, since short service was started, every year to increase the number of effective troops.
As to the proposals of the Secretary 704 of State, the right hon. Gentleman was not so hopeful as he was a year ago that the scheme he sketched out would be realised. Some part of it had been postponed, if not indefinitely, at all events for the present. The Secretary of State dwelt on the subjects he could dilate on favourably to the House. There were a great many subjects connected with the resuscitation of the Army which he slurred over, or, at all events, did not touch upon at any length. He would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's notice to one or two points in order that he might deal with them when he replied on the debate. He wanted to know something of the loss of effectives. The total number of effectives last year was 406,000, and this year they were only 383,000. It was very singular that the loss exactly corresponded with the diminished number of enlisted men taken since last year. In 1900 the total number enlisted came to 98,000, and in 1901 to 75,000. Therefore it was clear that the decrease of effectives was not occasioned by any excessive wastage of men. The Secretary of State had admitted that the question of desertion from the Army was very serious indeed.
It being Midnight, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.