MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL. (Hansard, 10 November 1902)

§ (11.27.) MR. CALDWELL (Lancashire, Mid)
said that the Government ought to have given some explanation of this measure, which was one of the most extraordinary ever introduced into the House in connection with the Army. This Bill introduced a novel principle into the administration of the Army, in that it proposed to give absolute control of the Reserve forces to the Secretary of State. The House had made certain conditions and enactments with reference to the Militia Reserve, but under this Bill the Secretary of State would be able to relax any regulation or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to the training of the Militia and Yeomanry. That was a strong power to ask from this House; there was no precedent for it, and he objected most strongly to giving such a power to any Department of State. Why did they not ask for the same power in regard to the Army? This proposal seemed to him to be the thin end of the wedge. First they got the principle established, and then they applied it to some other cases. He did not see why the Secretary of State for War should have unlimited power to relax every Act that had been passed with regard to the Militia.

§ MR. BRODRICK
The Clause to which the hon. Member takes exception only refers to any enactment relating to the training of the Militia.

§ MR. CALDWELL
said that training was practically the whole service of the Militia, and maintained that his argument was not affected by the Secretary for War's interruption. Some day they would find that instead of the men being trained in accordance with the Acts of Parliament they would be trained under the regulations of the Secretary of State for War. He would like the right hon. 579 Gentleman to tell the House whether there was any precedent for such a course.

§ MR. DALZIEL
complained that a Bill of such importance had been brought in at this period of the evening without any explanation whatever of the objects and character of the measure. He objected to the measure being taken now because it had come on unexpectedly, and many of their authorities on Army administration had left the House, on the understanding that other business would be taken. He understood that there were several other non-contentious measures on the Paper which might very well be taken. It could not possibly be defended to take a Bill of this importance so unexpectedly, for it was a measure which placed into the hands of the Secretary of State for War a very important power which ought to be most carefully exercised, for it altered many of their important regulations with regard to the Army Reserve. It was far too important a matter to expect for a single moment that a mere informal debate was going to settle matters of such far-reaching importance. He protested against the Bill being taken now. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the best way to pass a Bill of this kind was to accede to the request for an adjournment of the debate, and then on some future occasion the House would be able to have a proper statement as to the objects of this Bill. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. BRODRICK
I hope the hon. Member will not persist in the Motion. I introduced the Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, in order to explain the measure.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I could not hear your explanation when you made it.

§ MR. BRODRICK
That was not my fault. I explained the Bill, and a full report of what I said was given in the Press. The Bill is so simple that I can explain it in a few words, and I hope the hon. Member opposite will withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I think it will be better to dispose of my Motion first.

§ MR. BRODRICK
This is a Bill to carry out only what the House has already voted. Hon. Members have already before them my explanation of last year and the explanation which I gave again tins year. A large sum of money was suggested, and it has been voted in the House when the whole question was fully discussed. This Bill tries to establish for the first time a real Militia Reserve, and there has never been one before.

§ MR. DALZIEL
asked if it was in order, upon a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, to go into details of the Bill.

§ MR. SPEAKER
One of the hon. Member's grounds for moving the adjournment was that the Bill had now been explained. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman may be permitted briefly to show that he has already explained it.

§ MR. BRODRICK
The Motion of the hon. Member prevents me giving the explanation he asks for.

§ MR. DALZIEL
No, my Motion does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman making his explanation, but it will enable him to make it in a proper form.

§ MR. BRODRICK
The House has voted a Militia establishment of 150,000 men, but it has never reached more than 100,000. It is now proposed to utilise for home defence those soldiers who go back to civil life, and that men who have 581 served fourteen years in the Army and Reserve shall become eligible for the Militia Reserve. They will only be liable to be called upon in case of a national emergency. In addition, it is proposed that men who have served ten years in the Militia shall become eligible for the Reserve. As regards the Yeomanry, in view of the great expense of providing a large increase in the Regular cavalry, it is proposed to form a special service section of the Yeomanry, and Yeomen who are willing to serve in that section will be offered £5 a year. Other Clauses in the Bill give the same conditions as obtain in the Militia—a principle which has already been accepted by the House. I do appeal to the House to allow us to take the necessary steps to carry out the provision which the House has already made. I have only one other remark to make. There is the strongest possible desire in some quarters to bring the country to a pass in which compulsion may be necessary for home defence, and nothing can render the country more free from the fear of compulsion than to bring the Militia up to its strength by voluntary enlistment. It cannot be satisfactory that this House should vote 150,000 men for home defence, and that we should never have more than 100,000. This number of men for home defence has been voted by both sides of the House for the last twenty or thirty years, but that establishment has never been reached, and therefore our home defence cannot be said to be efficient. I hope the House will allow us to take the Second Reading of the Bill now.

§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
thought this Bill, however uncontroversial it might be, contained elements which should lead the House to ponder before passing the measure through this stage at such a late hour. He was not inclined to give further powers, even for the training of the 582 forces referred to in the Bill, until the House received some further satisfaction as to the treatment of both the Reservists and others of the rank and file under the Crown. His right hon. friend referred to the offer of £5 a year made to the Yeomanry under this Bill. What he wished to know was, would the Yeomanry have the same difficulty in getting the £5 which was offered as the Reserve forces had found in getting what was now due to them? He was not at all disposed to treat this proposal as one which would result in putting off the day when compulsion would be necessary, and he felt bound to join in the appeal made by hon. Members opposite to defer the consideration of this Bill, in order that they might know a little more as to how things were managed at the War Office, and how this Bill would be carried into effect. The explanation given by his right hon. friend was certainly very meagre, and it was introduced in a ten minutes speech under circumstances which precluded them hearing what the right hon. Gentleman said. The matter became one of great importance when they recognised that the word training must also mean the word pay, and the way in winch the men of all ranks had recently been treated by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided was a good reason for not giving further discretionary power to the War Office, which might result in inflicting further personal and unjust suffering upon a large number of men who carne forward, on the faith of representations and pledges made by the War Office which were afterwards broken, and which led to a still more serious state of things, that of rendering the Army unpopular by the way the men were treated upon returning home.

§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
said that if the Bill were to pass as a non-contentious measure, Section 3 of Clause 1, referring to a special service section of the Yeomanry, ought to be omitted. The proposal which it embodied was most inadvisable. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had said about compulsory service, such a proposal would never be passed by the House of Commons except in a great national emergency. But if anything was likely to make compulsory service necessary it was a proposition such as that which was embodied in Clause 3. To hold up a certain part of the Volunteer forces as being alone fit for war would depress the interest taken by the others in the profession of arms. When the late war broke out he was placed in command of a force of Yeomanry, and without this provision which was now proposed every single one of them volunteered for active service. They could not get anything better than that even with the provision which was now suggested. He considered that Clause 3 contained a most unwise proposal, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.