SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).

HC Deb 09 March 1903 vol 119 cc190-236

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on main question [9th March], "That Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair."

Main Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I am afraid I gave my hon. friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Sheffield an erroneous view of what I meant when I said the education of the Volunteer officers cost as much as £60. I did not mean the ordinary examinations followed by the examinations for drill certificates cost that. I meant, of course, the superior education of the Volunteer officers in the higher branches of their profession represented by what is known as the "2" certificate. I venture to say in connection with that Volunteer officers have made most remarkable progress. Probably 90 per cent. of these certificates are held by Volunteer officers. The natural enthusiasm of Volunteer officers has impelled them, so far as lies in their power, to make themselves more efficient, and I am one of those who believe that if opportunities are opened to them for greater usefulness they will take full advantage of those opportunities. I am afraid it is possible that in the exigencies of debate I may, perhaps, have given the impression that I have not a very great admiration for the energy, enthusiasm, courage and extraordinary industry of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. On the contrary, so far as his conduct of the war was concerned; so far as his administrative work is concerned; and his loyalty and patriotism is translated into constant and efficient work during the progress of that great war, I express the deepest admiration and the strongest belief in the efficiency of his labours at the War Office. But the point on which I differ from him is that his Army Corps Scheme includes a responsibility on the part of the Volunteers, and also on the part of the Regulars towards the Volunteers, in the construction of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps, and so far as the Second Army Corps is concerned the Volunteer district is included for military purposes.

My point is that in time of war, when a stress is laid on the Regular forces of this country, what will become of the organisation? I should like to know if the Regular forces of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Army Corps will not be withdrawn from those Army Corps and sent to wherever the scene of action may be abroad. I am afraid my right hon. friend may say that that is possible; but if that is so I wish to ask where is the organisation? The First Lord of the Treasury said in one of his speeches on this question in the House that the Regulars were only intended as a stiffening and support to the Volunteer forces in those Army Corps, but if you take away from those Army Corps the brain, which is the general commanding and the staff, and take away the backbone which, as we are told, is the Regulars, what becomes of the organisation? Is it not reasonable to suppose if war breaks out tomorrow, or next year that Sir Archibald Hunter would be called upon to take command of forces which were sent abroad of the First, Second, and Third Army Corps, and if that is the case what then becomes of the organisation, and staff, and the command of that Army Corps he is supposed to represent? It may be that the reply to these questions I am asking is obvious, but it seems to me that a great number of Members of this House would like a reply. I do not know that I am alone in finding some confusion of principle in this aspect of the case.

I said in the commencement of my speech there was a question of the confusion of principle, and I suggest when during last session the Military and Yeomanry Bill was brought in, that confusion of principle occurred when the Yeomanry were asked for pay or reward to set themselves apart for service abroad. That was an evasion of the Volunteer principle as most of us understand it. They cease to be Volunteers when they are ear-marked to go abroad in time of war. They then become a kind of Regular force employed only during a portion of their years of service. This question perplexes me. Perhaps I may be a little obtuse, but I represent a constituency which asks these questions, and the responsibility rests with my right hon. friend to give the information. I suggest the ear-marking of the Militia, who are part of the Volunteer home defence Army, for service abroad, whether by contract or for higher pay, makes them cease to be Volunteers in the strict sense of the term, and they become an irregular portion of a Regular force. I would ask my right hon. friend if this is the view of the Government of this country: that you can combine the Regulars and the Volunteers, and at the same time preserve a proper balance of power. My right hon. friend, I assume, thinks we can; I believe we cannot. I believe these forces should be kept distinct, so far as organisation is concerned. I am not so foolish as to suggest that the influence and example of training with the Regular Army would not be an advantage which the Volunteers of this country might well take. My only object is to present this possible solution: Whether our Volunteer service cannot be kept apart for home defence, whilst our Regular Army is kept for garrisoning India and our coaling stations, and for such expeditionary services abroad as occur from time to time. Our expeditionary services during the last seventy years, including one or two great wars, have amounted to ninety, and I submit to the House, whether it is not reasonable to ask the consideration of the Government as to whether they cannot organise the Volunteer forces upon a basis on which they will be responsible for the defence of their country, and they alone. I shall probably be told that that is impossible, that you cannot organise the Volunteer forces for home defence, but while I await the answer of my right hon. friend, I may point out, that in his speech the other day, the First Lord of the Treasury said we would have to depend in time of war for the defence of this country on the citizen Army.

*MR. BRODRICK

Mainly.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

Mainly on our citizen Army. I submit if that be the case there may come a time when under great stress we shall have to depend wholly on our citizen Army. If we are not prepared for that emergency, what will be the condition of this country? I would like to quote one of my right hon. friend's own speeches in respect to that. In 1901, when he brought in his scheme he said— The first three Army Corps are intended for foreign service, but, of course, for home defence in the first instance. What are we to assume from that? By placing these three Army Corps at these particular stations, we shall have them not merely in the best possible positions for the defence of this country, but also in the best possible places for embarkation. The three Army Corps are for foreign service but for homo defence in the first instance; but what is the second instance? It is, I presume, that in the time of a great war it is possible that such may be the exigencies of the war that our Regulars to the last man ought to go abroad. If that be the case it seems to me we have the condition of things I wish to present. We have to trust the home defence to the citizen Army. Our case is that you cannot do this without organising the Volunteers to cover the whole ground of home defence. Cannot we then have a separate department? There is not a Volunteer officer who has not had to lament, at some time or other, the red tape and the constant delay that has occurred in dealing with cases he has had to present to the War Office. Of course I am not blaming my right hon. friend or the officials for this; I believe it to be entirely the fault of the system. I believe the Volunteers of this country should have a separate department of their own, within and under the control of the War Office.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)

You have got it.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I do not think the evidence is such that we can say we have got a separate department in the War Office for the Volunteers.

LORD STANLEY

What is the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces?

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

An officer who has a duty to perform so far as inspection is concerned, but as to any scheme of organisation within the War Office for the control of the Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers of this country—my right hon. friend smiles.

*MR. BRODRICK

I was only smiling at the idea of having two War Offices instead of one.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

No, I am of opinion that one is enough. What I am suggesting is that my right hon. friend shall have none of his authority degraded or depreciated: that the War Office shall still have its place in the administration of this country, but that the officials who have to do the work of the Volunteer forces of tin's country, and what I call the Home Defence Army, should he set apart from top to bottom from the rest of the Department, and I believe this, that if that were done the work the Volunteer officers ask to have done would be done more promptly.

Now I want to present another aspect of the case. I want to suggest that this confusion of principle to which I have alluded was apparent to my right hon. friend when he attended the Colonial Conference. When my right hon. friend brought down his Army Reform Scheme it was called an Imperial Defence Scheme, and the First Lord of the Treasury speaking of this scheme in this House called it an Imperial Defence Scheme. Within the boundaries of that scheme my right hon. friend had a proposition to make to the colonies, and he made it with his accustomed force and ability. I wonder whether he was surprised at the response to his* proposition at the Colonial Conference. I confess I was not. Two months before the subject was discussed at the Conference in the columns of The Times there appeared several alternatives whereby the colonies might be invited to contribute to the Imperial defence, so far as the Army was concerned. When these alternatives were presented I watched for replies, and I was not disappointed. There came from the Premiers of Australia and Canada, through the columns of The Times, this statement:— This looks like taxation without representation. The colonies will give, and give liberally, or the defence of their own soil, whether it be any naval or military force.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I do not see how the question of whether the colonies should contribute is a matter which rises on the Estimates.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I bow to your ruling, Sir; I was perhaps going out of my way somewhat, but I was trying to arrive at this point, that the right hon. Gentleman, in making these proposals to the Colonial Conference, was making proposals which were not compatible with the scheme of Imperial Defence. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be drawn from what he called the permanent forces of Canada and Australia one man out of every four to be set apart for Imperial service. I believe the principle is bad, and I believe it can only be applied to the colonies so far as their contributions to the Regular forces of this country are concerned. I likewise believe that if we can have a citizen army in this country, with its own department, and with its proper equipment, with duties which it would understand, of great national responsibility, that there would be no difficulty in getting the colonies to approximate to the standard set up by the military authorities of this country, and you would never need to fear, on the part of the Colonies, an unwillingness to contribute in a form suitable to the democratic spirit of their democratic communities. I submit to this House that these communities are essentially democratic. I submit also that this country in the stress of modern commercial and industrial competition, views with great alarm any increase of the military establishment of the nation. I submit to this House that the people of this country wish to have established the very minimum of forces with the maximum of efficiency, and upon that basis, and upon that basis only, I believe will the people of this country tolerate the heavy military expenditure which even then will be needed. I also believe that if you appeal to the people of this country, on the basis of a citizen Army, which can be and will be made efficient, providing you give it proper opportunities for development, they will contribute freely and will not complain of the taxation that will have to be imposed. Such an army would cost but one-sixth or one seventh that the same number of Regulars would cost. I believe that Lord Wolseley spoke the opinion of this country when he said that the time may come when the safety of the country will depend on the ability of every citizen to use his rifle.

*MR. BRODRICK

He did not say that we could do without Regulars.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

No; neither do I advocate doing without Regulars, and the right hon. gentleman ought not to place any such interpretation on my remarks. I wish to say, in conclusion, that what I am asking for is the minimum of Regular forces required for our actual commitments abroad, in India and in the colonies, and to provide for the exigencies of expeditionary wars. At the same time I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—to consider whether the growing feeling of this country concerning a citizen Army is not one which he should reckon with and readily foster. I ask him if it is not possible to work on the sentiment of character, and also on the sentiment of ambition, to give a proper national responsibility to the people who, I am sure, would rise to the needs of the situation and give that efficiency which the hon. Gentleman has asked for, but has not been obtained in the past, chiefly through the oppressive nature of the regulations and the lack of encouragement. If my right hon. friend and the Government of this country will only give consideration to this element in the life of this country, it will make for the defence of the soil and for the glory of our arms in times of danger as well as of in times of peace.

*MR. G. R. SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid.)

I do not rise to weary the House with many remarks, but I wish to say one or two words on a matter which deserves the attention of hon. Members and of the Minister for War. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution used an expression which I think cannot be too strongly insisted upon, viz. that soldiers do not altogether understand the Volunteers and the Volunteer system. In that I entirely concur. I can understand its being very difficult for a soldier to see the Volunteer battalions working, to note the mistakes they make, and at the same time to realise the difficulties under which those battalions are constantly labouring. I think another remark of the hon. Member also deserves great attention at the hands of the authorities of the War Office, viz. that we must not forget the civilian character of the Volunteer force. I quite agree that there must be a certain amount of efficiency demanded from all Volunteer corps throughout the country. But I will ask the War Minister not to ask too much from them, for, however willing they be, they may not be able to pass in the same category as those who have greater facilities for military instruction. We do not wish to be pampered, or treated like spoilt children, but we do wish to feel that our difficulties are appreciated by the War Office. We wish to be treated with some sympathy when we may not come up to the standard which the War Office wishes us to reach. There must be a certain amount of elasticity given to the Volunteer forces, because in the case of some corps the facilities for bringing them up to the requirements of the War Office are very lacking indeed. It is hard for corps in country districts to reach the high level which is arrived at by Metropolitan corps, who have the advantage of drill halls and good shooting facilities. Take the new regulation dealing with musketry. I hope that some modification may be made to meet the conditions which I, for one, know to exist in many places. There is another difficulty, that of getting the men who live at some distance from the range to the range, because they have to lose a day's work, which they do not care to do. It really is disheartening at times, when one is trying to meet the expenditure of country battalions, to feel that there is a cut-and-dried rule by which we are bound, or otherwise we shall be treated as inefficient and fail to get the grant. The question of the provision of ranges is by no means an easy one. I myself have suffered acutely from murdered cows and sheep who wandered aimlessly across the ranges, and although they have died of hydrocephalus I have had to pay for them on the plea that they have been shot.

I think that the country will regret if the Volunteer forces should be materially diminished or ever become extinct. May I venture to suggest that as our expenses sometimes fall too heavily upon us, some portion of the money which is to be found for the provision of Army Corps might with great advantage be devoted to the Volunteer force. I carefully abstain from indicating which Army Corps might be done away with, but I do think that if the sum of money which it is proposed to devote to one of them were given to the Volunteers, the country would not regret it, and it would certainly obtain as much advantage from the expenditure of it in that direction as it would if it were allowed to go to its original destination. The Volunteer force is a source of great strength to this country, and I hope most sincerely that as time goes on, and when the War Office has had more opportunity of inquiring into its requirements and necessities, we shall be placed in a more favourable position than we now are. I believe that the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces is animated by a passionate desire to help those forces, but he is debarred doing all he wishes—not only by the lack of money, but by the stress of work at the War Office. I would ask the Minister of War not to make the conditions of the Volunteer service so severe that men, panting to do their best to fulfil the requirements laid down by the War Office, are made to feel that though they have done their utmost they have failed owing to the fact that the War Office seems to be regardless of their interests and ignorant of the necessities that arise from the fact that after all they are civilians.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

I thank my hon. friend the Member for South-East Durham for calling attention this afternoon to this matter, and for having gone so fully and thoroughly into the details. The interest of this House, in the Volunteer force must have been fully brought home to those who have been present during the debate, as well as, I hope, to the Leader of the House. Of course, the debate has been deprived of a great deal of interest that would otherwise have attached to it by the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman of his intention to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of the auxiliary forces. I venture to hope, in reference to that Commission, that care will be taken that it will not be too large to deal with the matter as thoroughly and as rapidly as possible. It cannot be denied that the Volunteer force have, until recently and during the last forty years, suffered much at the hands of the War Office. The force has triumphed over a great many difficulties. My hon. friends, the mover and seconder of this Resolution, called special attention to the regulations issued at the end of the year 1901. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will be the first to admit that those regulations were too hastily issued and were insufficiently considered, indeed we have a recognition of this state of affairs in the fact of his appointing a Committee under the active chairmanship of the Financial Secretary for the War Office, and including representatives of the Volunteer force, to go thoroughly and fully into these regulations. Contrary to the custom of many Committees, this Committee has sat de die in diem and it has produced an ad interim Report, upon which the Secretary for War quickly acted, with the result that a great deal of the sting of the new regulations has been taken away. At the same time, nothing can excuse the language in which those regulations was issued. My hon. friend the Member for South-East Durham read an extract which was peculiarly offensive to the Volunteer force. It is incontestable that these regulations have had a very large influence indeed in bringing about the present very serious state of affairs, and I am quite sure that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War is as much concerned as every Member of this House to see the very large diminution which has lately taken place in the strength of the Volunteer force.

There may be some quibble as to figures, but it cannot be denied that during the war the numbers of the Volunteer force rose to 306,000, while at the latest date for which returns have been obtained it had fallen to 250,000. My right hon. friend stated that the diminution was largely owing to the cessation of war. I agree that that had something to do with it, but, at the same time, I think it would have been easy to retain the services of a large number of these men. The country, I am sure, was most undesirous of seeing the Volunteer forces reduced because the war had come to an end, but the cessation of war had not nearly as much effect in bringing about this result as the new regulations had. I believe my right hon. friend is anxious to redeem the mistakes which have undoubtedly been committed. He has shown this by appointing a Committee to modify the regulations. Still, some of the remaining regulations are extremely onerous. Compulsory camps are very difficult indeed to carry out. The Commander-in-Chief this year has given very considerable facilities in this matter by allowing camps to be held at different times, and by permitting men to be attached to regiments in the Regular Army. But I think there is a great deal in what has been said as to the necessity for more elasticity in the administration of the Volunteer force. It is quite impossible, for instance, for a country corps to do what strong metropolitan corps are able to accomplish. In the latter the men and officers are constantly together, and there is not the same necessity for them to spend the time in camp which there is in the case of country corps, the companies of which are widely scattered and have very few opportunities of assembling for battalion drill and training.

There was one matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Gravesend with which) I agree. He referred to the necessity for some Department of the War Office which should have the control of the auxiliary forces. It is quite true that there is a high officer, the Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces. I have known fifteen or twenty of these during my time, and they have proved as sympathetic as possible towards the force—none more so than the present inspector-General. But he occupies a room exactly the size of the table in front of Mr. Speaker, and in that room ho has, without any organisation, to control a force of Volunteers and Militia numbering upwards of 370,000. Surely an organisation like that is entitled to more accommodation at headquarters. We have often pressed on Secretaries for War that the Volunteers and Militia are entitled to representation on the Headquarter Staff of the Army. However sympathetic the Inspector-General may be it must be remembered that he has never served in the Volunteers. These Inspector-Generals are appointed direct from the Regular Army. It takes them a long time to acquaint themselves with the methods of the Auxiliary forces, and they are frequently removed from their posts before they have accomplished that end. Now the Yeomanry have a direct representative in the person of the Inspector-General of the Imperial Yeomanry. Lord Chesham is a Yeomanry officer, and he has a staff composed of officers drawn from the Imperial Yeomanry. It has been recognised in the case of the Yeomanry, and ought to be recognised in the case of the Militia and Volunteers. But my right hon. friend will say he is going to appoint a Council of Advice.

*MR. BRODRICK

It has been appointed.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

I cannot say that I have seen any thing of it. I do not know who has been appointed, and it has not been very active up to the present. It will no doubt do some good, but the Militia and Volunteers, who contribute so large a number of men to the defensive forces of the country, are entitled to a more adequate representation on the Headquarters Staff of the Army. These are matters which, among other things, I hope will be inquired into by the Royal Commission.

On the financial question I recognise to the full the generosity of my right hon. friend. He has been extremely generous in camp allowances; I have nothing whatever to complain of on that head, although I should be the first to complain, if necessary, because the responsibility for any deficit will fall on the shoulders of the individual commanding officer. In this connection I must take exception to the observation of my hon. friend the Member for Gravesend that the attachment of Volunteer corps to the Army Corps is not working satisfactorily.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I said it would not work satisfactorily.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

At any rate it is working satisfactorily. I know personally that the regiment to which I belong is attached to the fourth Army Corps, and that since the war it has been twice out for a fortnight's training, and has had no difficulty as regards money, and very little as regards numbers.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

What I wished to convey was not that the Volunteers would not work with the Regulars in training, but that the organisation would not stand the test in the future.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

I have no means of speaking as to the future; perhaps my hon. friend has. I can only say that up to the present we have had no difficulty; the scheme has worked satisfactorily as far as it goes. But I have some fault to find with regard to the selection of Volunteer battalions for the Army Corps. It is entirely dependent on their being able to find a specified number of men in a given fortnight. It is right to have a high standard of efficiency, but how a regiment attains that standard is not a matter of much concern. I do not think the mere fact of being able, by means of a bounty or otherwise, to provide a specified number of men in a given fortnight is an adequate test of the efficiency required. At all events, it presses very heavily on some corps. There is a great difference between corps, and this matter materially augments the difficulty of finding officers. The deficiency of Volunteer officers two or three years ago was 1,200 or 1,300; it is now upwards of 2,000. Considerable numbers of Volunteers are sending in their resignations because they are afraid of the continual calls upon their time and purse. This is a matter to be specially inquired into by the Royal Commission, and it affects both Militia and Volunteers, but especially the latter, with whom it is a very pressing matter.

On the subject of musketry, fresh regulations have just been issued. I understand from my right hon. friend that he would not issue them until he had ascertained how far they could be carried out by the Volunteers. However, they have been issued, but the Volunteer Corps are to have an option as to carrying them out this year, for which concession they are grateful. But I am told that the regulations will require at least three; or four journeys to the range. That for a Metropolitan Corps is a very serious matter, as it takes up a whole afternoon to go to Bisley, and employers do not like Volunteers to be constantly asking for leave; they get tired of it and say, "You must choose between your employment and belonging to the Volunteers; we want our clerks here during office hours: we are willing to do what we can, but we cannot perpetually be giving leave, and, besides, it is not fair to the other clerks." It is a pity these regulations have been issued without first fully ascertaining how far the Volunteers are able to carry them out. I recognise that my right hon. friend is doing what ho can to provide ranges. Members of this House, irrespective of Party, during the last thirty or forty years have gone to successive Secretaries of State, pointing out how all available land for ranges was being taken up and its price increasing. My right hon. friend is spending a large sum on the acquisition of land for ranges on Plumstead Marshes; the expense will be about £200,000, but if the step had been taken five years ago the land could have been secured for a quarter of the amount.

*MR. BRODRICK

Not five years ago.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Perhaps not five years ago; make it ten. But this agitation about ranges is not a matter of the last five or ten years. It has been going on for thirty or forty years, but we have never been able to convince the War Office of the paramount necessity of something being done, and the consequence is a greatly increased expenditure of public money.

The real difficulty, however, with which we have to contend, are the constantly changing regulations. If I were asked off-hand what are the regulations at the present moment for becoming efficient I could not say, and I am certain that neither my right hon. friend nor the Financial Secretary could. Before a man joins the Volunteers he asks what he will have to do, and it is absolutely necessary to have some simple standard. The constantly changing regulations are not only irritating to those who have to candy them out, but by preventing men from coming in, and inducing those who are in to resign, they sap the very life and efficiency of the Volunteers. I hope the necessity of arriving at some clear and definite standard of efficiency will be impressed on the Royal Commission, and that when such a standard has been arrived at it will have some little permanency at any rate. Staff officers were appointed for five years; they are now appointed for three; but every staff officer thinks he must make some little change of detail. My right hon. friend cannot realise the harm done or the difficulty caused by these little changes. Since the new regulations came into force nearly every Volunteer commanding officer has done his best loyally to comply with them. We have no desire to use our voice in this House, or such influence as we possess outside, to induce the War Office to do anything for the Volunteers which they think is unfair to the country. We desire to be brought up to a very high standard of efficiency, and, in order that the observations of the hon. Member for Gravcsend may not be misinterpreted, I do not hesitate to say that the desire of the Volunteers is to work in with the Regular' Army in every possible way. The more we can work in and be trained with the Regular troops the better we should like it. What we strongly object to is being treated by the Regulars as something quite apart from them. Do not let my right hon. friend imagine for a single moment that the Volunteers desire to be treated as something apart from the Regular Army. I do not share the views of some of my hon. friends that the defence of the country could be entrusted entirely to the Volunteer force. The Volunteer force is very active, numerous, energetic, and patriotic, but it undoubtedly wants on special occasions and for active service a stiffening of Regulars. There is not a single Volunteer or Volunteer officer who does not admit this fact. I could not possibly, however much I wanted money for the Volunteers, take that money to the disparagement of the Regular troops.

With regard to allowances, it must not be thought that the War Office is stingy in these matters. As the subject has been mentioned, the House ought to know that a young officer of Volunteers, on going to a School of Instruction, receives £10 1s. 6d. pay and allowances, either travelling or lodging, but not both, £7 11s., or a total of £17 12s. 6d., from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deducts 12s. 7d. income tax. I think my right hon. friend might induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to waive that deduction.

I hope this Royal Commission will be appointed quickly, that it will be small in the number of its members, and that it will be composed of gentlemen who have sufficient time to give to its deliberations in order that a report may be speedily framed and acted upon. The Prime Minister the other night said— We appeal to the Volunteers as the real force on which we have to depend in ease of emergency. On that statement the country is bound to hold the Government to do everything it can to foster "the real force on which we have to depend in case of emergency." The hon. member for South East Durham mentioned the cost of the Volunteers. The cost is only £4 per head per annum. It is true that in the Army Estimates the amount for the force is £1,280,000, but from that you have to deduct £214,000 for the pay of Regular officers who act as adjutants, and Regular non-commissioned officers who act as sergeant instructors, who, if they were not with the Volunteers, would be in the Regular Army.

*MR. BRODRICK

Oh no.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

However, whether it is £4, £5, or £6 per annum matters very little indeed; it is less than the annual cost even of the clothing of the Regular soldier. My right hon. friend must have been impressed by the fact, that the opinion of the House, which represents the opinion of the country as a whole, is in favour of the Motion of my hon. friend. The attention of hon. Members has been drawn to the letters which have lately appeared in The Times on the problem of the Army. As regards the Auxiliary forces, the letter of 24th February so admirably sums up the whole position that I should like, in conclusion, to read an extract to the House— The sole responsibility of the Auxiliary forces for the defence of the United Kingdom should be clearly recognised. They should have their separate Department in the War Office, and also on the general staff, where they would take over all the mobilisation work which is concerned with home defence. Money should be spent freely in providing them with rifle ranges and other facilities, and an effective Manoeuvres Act should he passed to enable them to receive an adequate training. If my right hon. friend will act up to that paragraph the Volunteers and the country will have all they desire, and large numbers of men will return to the force. I would urge him, whatever he does, not to allow his subordinates to be perpetually tinkering with and altering the regulations. Let us march with the spirit of the times; let there be a high standard fixed, but whatever the standard, let us stick to it, at any rate, for a few years. If that is done, every member of the force and the country at large will thank the right hon. Gentleman.

*MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

I quite agree with the suggestion that we should cease the absurd practice of continually altering the regulations with regard to the Volunteers. I cannot, however, agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the question of camp allowances. I rise principally to allude to two points. In the first place, I am anxious that the Volunteer force should be further developed, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will give this question his serious consideration. Those Volunteer Corps which are not chosen for the Field Army Brigades cannot be said to be satisfied with the conditions of grant existing now. The present system is very invidious indeed, especially under the new policy of concentrating outside battalions alongside those Army Corps, having in the same area at the same time members of a battalion who are only serving by the week. Consequently you have the invidious distinction of having practically in the same brigade one battalion receiving 5s. per day able to pay each Volunteer 2s. per day of pay. while within the same brigade there may be a battalion where the men are serving on the seven days system, doing the same work in the same place side by side, and that corps only receives 2s. 6d. per man per day, which is all required towards the expenses of the camp, and consequently they are unable to give their men any gratuity whatever. I think it is only fair, if we ask the Volunteers to sacrifice their work or to sacrifice their yearly holiday in order to give their services, we ought at least to see that the men are not out of pocket. I think the proposition laid before the War Office by the Commanding Officers Association that the battalion selected for the Field Army Brigade should get 6s. per man, and that those battalions which are not selected for the Field Army Brigade should get 4s. per man, is a fair proposal. Out of that sum they could at least give the seven days men 1s. 6d. per day.

My next point is in regard to the question of Volunteer transport. In the Volunteers there is really no system of transport. I know that individual brigades have organised transport, but the allowances at the present time given make it quite impossible for the Volunteer service to have anything like an efficient transport. The Volunteers at the present time are unable to go anywhere if there was a sudden call for their services at the place of mobilisation. I hope the right hon, Gentleman will give us some indication of what policy the War Office intend to pursue with regard to the transport for Volunteers. We must certainly face a larger expenditure here, but I think that expenditure can be saved on the Regular Army. I remember, in 1897, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would challenge the Commander-in-Chief to say whether we were really getting an adequate return for the sum which was being voted to the Army. Whether we got an adequate return then I do not know, but now a much larger sum is to be spent on the Army, and the question is: Are we getting an adequate return for the greatly increased expenditure since that time? And I think the Secretary of State for War will admit that for the money spent on the Volunteers we really do get an adequate and a more than adequate return. I wish also to protest against the new regulations which have been issued, but which are now evidently to be modified. The War Office is always experimenting with the Volunteer force, and I am quite sure that the policy of the new regulations was one which, had it been successful, would have given us very indifferent Regulars, and would really have shattered the Volunteer force.

There is an impression in various quarters that these new regulations were the result of a deliberate policy to smash up the Volunteer force in order to pave the way for conscription. I disagree with that view altogether, although I think the effect would have been in that direction. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some satisfactory statement with regard to the pay of Volunteers going into camp, and as to what the War Office intend to do with regard to transport. I may be heterodox in my view, but I dissent from the; doctrine that you must get a system of perfection in the Volunteer force. What you want is as near perfection as possible, but above all you want to get as large a number of men as possible to undergo some system of training. If you lay that foundation, and the day of danger should arise, then you will be able to train those men to a greater state of perfection and make them ready for the work that will be before them. The policy of this country should be to have a small Army able to do anything and go anywhere, and leave behind it a very large auxiliary force. I have often stated that I would go so far as to say that every young man in the country capable of bearing arms should undergo a certain amount of military training so as not to interfere with his ordinary avocation, but such as is undergone by the Volunteers; if we did that, and reduced, as we might well reduce, our expenditure on the Regular forces by millions per annum, we should be doing a great service to the country and doing something to put this country in a state of preparedness for any eventuality.

LORD STANLEY

If ever I had any doubt as to the great desirability of appointing the Commission to inquire into the Auxiliary forces, that doubt would have been dispelled by the speech of the seconder of this Motion, which shows how deepseated are the misconceptions with regard to the Volunteer force. I look to this Commission, which is to be appointed at once and which my right hon. friend is in hopes may report even before the end of the summer, to do two things. The first, which is comparatively easy, is to dispel the misconceptions to which I have referred, and show the great difficulties that exist in dealing with the Volunteer forces; and the other, which I do not envy them, is to endeavour to reconcile and to bring into one scheme the various propositions that are put forward. To-night, from both sides of the House, and even from the same side of the House, we have had diametrically opposite views expressed with regard to the construction and the organisation of the Volunteer force. We have had one hon. Member proposing that the Volunteers should organise themselves, and we have another proposing that there should be practically compulsory Volunteers. All these views must be gone into by a Commission. They cannot possibly be dealt with only by a Departmental Committee, and if they could be discussed they could not be decided across the floor of the House. I do not think people realise how difficult it is to deal with the Volunteer force. I certainly had no idea of it until the meeting of the second Committee upon those regulations. There must be, I think all will admit, a general system both of training and of pay. We must set up a fixed standard as to what is thought necessary for the efficiency of an individual Volunteer. We cannot say that one Volunteer, because he lives in a town, should take part in ten drills, and that another, because he has to walk five miles to the drill, need only therefore do five drills. I do not see how you can say that because one man has to walk a little further than another five drills will be sufficient for him instead of ten.

As regards pay, there is no doubt that in a great many corps the question of the amount of money given is of very great importance to the individuals in that corps. We certainly do not want to have any distinction in the pay of the Volunteers, to have one class of rich Volunteers and one class of poor, and there is no doubt that that ideal does operate very unequally on many corps. It is all very well to urge elasticity. To whom are we to give the power of exercising that elasticity? We cannot give it to commanding officers of battalions. We have, however, endeavoured in the Second Army Corps to give it to Sir Evelyn Wood, who will make all the arrangements for camps, and will make all the promotions, and we have left matters in his hands as to what will be convenient for the various battalions. That, I hope, will succeed. Again, I hope that we shall meet the wishes of Volunteers with the aid of the Advisory Committee, without whose consideration I hope no regulations in future will be issued to the Volunteer forces. But we must recognise that there is now an entire change in the constitution of the Volunteers as compared with their constitution when they first became a force. It was then composed to a great extent of men who had a certain amount of leisure; and the original idea was that they should train themselves, no fixed rule being laid down as to their drill. That is now completely altered, and a fixed standard of requirement has been laid down. But is it not absolutely necessary that the constitution should be changed if we are to depend in the main, as I believe we shall have to do, on our Volunteer force for the defence of these shores? The whole thing therefore, comes to be a question of pay for the corps, and that, of course, gives rise to the very large question whether we are to alter the constitution of the Volunteers from that of men who give the State something, into that of men to whom by right the State ought to pay a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I shall not attempt to debate that point, for it must be laid before the- Commission, and it must be judged by those who will be more competent to decide; and it is only after their decision that this House should take into consideration the great change that would undoubtedly come about if we looked upon the Volunteers, instead of a force which gave their time, as one whose time would have to be paid for. The hon. Member says he does not wish camps to be compulsory. I can only judge of compulsory camps and their advisability by the evidence that was given before our Committee on the new regulations, before which there was not one single man, however much he might object to the general regulation that had been put forward, who did not say that in his opinion it was absolutely necessary that these men should go into camp.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

They said it would be better for them, but not necessary.

LORD STANLEY

I think that going into camp must be looked upon as a necessity, if they are to be considered as the main portion of our Home defence. The question of the diminution of men is not one that to my mind is so very alarming, for I believe it to be only passing and temporary. I know an instance of a battalion in which, of the men who resigned, over 70 per cent. came back again when the commanding officer told them that the new conditions imposed were less exacting than those they had voluntarily accepted in previous years.

*MR. MACRAE

That was after the new regulations were modified.

LORD STANLEY

Certainly. I look upon the question of the diminution of the men as being a temporary and passing misfortune, but I do look upon the diminution of officers as being very serious indeed, and I undoubtedly think that that is, to a great extent, due to the financial burdens that are put upon them. The question of the debts of the various Volunteer regiments is. in some I cases, very alarming to those who have to take them over. They have always been so, and therefore the question must come up before this Commission if in any way we desire to relieve those officers, not entirely, but to see how we can in any way assist them in bearing a burden which they have undertaken voluntarily, and which was due in its entirety to zeal for the corps which they commanded. The various suggestions which have been made by hon. Members are really so contradictory that one hardly knows whether one ought to deal with them at all. In the first place the seconder of the Motion said that my right hon. friend's Army Corps system stood or fell with the Volunteers that were included in these forces.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I said that the Army Corps stood or fell by the Volunteer system included in it.

LORD STANLEY

That was exactly what I thought I said, namely; that the Army Corps system stood or fell by the success of the Volunteers included in this scheme. If that is so, the Army Corps have no fear of further attack from my hon. friend, because the Army Corps Volunteers have been an unqualified success, for we have been able to get the men without the slightest difficulty.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

My point was this. In time of war your Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps organisation would not stand, because the Regulars attached to these corps would naturally be sent abroad in an exigency, and therefore the brain and the organisation would be taken away.

LORD STANLEY

It is not contemplated that the troops of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps would ever be sent abroad. It is contemplated that the staffs of these Army Corps shall, whatever happens, remain in this country for its protection, and that the forces they command—Regulars, Volunteers, and Militia—in time of peace, shall remain under their command in time of war for the defence of the country. The hon. Member says that no Volunteer is drawn for the place he is to be employed in in case of invasion. What does he mean by that? Does he know that for every single place that is to be defended by the Volunteers, the Volunteers are told off for those places, and that the defence guns will be manned to a great extent by the men of the Volunteer artillery? Of course there are some corps unallotted, and these corps would be used wherever the emergency required their services; but to say that no Volunteer is to train for the place he will be employed in is an inaccurate idea of the organisation that at present exists. The hon. Member wants apparently to divorce the Volunteers from the Regulars, to keep them apart, as something peculiar to themselves. My hon. friend behind me contradicted that at once. He is a practical Volunteer, and the expression of opinion which he has given is he'd by everybody, namely, that the more you can bring the Volunteers and the Regulars together the better it is for both. These forces have been coming together more and more every year, and no cause has contributed more to this result than the attachment of the Volunteer companies to the Regular forces in South Africa.

This Commission, when it sits, will have another and difficult duty to perform. I think it will have to say whether in any circumstances—and it is a debatable point—you are to put a limit to the Volunteer forces; that is to say, whether you are not to lay down one of two propositions: either unlimited numbers and not so much efficiency to be asked from them; or whether you think it would be better for the country to have a less force and greater efficiency; whether you should say to a district where you do not want in time of mobilisation a certain class of troops that no effort should be made to raise them, and thereby crush out the Volunteer movement. I wish that any word of mine could dispel the idea that the Volunteer force, so far as the War Office is concerned, is held in contempt. I have not heard a word there from those responsible for the management of the Army indicating that they look down in any way on the Auxiliary forces. On the contrary, I think they are trying to show how they can improve their efficiency, bring them more in touch with the Regular forces, and fit them for that place in our defences which has been allotted to them. Criticism ought not to be confused with condemnation. To criticise a force is surely not to condemn it. I would ask those who are inclined to take that view whether it is fair to the Volunteer force as a whole that you should praise them, with perhaps lavish praise, or whether you should not be allowed to make criticism, as you must do on certain battalions that are bad, without being held to sneer at the force, and condemn it as a whole. I would only add that until we receive the Report of this Commission any recommendation made by an hon. Member interested in the Volunteer force with regard to the regulations will meet with the most sympathetic reception from the Committee which has now been formed to advise the Secretary of State on the administration of the Auxiliary forces, and on whose advice I feel confident that my right hon. friend will always act.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

I think that all interested in the Volunteer force will have been most glad to hear the announcement of a Royal Commission to inquire into all questions regarding it. All we can hope is that the reference will be sufficiently wide to cover all matters concerning the force, and also that the Commission will contain a full representation of men actually acquainted with the work of the Volunteers—men who have served in command of regiments and who in that way have a real knowledge of the very different circumstances of the Volunteers in different parts of the country. No one can accuse the noble Lord of insufficient appreciation of the position of the Volunteers, but I hope this Commission will be able to inquire whether the cast iron rigidity of the standard he wishes to lay down is right for the different classes of Volunteers, or whether it is not possible to establish a much wider choice of alternatives according to the different circumstances of different corps. Without waiting for the Royal Commission and its inquiry there are several points which are pressing very much upon the Volunteers, and which I hope I may be allowed to bring before the Secretary of State to-night. One of the smaller points is in regard to the artillery. The Prime Minister the other day, I understood, told us that the Volunteer artillery had now been supplied with breech-loading guns. That is a premature announcement certainly as regards the Artillery Volunteers with whom I am acquainted. I would very much like to ask the Secretary of State whether there is any real prospect of the Volunteers being supplied with breech-loading field guns instead of the obsolete muzzle loading sixteen-pounders they have at present.

Then the question of shooting is one which is very pressing upon the Volunteers at present, not so much from the point of view of my hon. friend in regard to ranges, so far as the Volunteers with whom I am acquainted are concerned. Ranges are more easy to get hold of in Scotland, though there we certainly want many more. We want ranges where men can go and fire at short range, and where they can get that full familiarity with the rifle which is really wanted rather than the power to hit things 1,000 yards off. What we want is a greater supply of ammunition for the men to use, in order to get acquainted with the rifle. It is absurd to imagine a man can get the use of his rifle with any familiarity or skill on the mere number of rounds that he requires for class firing. You can get a great many Volunteers to take real pleasure and interest in shooting when they can get their ammunition cheap. To most of them the expense of the railway ticket to the range is quite enough. If you make them pay full price for ammunition it becomes prohibitive to the greater part of them. What you want is to induce them to take a greater interest in shooting, and to spend afternoon after afternoon in getting accustomed to the rifle, and to be able to use it freely means to allow them an ample supply of ammunition at a cheap rate. I believe the strictness of the regulations has been made on account of the misuse of the rounds. I believe it would be very easy to lay down regulations whereby this difficulty would be obviated. At any rate, I think it is far more important to let the man who shoots have the use of his weapon, rather than that the supply should be restricted because of the possibility of the misuse of a few rounds through being sold at a profit.

In regard to what is really the question pressing on Volunteer regiments now, namely, compulsory camps, I think it is not fully realised how entirely different are the circumstances of different regiments. The hon. Member opposite pointed to one difference—the grant of 5s. to some regiments and 2s. 6d. to others. To some regimen's that will make all the difference. There are many regiments composed of artizans and labourers where the question whether you can give a man a small pay makes all the difference whether you can get a sufficient number to go into camp every year or not. Many regiments are perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement. With other regiments a small increase in the allowance per man would make things right for them. There are other regiments where the circumstances of the ordinary private are different. Where you have men in the position of artizans and labourers, it is usually a question of money, but where the ranks are fill with men from business, clerks in counting houses or banks, it is perfectly impossible for them to get away in sufficient numbers to go into camp. One or two of the smartest regiments I could name in Glasgow are of that kind. It is not a question of paying the men a half grant—5s. or 10s. would not make the least difference. The thing is simply impossible for them owing to the circumstance that they cannot get away. A bank cannot allow a quarter of its clerks to go away for a week. It can only allow a few of them to go. I think the noble Lord laid down the principle that it was impossible to consider the different circumstances of regiments, and that you must have some general standard. I do not think you want any Procrustean rule of that kind. You must have alternative if you are going to keep up the strength of the Volunteer force. It is most valuable that the men who become officers should first serve in the ranks. A man serves in the ranks of one regiment and then takes a commis- sion in another; but it will be most difficult to maintain the requisite number of officers if this rule for compulsory camp attendance is insisted on. In regard to such matters as these there ought to be discretion vested in the general in command of a district as to whether some alternative in the way of efficiency in shooting, or other conditions, shall be substituted for compulsory camp service. I am exceedingly glad that the whole of these questions are going to be submitted to a Royal Commission, from whose work I have the utmost expectation.

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

I am rather sorry that a Royal Commission is going to consider questions affecting the Volunteer force. I suppose that Commission will produce a report in about two years. During those two years what is to be the progress, or the decline, of the Volunteer force? I do not agree altogether with the speeches of my hon. friends the mover and seconder of this Motion. It seems to me that their speeches really contemplated a radical alteration in the constitution of the Volunteer force. I believe that the Volunteer force is far stronger than it was, except in numbers. The numbers have gone down 35,000, but chat was only to be expected after the war was over. One thing that takes the heart out of the Volunteer force is the luke-warmness in dealing with shooting and ranges. These matters ought to be dealt with in a wholesale manner. There is no use whatever in having Volunteer battalions and not having ranges. My own battalion thirty or forty years ago had a range next to its own doors, and now it has to go seven or eight miles away. That is going to be taken away, and the only range in Lancashire will be the Altcar range.

All the battalions of Volunteer infantry are now attached to depots of Regulars. The consequence was that in the South African war, when the Regulars were not sufficient, the Volunteer companies were called out and took their place in the Regular battalions. So far as I Know the commanding officers of these Regular battalions were absolutely satisfied with the Volunteer service companies. I maintain that the treatment of the Volunteers ought to be equal to that of the Regulars, which has not been the case. Was the treatment of the Volunteer service companies who served side by side with the Regulars the same as that of the soldiers of the Line? Did they get the same medals? In neither case was the same equal treatment meted out. That is a deep grievance. There is a medal which every Regular soldier has, but which the Volunteers who served with him in South Africa have not got. And why? Simply because they were Volunteers. I heard a Volunteer officer say that as a result of this unequal treatment the Volunteers would not go again. Campaigning is the profession of a Regular soldier, but the members of these service companies left their civil employment and were only paid the same as the Regulars—not 5s. a day—and yet, when the need came, they were not treated exactly in the same way as the Regulars. Unless the Volunteer soldier and officer has, as far as possible, the same status as the Regulars his efficiency is impaired. The difficulty of getting Volunteer officers is not a question of money, but of status. The better classes of society in England will not officer the Volunteers (of that I am certain), although they will officer the Regulars and the Militia.

A great deal of the soreness against the Army Corps system was the treatment of the Volunteers. For many years Volunteer battalions had been accustomed to go to certain camps. I am quite at one with my right hon. friend the Secretary for War in regard to the Army Corps; but somehow by this Army Corps arrangement the Volunteer Brigade were put into confusion, and Volunteer battalions were taken out of their old brigade and put into a new one. Take my own experience. For ten years my battalion had been attached to a particular brigade, but we were suddenly changed and put into the Liverpool Brigade, the battalions of which I had never seen before. I wanted to go to Conway, where all our camp equipage was. There was a meeting of the officers at Liverpool, and, excepting myself, who wanted to go to Conway, all the officers voted to go to Salisbury Plain. I made representations to headquarters to go somewhere else, but eventually my battalion went to Salisbury Plain, and I found that the battalion of the officers who had so strongly urged Salisbury Plain was not there! We thought Salisbury Plain an exceedingly nice place, and were very happy there. This year, however, I received a very short notice to go to Lancaster, but was unable to do so because I was busy with licensing business. I sent my second in command, but he did not do well at all, and came back with a paper to say that the battalion was to go to the Isle of Man, to Cannock Chase, or Aldershot. I thought it was rather hard lines again to change our camp equipage, which had been sent to Salisbury Plain. Of the three places mentioned, I preferred to go to Aldershot, but was afterwards told that there were to be no Volunteers this year at Aldershot, and that we must go to the Isle of Man. If I had been a naval officer on an ironclad I might have been glad to go to the Isle of Man, but I think that to send a brigade of Volunteers across the sea to that island is ridiculous. These are the kinds of things that vex and upset the Volunteers, although they do not seem very great. I do not say it is the fault of my right hon. friend the Secretary for War, who has done his best always for, and sympathises with, the Volunteers, but I think in many matters a greater consideration ought to be shown, and greater elasticity allowed.

There is another danger. Formerly we were able to go straight to the War Office and make representations, but now we are told that there has been decentralisation, and that we must go to the general of the district. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] It is all very well for an hon. Member to say "Hear, hear!" but my hon. friend should go with me to the Isle of Man when a stiff south-west wind is blowing in the Irish Channel. Generally speaking, I do not think that the Volunteer force has been given a check, but any advance that has been made is due to its own initiative, and not very much to the assistance of the War Office. What is required is to attach the Volunteer force and weld it, so to speak, still more to the Regular Army; and the linking system should also be carried out with the Yeomanry and Artillery. Where would the country have been in the South African War if that could not have been done? I believe that 150,000 Regular troops went to South Africa, and, including the Colonials, there were 150,000 Volunteers. The fact is, that if it had not been for the Volunteers and the Volunteer system at that time, the country would have had to retire in the day of trouble. I hope that the Royal Commission will not prevent us ventilating our grievances in this House, and I believe that we are greatly indebted to the mover and seconder of the Resolution for their efforts to encourage and improve the Volunteers.

* MR. LLEWELLYN: (Somersetshire, N.)

Various reasons have been given for the deficiency of Volunteer officers. I have my own idea, which I put before the House many years ago. Any one who looks at the Army List at the present moment will see that there are a great number of Volunteer corps, as many as three and four, in one small town. The difficulty of. getting officers for these is very great. I know a small seaside town near my own constituency, mainly depending on summer visitors, where there are three corps of Volunteers—artillery, engineers, sub-marines, and there is talk of reviving a corps of naval Volunteers. It is absolutely impossible that a town of that size can afford to provide officers for all these branches of the Service, and I consider that some of these corps should be merged into one another. These corps are, at times, very friendly towards each other, but there is at other times an amount of competition between them which cannot be good for any of them. In my own county there are two Line battalions, two Militia battalions, two regiments of Yeomanry, and all the Volunteers, and it is absolutely impossible to obtain the number of efficient officers to carry on properly their duties. This question is worthy of consideration by the Royal Commission.

*MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

I hope that some of the dissatisfaction expressed at the recent action of the War Office in regard to the Volunteers will be removed by the statements which have been made on behalf of the Government. It is impossible not to feel that between the speeches of the Prime Minister, the noble Lord, and other Ministers within the last few days, and for a long time past the successive acts of the War Office, there is a discrepancy which almost amounts to a contradiction. First of all, there was the Order of 24th December, 1901, which caused dissatisfaction to the Volunteers at a time when they had rendered most conspicuous service to the country in South Africa, and vindicated their position as a reliable part of the scheme of Home Defence. Then there were the regulations as to Volunteer training and efficiency which have depleted many Volunteer corps of their most valued members. The commanding officers of Volunteer corps in my own part of the county have complained to me that those men who had left their corps were amongst the most experienced. The men whom they had lost had left, not because of any diminution of patriotic feeling on the cessation of the war, but because they, especially married artisans, feared that they could not comply with the demands of the War Office. And now there are further regulations in regard to musketry practice which are found to be irksome. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield say that the scale of allowances for camps was satisfactory. That is not what I hear from Volunteer officers, who tell me that if you are to have compulsory camps you must be in a position to make allowances to the men to enable them to go back home after a week or fortnight's training to their wives and families, not with empty hands, but with something in hand. However spirited and devoted these men may be to volunteering, they cannot make the sacrifices now asked. The acts of the War Office seem to be directed to convert the Volunteers into unattached soldiers, to be tested by the same scale of efficiency as the Regular soldiers. I do not know whether the noble Lord dissents from that proposition.

LORD STANLEY

I dissent.

*MR. DUKE

The noble Lorddissents, but if you are to have absolute pro- ficiency in drill, in musketry, and in service in camps which fits the men for field exercises, you have got as good soldiers as most of the men in the rank and file of the Army. My belief is that if the test of efficiency of a soldier is to be applied to Volunteers, the Volunteer service must break down. There is an obvious difference between an efficient Volunteer and a Regular soldier. You cannot expect a man engaged day by day in civilian pursuits to be an efficient soldier, but if the whole of the conditions are satisfactory you can get a sufficient body of men enrolled who will devote themselves to service in times of emergency—men who have acquired the rudiments of military knowledge. Certainly the men whom His Majesty's forces had to meet in South Africa had very much less training than the Volunteer corps in this country. They consisted of farmers and others who chiefly practised rifle-shooting on public holidays, but they had efficiency enough to give His Majesty's Army a great deal of trouble. I do not share the enthusiasm of some hon. Gentlemen around me who think that the defence of the country can be entrusted solely to Volunteers, that the right hon. Gentleman comes with an extravagant scheme when he asks us for 120,000 fully-trained soldiers at all times, but I say the existence of the 120,000 soldiers ought to enable you to make less exacting demands on your 250,000 Volunteers. I hope the constitution of the Commission, and the scope of the inquiry of the Commission, will be such that by and by the country may get its Volunteer system put upon a footing more consonant with the public mind than the policy that the Volunteer should be converted into an indifferent soldier. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, but I should like to say a few words further with regard to what is to be done in the meantime. If this Commission is to be of any service, it will have to go to the root of the whole matter of home defence. A man who volunteers makes an unusual display of patriotism. Many of us think that the defence of the country is the business of the whole of the citizens, and that if a man has not acquired the rudiments of military knowledge he ought to be made to acquire them. If you get that basis behind your Volunteers, I think the Commission may have the result of making the Volunteers even more popular than they now are. But, at the same time, I venture to submit that while you make volunteering as widespread as possible, you should make the burden as light as possible. The complaint which is made by the Volunteers, and by friends of Volunteers in the country, is that although the War Office does so little in a pecuniary sense and makes so very little display of sympathy—I am not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary, but of the soldiers who look on the Volunteers as inefficient items for public defence—although the War Office does so little to show practical sympathy, it demands so much. I hope the result of the inquiry will be to reconcile the demands of the country on the Volunteers with the assistance the country gives to the Volunteers in recognition of their services. If that is done, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will be dissatisfied with the Volunteer force. But until the Commission has reported I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who depends on the Volunteers for public defence, as his Army scheme shows, and the Prime Minister, who has declared his confidence in the Volunteers as a part of the defensive forces of the country, will take care that the Volunteers are not harassed by such restrictions on the part of the War Office as the Order of December 1901, and the regulations which from time to time have been issued since then.

*MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I venture to think that if the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, is the reply of the Government to the demands of the Volunteers, the country will be profoundly disappointed. We did think, after all we had heard about the Volunteers during the last few years, that the War Office might have been able, without the aid of a Commission, to decide what was necessary to uphold the force. I heard a few minutes ago that this was the thirteenth Commission appointed by the present Government; and I therefore think that the people of the country, and the Volunteers especially, will have no confidence whatever in it. Is this Government to go down to history as the Government of Commissions? It looks extremely like it. There is no doubt whatever, that in the minds of the great mass of the people of this country there is a profound belief that the War Office is doing its best to discourage the Volunteer force; and if the Government were determined to take any step, no matter what it might be, to give the people grounds for the belief that such was the case, they have chosen the very best course by promising to appoint this Commission, which, to my mind, is absolutely unnecessary. The authorities at the War Office know perfectly well what the Volunteers require. It has been reiterated over and over again. They do not require much. What have the Volunteers been asking for for the last two or three years? They have been asking that they should have accessible rifle ranges, which at the present time many Volunteer regiments have not. They have been asking that they should have efficient modern guns, which many of them have not got. I know a gallant Volunteer Artillery officer who served in South Africa, and who has been decorated with the D.S.O. He has now to drill his men with obsolete muzzle-loading guns. Is that an encouragement? Then Volunteer officers claim that they should be reimbursed in a more generous manner than they: are at present for out-of-pocket expenses; and, above all, that working men who give their time, and give it generously, should not be called upon to go into compulsory camps without being paid.

These are the main points, to my mind, on which Volunteers complain; and yet, instead of granting their claims, they are going to get a Royal Commission to inquire into their wants, many of which, to my certain knowledge, have existed ever since 1859. Like my hon. friend the Member for Plymouth, I should like to know what is going to happen during the one or two years that will be occupied by this Commission in regard to the Regular Army. There i: an opinion that six Army Corps are no necessary. Personally, I am well a war that I voted for these six Army Corps but why did I and many others vote for them. Because, in the first place, we were recommended to do so by the Government, and we were told that while the war was raging we would take a great responsibility by refusing to do so; and also because we were told that the Volunteers would be generously treated. Ever since then, instead of the Volunteers being generously treated, we have found that they have been ungenerously treated; and that the new regulations governing them were put into operation without due consideration. If the Government are so fond of Commissions why did they not appoint a Commission before they put these regulations into force When? they were in force, and when the Government saw their effect, they were modified. Why were not the modified regulations put in force first, and the strain gradually tightened on the Volunteers? The Government have gone the right way to wreck the Volunteer force and the country will resent it, because the country has confidence in the Volunteers, and that confidence has been justified by the way the Volunteers acted during the South African War. I say further that the country is willing to pay the necessary expense in order to provide the Volunteers with the necessaries they demand.

We know perfectly well that Lord Roberts has announced over and over again that he was profoundly grateful to the Volunteers for what they did in South Africa. Speaking at Bisley, he said that whatever other qualifications a man might possess to be an efficient soldier he must be a good shot, and at the Mansion House he publicly thanked the Volunteers for what they had taught the Regular Army with regard to shooting. Yet, after these expressions from such an authority, we find the Volunteer force still clamouring for rifle ranges, and if they are to continue to clamour for the next two years, I am afraid that the Government will find it will be most unpopular. I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing his scheme for the six Army Corps, he told the House that after Waterloo the country went to sleep for forty years in regard to military matters, and that after the Crimean War the country went to sleep for ten years. But the country at the present time is not likely to go to sleep in regard to military matters, especially in regard to the Volunteers; and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Commission will prove a sleeping draught he will find himself mistaken.

Now I should like to remind the House of a fact that is sometimes forgotten, and that is who compose the Volunteer force. We know; that in regard to the Regular Army, according to the Recruiting Report for 1901–2, that it has largely to rely for recruits on agricultural labourers. I think that G69 out of every 1000 recruits are agricultural labourers; and yet we are getting these men at a time when we are told by Lord Roberts and other generals back from South Africa, that it is more than ever necessary that we should have men of greater intelligence in our Army. The Regular Army never touches the class of which the Volunteers are mainly composed. The Volunteers are mostly composed of the upper working classes and the middle classes, who rarely go into the Army. And yet we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the more the soldier is merged into the citizen by short service the more popular the Army will be. Very well. If you want to bring citizens as a whole into touch with the Army, you must uphold your Volunteer corps; if rot, you get the agricultural labourer—I do not refer to him in any term of disrespect—and you leave out the great middle class altogether. What is the use of military authorities and civilians going about the country addressing great public meetings, and telling the people how necessary it is that all our youths should be taught how to shoot and how to use military weapons, if you have no Volunteer force into which you can draft them. I should like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the important factor that the middle classes are in regard to the Volunteer force. They are certainly intelligent, and it is absolutely necessary we should get them into that force. Do not forget that in our hour of trouble in South Africa we were very anxious to get their services. The very pick of our population emigrate to Canada and other places, and the Army and Navy also take a large portion of the best of our young men at a time when they would be most useful in our factories and workshops; but if we could put these men into the Volunteers, then their services would not be lost, as the services of so many of them are now lost. In his Report the Inspector General of Recruiting regrets to find a great falling off in the physical standard of the working classes of this country. If that is so, we cannot afford, the very great Army which the Government asks for.

I would ask the Government, and I believe the country as a whole will agree with me, to continue to endeavour to complete three Army corps, and let the organisation of the others remain until the question of the Volunteers is settled. We do not want such a very large Army as that for which the Government is asking. True, they are only endeavouring to carry out what Parliament has granted but, at the same time, as the country pays the bill, it ought to have something to say in this matter, and I know that it is the opinion of the country that it would be better to have a small and highly efficient Army, and a very large Volunteer force backed up by Yeomanry and Militia, than a very great Regular Army, the existence of which perhaps will be advanced as an excuse that we need not have a large and efficient Navy. We do want an efficient Navy, and the country is prepared to pay for it; and I trust we shall never hear in this House that we cannot have an efficient Navy because we are spending so much money on the Army. I know it is difficult to alter the minds of the military authorities, but as I was walking down Parliament Street a few days ago, it struck me that the new War Office building would be a very handsome and commons structure, and I trust that when the War Office officials get into that building they will carry out a more enlightened policy, and that when they leave their old building they will leave behind them many of its antiquated traditions, and, although they may carry some of the old furniture with them, I would appeal to them to leave behind the red tape which for so many years has been the curse, not only of the Army, but of the country as a whole.

*MR. BRODRICK

I am not going to follow my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle into the somewhat impassioned appeal he has made; but I must say I never heard a speech that shows more the necessity for a Royal Commission being held into the condition of the Volunteer and Militia forces. My hon. friend is one of those who speak obviously from conviction; but it is obvious he has not considered, in any adequate degree at all events, if he has considered at all, what are the relative possibilities of action by Volunteer forces and by Regular forces; and he treats the whole question as a sort of struggle between the two—which it is not in the eyes of any military man. My hon. friend entirely ignores not merely the military possibilities, but even the actual facts of what has been done. In the very years in which it is said that the Volunteer force has been starved and discouraged in respect of finance, very large additions have been made, large as compared with the previous cost of the force, which even my hon. friend, as a business man, would be first to recognise. The Volunteer force is now between 50,000 and 60,000 more than it was in 1870. In 1870, there were only 200,000 Volunteers, and there are at this moment about 250,000, or an increase of one in five. In 1870, the money spent on the Volunteers was £600,000; last year it was £1,720,000. That is to say that the Volunteers now cost three times as much, and that the actual rise in numbers is as one in five. I only mention these facts because it is important to consider them. My noble friend accurately stated the case when he said that we are in this position: The general efficiency of a considerable number of corps has not come up to what the military authorities say is essential if they are to be maintained in their present position. A certain number of corps are admirable; they are fully officered and fitted to work with the Regulars. But there is a very serious deficiency, and there always has been, of officers, not only in the Volunteers, but also in the Militia force; and the sole object of the military authorities has been not to discourage the Volunteers, but to endeavour to obtain from those!

corps which are not so efficient the same efficiency as the better corps give. That is an ambition which the military authorities have a right to hold. In enforcing that species of efficiency the military authorities have placed enormous value on going into camp. A great deal has been said about going into camp; and I merely wish to give the House one illustration. I remember a commanding officer coming to me and saying it was perfectly useless to ask his corps to go into camp—they could not go into camp. He said also it was quite impossible for the whole of his corps to do battalion drill at the same time, because the drill hall would only allow a little more than a quarter of the men to drill at a time, and it was impossible to drill in the open without going into camp. That really meant that, although this was an admirable corps, and well officered, only a quarter of the corps could be exercised at one time unless they went into camp. Was it too much, in these circumstances, to make it not only possible, but absolutely necessary, that these corps should be brought into camp, where they could learn what were the essentials of modern warfare? That was not an attack on the Volunteers—it was nothing to their discredit. On this point I think the country should come forward, if they could, and assist in that respect. But if you are going to make going into camp a subject of payment—and I am very far from saying it may not be necessary, and possibly desirable—you are putting the Volunteers into rather a different position from that in which they were before, and these are two points the Royal Commission will have to consider. The first is that the Regulars enlisted for three years, the Militia for five years, and the Yeomanry for five years; shall the Volunteers not give longer notice than fourteen days before leaving the Colours?

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

My hon. friend knows that it is practically three or four years, under the contract with the commanding officers.

*ME. BRODRICK

In most corps, by making a very small payment, a man can relieve himself from the contract.

SIR. HOWARD VINCENT

£5 or £6.

*MR. BRODRICK

The amount varies in different corps. The other point is the question of numbers, and that is really a military question. I entirely agree with what has been said to-night of the advantage of military training. At the same time, the whole subject is a very difficult and complicated one. All I have to say at present is that I fully recognise the views that have been expressed in this discussion. I can honestly say that from the time I first went to the War Office in 1886—when I was a member of the Committee which proposed a considerable addition to the allowances to Volunteers—I have done my very best to forward the interests of the corps. But the difficulty of accommodating the needs of the various corps is extremely great, and I think the time has come when the whole question might well be considered by the Royal Commission. I have great hopes that we may receive a very early Report. I shall lose no time in getting its appointment carried out, and in the meantime I think that the discussion to-night, perfectly unprejudiced as it has been, will be valuable. In conclusion I now appeal to hon. Members to allow the House to get into Committee.

*MR. MCCRAE

The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about transport for Volunteers.

*MR. BRODRICK

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks that each Volunteer unit can be provided with transport of its own. That would be impracticable. The subject, however, has not been lost sight of.

*MR. MCCRAE

I was on the Committee on Volunteer Transport to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and am anxious to know whether the War Office intend to act upon our recommendations.

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject is so unsatisfactory that I feel it incumbent upon me to continue the debate and to make it clear that I, for one, am not content with what we were told some days ago by the Front Bench—that we had little right to take exception to the Army Corps system, or to the arrangement relating to the Volunteers, because in the stress of a great war we voted for it. We voted for that scheme because we thought it laid the foundation for an; Army system, and that time and common sense would be applied to the working out of the scheme, with due regard to the circumstances and character of the nation. I do not know how far its advantages have been carried out, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman, having brought in a system, has had to appoint a Royal Commission to find out how best he can clear up the mess,—or if he does not like the phrase—make the system one which will not destroy the whole of the Volunteer movement, but will make it an effective force. As one who has been closely associated with Volunteer regiments, and has been able to listen to the various points of view which have been advanced, I assert that the regulations laid down were simply cast-iron. They made no distinction between town and country corps; they assumed that the lives of the artisan and the labourer were the same, and they asked from both the same service as if they lived under the same conditions. A country corps can camp easily, whereas a town corps can easily manage drill although not in camp. A North or East London artisan, earning something like £1 per week, although he may be a keen and useful Volunteer, may not be able to obtain the leave of his employer to go into camp, and if he insists on going may be told to go about his business altogether. Surely the regulations might have made it practicable for so many drills to count in lieu of the camp, or for the number of days in camp to be reduced. Not a bit. These regulations allow no such elasticity, and, speaking of a regiment which did remarkably well in South Africa—I refer to the Tower Hamlets Brigade—I can only say that the officers have been greatly discouraged by the loss of many of their best men. By these regulations you have dealt a very serious blow at the young manhood, as found in the Volunteers who form the rank and file of that regiment, and who by their military work keep themselves in good health and greatly conduce to the maintenance of the standard of manhood.

Another unfriendly action of the War Office towards regiments of that description is to be found in the fact that whilst that regiment was furnished with Maxim guns—not at the public expense, but by those who contributed to the funds of the City Imperial Volunteers—the War Office refuse the cost of the harness, and no allowance is made at manoeuvres for the hauling of those guns. Either the commanding officer or a friend of the regiment had to find the money for the harness, or the guns had to be man-hauled. The result is that the men are discouraged, those who are interested in the regiment are discouraged, and the vital blow is struck at a regiment which has done a good deal to preserve the physique of the young men of London. The difficulties do not end there. We feel that under the Army corps system we see in the minds of the authorities some form of compulsory service which is to he made universal. I believe that when the day comes for us to appreciate how necessary an adequate defensive force is to the country, we shall not be hostile to the idea of compulsory service, provided it is conducted on business lines. Although my right hon. friend said a minute or two ago that it was wrong to think that the high authorities in Pall Mall wished to discourage the Volunteers, he has certainly not been able to show by any act in his administration that he has encouraged them; and it is because we believe that the arrangement now in force by the remission of the whole question to a Royal Commission, is fraught with danger to the future, we and all who take an interest in this subject are determined, however imperfectly, to appeal to the Government not to allow this thing to drift on, but to make use of the great latent forces which lie in the people, and thus give first hand to the Crown a sufficient and enormous mass of men, which can only be done if their training is conducted on lines which permit the earning of their livelihood and do not risk the loss of their avocations.

ME. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I hope my right hon. friend will agree to an adjournment of the debate. This has been a most interesting and valuable discussion, and I think we have made more progress than the Government expected. I desire to refer to one or two general questions, and I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Lough.)

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I have no power to resist the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is most inconvenient. All the points that hon. Members desire to raise can be debated in Committee, and I certainly think it would be far better. We should be able to begin to-morrow's proceedings by allowing the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement to the House in Committee. Of course, however, it is impossible to resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman if he insists upon putting it.

ME. WHITLEY (Halifax)

A question which some hon. Members on this side of the House wish to draw attention to is the expenses of officers in the Regular Army.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.