HC Deb 09 March 1903 vol 119 cc177-90
*MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

I believe I am in order in calling attention to the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, viz. That it is of high importance that the Volunteer system be further developed, and that the Volunteer organisation throughout the Empire be strengthened. Perhaps it will be thought that Motions from this side of the House are getting rather monotonous, but that may be because the Opposition are some what inactive. The Amendment is not moved as a Vote of Censure on the Government or as an attack on the Secretary of State for War. I recognise the good the right hon. Gentleman has done to the Army, and all I ask is that he will consider the question to which the Amendment refers with an open mind. There are several of us on this side, who believe we came here for some purpose other than that of being mere Ministerial puppets for the mechanical endorsement of every official proposition. It is true we came here to support the Government, and we recognise their good intentions, but when we see them marching along a road paved with good intentions, we feel it our duty to help them occasionally by hoisting a danger board, or a signpost pointing to a better way. I take it that this Amendment has been recognised by the Government as something of that sort, because since it appeared on the Paper two interesting announcements have been made by the War Office—first, the appointment of a Royal Com mission to inquire into the state of the auxiliary forces, and secondly, the formation of a motor Volunteer corps, with a specially designed uniform. This shows that the Government is fully alive to the cause for anxiety with regard to the auxiliary forces, and also that they are quite up-to-date and imbued with the newest opinions on military equipment and improvement. I say, therefore, that this Amendment has received the seal of Ministerial approbation, and consequently I am certain it will receive the support of all loyal followers of the Government. The Government has practically blessed this Amendment; the genius of the War Office is hovering over it; I can almost feel the binding of red tape. It may be said that the promise of a Royal Commission renders discussion unnecessary. I think the contrary is the fact, and that it is most necessary that the House should discuss the Volunteer question before the Commission is appointed, because I have noticed that while Commissions are sitting there is usually a muzzling order in force in the House with regard to the discussion of the questions under their consideration: while, in addition, I have been told by a distinguished colonel that if we wait until the Royal Commission reports there will be no Volunteers left to report upon.

I should not have troubled the House with my views had it not fallen to my lot to do so. I do not pose as an expert. I have served in the Army and in the Volunteers, but I do not claim to have any knowledge worthy of the attention of the House; all I say is that I bring forward the Motion with a sincere desire to do what I can to serve the cause of the Volunteer force. Having served in both the Army and the Volunteers, I may say one thing, and that is that there is an esprit de corps in both which is sometimes not appreciated in high places. There are two facts which ought to be taken into consideration when we come to deal with this question. In the first place very few civilians understand soldiers, and very few soldiers understand Volunteers. I think I shall only need to refer to some of the Army Orders to prove this. This Resolution of mine I think is both concise and comprehensive. It is comprehensive because it includes the Volunteers of the Empire; it is concise because it is intended to lay down three principles—firstly, that this question is an important and urgent matter and ought to be discussed by the House; secondly, that it wants development; and thirdly, that the organisation should be strengthened throughout the Empire. I propose to deal with the first two points, and leave the third to the hon. Member for Gravesend. The first proposition I will deal with is whether this force is an important and urgent matter now. I think if we bear in mind what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War said in the debate on the Army Corps Scheme, we must recognise that they attach great importance to this Volunteer system. I think they do take the Volunteers seriously, and I know that the Volunteers take themselves seriously. I believe that that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

I will now ask the House to consider the Army order passed on the 24th December, 1901, an order which was issued (by the War Office, signed by the Commander-in-Chief, and which had the approbation of the Secretary of State for War. In that order the Volunteers are asked if they wish to be taken seriously. That question is a proof that very few soldiers understand Volunteers. Perhaps I had better read the words of the order, which are as follows— For some years past the Volunteer force has constantly claimed to be seriously accepted as a reliable and organised section of the Army for home defence. It is now determined that the responsibility claimed shall be realised. I take it that this order was an unmerited insult to the Volunteer force, and could not conduce to its efficiency. It is an order which cannot increase the efficiency of the Volunteer force, and considering the date at which it is published there is no justification whatever for such an order. The right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister do take the Volunteers seriously. I am quite certain that the country took them seriously a short time ago during the war; and to complain now that they are not taken seriously, and that they require to do something else in order to be taken seriously after what they did in South Africa, is a most extraordinary piece of red tape. It should not be forgotten that the Volunteers sent out 594 officers, 26,082 men, and 6,902 Yeomanry, and thousands were left at home ready to do anything the War Office asked them to do. And after all this they are asked if they wish to be taken seriously! What has the War Office ever done to take them seriously? The lines of invasion in this country are perfectly well known to all military men, but has anything ever been done to put the Volunteers on those lines, or have they ever been afforded facilities for obtaining any practical knowledge of taking up positions on those lines of invasion. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the Volunteers are not even under the. Manoeuvre Act, so that it is impossible for the Volunteers to be afforded such facilities? I have the honour to be the colonel of the Volunteer battalion which went all the way from Northumberland to Salisbury Plain for fourteen days, and they numbered nearly 800 strong, and were paid Army rates. When men are found willing to go out to South Africa in such vast numbers, and when they are found willing to journey from Northumberland to Salisbury Plain, I think they have no right to be asked if they wish to be taken seriously; and therefore I ask this House now. by endorsing the views I have put forward, to show the country that the House of Commons at any rate takes them seriously. I think this should be announced to the country, and do not let us have any more humbug about it. If we do not believe in the Volunteers let us say so; if we do believe in them let the House of Commons tell them so.

My next point is the question of the system and its development. At the present time there is a new Army Scheme, which I may call the Army Corps Scheme, which has only lately been born, and is still in swaddling-clothes. We are told on high and grave authority that on the 1st of April this scheme will become more active. Within the last few days something has happened which shows an extraordinary state of things, and that is the appointment of this Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Volunteer forces, and this has been appointed two years after the conception of the Army Corps Scheme. Is this not an extraordinary admission? The Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman said that the fulfilment of the scheme depended upon the auxiliary forces. And now, two years after the scheme was initiated, a Royal Commission is appointed to inquire into the very foundation on which the Army Scheme rests. What should we say of the architect who designed a house without first considering his foundation, or of the builder who used stone from a quarry that had never been tested? And yet the right hon. Gentleman has been building away for two years, and is only now beginning to examine his foundations when he ought to be putting on the roof.

The success of the scheme depends on the stability of the Volunteer force, and I am afraid it can be shown that the Volunteer force, which is one of the corner stones of the structure, is tottering, and will before long collapse. As to the strength of the Volunteers at present, the full establishment of officers is 9,409, and there is a deficiency of 2,147; the establishment of all ranks is 346,000, and there is a deficiency of 96,000. I believe this deficiency is increasing daily, and what it will be in a few months it is very difficult to say. Surely these are very serious figures. The climax, or rather I should say the bathos, of the deficiency will not be reached until 1st November, 1904, when the new regulations as to camp attendance come into force. By that time—I do not wish to exaggerate—it is perfectly impossible to calculate what the deficiency of officers and men may be. There are some authorities who think that the Volunteers will have practically ceased to exist. What is the cause of this diminution? I may be told that it is the reaction after the war, and that there was certain to be a falling off in the recruiting. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his Yeomanry scheme. Although the Volunteer force is decreasing, the new Yeomanry force is increasing in a satisfactory manner. That force has now reached 24,000. I may be told that, it is owing to the new requirements of efficiency; I say that it is because you have altered the whole spirit of the Volunteer Act. This has been done without discussion in this House.

Under the Act of 1863, which established the Volunteer force, it was laid down that all Orders in Council should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for one month. I have no doubt that has been done, but at a time when the House was unable to discuss the alterations. At all events, it is a fact that the House has not discussed these Orders in Council. I believe it was not possible for officers commanding. Volunteer corps to obtain copies of these Orders in Council in order that they might communicate with Members of Parliament with the view to having a discussion before the alterations were made. The new regulations have placed the Volunteer force entirely at the mercy of the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State may now make what orders he pleases as to the efficiency of the Volunteer force. I may say that I am profoundly convinced that the objections of the Volunteer force to the new regulations are not military. The original intention was that the Volunteers should train themselves in their own time, and that they should make themselves as efficient soldiers as they possibly could. What is the case now? You have made training compulsory, and the whole system is altered without reference to Parliament. I believe this compulsory system is doing away with the spirit of the Volunteer force. The Volunteers do not object to do all they can under the new conditions to make themselves efficient, but they say it is physically impossible for them to give the time which the regulations require. The attendances at camps under the new regulations are entirely different from what they were in the past. In the old days camps used to be held generally in holiday time. Now it is a fixed time, and it is absolutely impossible for men to devote time to the Volunteer force when they are dependent on weekly wages. Most of them in the country are working men: they receive nothing during their week in camp. It is impossible for employers in every case to give them leave of absence, but even if employers gave them leave, the men, and more particularly married men, cannot afford to spend a week in camp. Every man is not able to go into camp at the time asked for by the War Office. There are men who are themselves willing to join the Volunteer force, but they receive opposition at home from their wives and families. That is a great deterrent to recruiting. If the attendance in camps and the regulations issued by the War Office are unpopular, the recruiting of the Volunteer force must fail, as it is now failing.

There is another question of the utmost importance to Volunteers, namely, shooting practice. With most working men this must be done out of their working hours, because the ranges are so far from the places whore they live. They often complain of the hard and fast rules which are now made, and they believe that those regulations might easily be relaxed at the discretion of commanding officers. They are willing to comply with the regulations as far as they can, but in many cases the conditions imposed by the War Office are impossible. May I say a word about the finances of the officers? It is calculated that the deficiency will be so great that in a year's lime, or perhaps a little more, some of the officers will be on the verge of bankruptcy. They are responsible in many cases for the property of their corps, such as drill halls and ranges. This is a great deterrent to Volunteer officers joining the force. Self-respecting men, not millionaires, will not join if they are to be made financially responsible for all those things, the cost of which they cannot calculate. The officers are going, and the men are going. Is it possible to remove the causes? I will make some suggestions to show that I think we could. We ought to abandon compulsory camps or pay the men while they are in camp. Many men who are well trained and good shots can- not go into camp under these fixed regulations. Then the Government should buy more rifle ranges. Many ranges are being closed all over the country. The Government should also supply ammunition more freely and allow greater elasticity in the regulations for class-firing. They expect too much from the recruits and the first and second year men. I think it would be much better to keep these men at short ranges until they become good marksmen. If you get a good marksman let him fire at extended ranges and vanishing targets, but it is wasting ammunition and the time of marksmen to ask them to begin class-firing over again every year from the beginning.

As to the officers, I will go so far as to say that I would abandon the capitation grant and give a grant per unit. Volunteer officers should not depend on mere numbers to obtain their finances. Under the present system some of the men induced to join are not desirable in the Service, and they would be got rid of under the proposal I make. At the same time you do not want to reduce the numbers, for I think we should have as many men as possible in the Volunteer force, although the War Office does not seem to think so. On 24th December, 1901, the War Office issued an Army order in which they say— It is fully realised that the civil occupation of some Volunteers will not admit of their complying with the minimum conditions necessary for an effective course of military training, and that consequently the force must ultimately lose the services of such men. And then the order goes on to say— It is preferable to have a somewhat smaller number of more highly trained officers and men, sufficient to meet all the demands for home defence. I do not believe that the proposition laid down in that Army order is sound. The numbers of Volunteers may be reduced and a high efficiency be secured, but will the efficiency of the men who remain be so great as to be worth while? We want as many men as possible to go through the ranks with some training, and if there were a necessity for a call on their services there would be three weeks or a month in which they could be trained before they were summoned into the field. The Reserves which were called up to go to South Africa had to be trained again, and had to spend some time in the performance of military operations before they were sent to the front. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War should extend the excellent proposal he has made of an Advisory Board of Volunteer Officers, and that he should create a special department for the Auxiliary forces.

It may be said that these proposals which I have hurriedly sketched would be expensive and increase the Estimates. I do not want to see the Estimates increased, and I do not believe that it is really necessary. It must be acknowledged that the Volunteer force is at present a very cheap force. The Volunteers cost £6 2s. 6d. per head; the ordinary soldiers of the Regular Army cost £84 per head; the Militia about £19 6s. per head; and the Yeomanry about £20 8s. per head. Will it not be possible to save on the Regular Army, by reducing it by a certain number of men, sufficient to maintain a larger number of Volunteers than we have at present, and even keep these in a state of efficiency? I will go further. A Royal Commission has been appointed to inquire into the Volunteer force. The Army Corps Scheme has been sanctioned. I ask the Government to go to a logical conclusion and withdraw the Orders in Council to which the Volunteers object. Let them wait till the Royal Commission has reported, and meantime go back to the status quo ante. That will be far better than to go on with these regulations, to which so much objection has been taken. I am sorry to have detained the House so long; but I have endeavoured to show that this is an important matter which demands the attention of Parliament, and that under the original Act of 1863 it was intended by Parliament that the Volunteers should be an entirely voluntary force, and that there should be no compulsion about it. I maintain that compulsion has been introduced, and that it is the duty of this House to remove it. I think it is of the highest importance that we should be unanimous in this matter, because if the House unanimously agrees to urge on the Government some reform of the present system it will show that we really believe in this Volunteer force, and that it is a force well worth keeping, not only be- cause of its material strength, but also because of the spirit it has introduced, and the influence it has exercised on the national character. If we once destroy this system of a purely Volunteer force, and introduce conscription or compulsion, we shall destroy one of the greatest supports this country possesses. Whatever reliance may be placed on our ships, our; men, and our wealth, we should place; still greater reliance on the spirit of the nation, and I say that it is the duty of this House to be the guardian and upholder of the character of our people.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

I do not rise for the purpose of attacking, but rather of appealing to the Government to translate their constantly avowed sympathy with the Volunteer movement into a direct contribution, a direct gift of independence, apart from the Regular Army—a position and a character of their own. I believe that late events have shown that the Government, although they may not have wished it, have confused the principles of dealing with the Volunteers. The Resolution which my hon. friend has moved is that the Volunteer system should be further developed, and that the organisation of Volunteers throughout the Empire should be strengthened. I am aware that those who have taken part in debates on Army reform in this House have been accused of personal feeling. I do not believe that the Government or any Member of this House will believe that in anything I may say on this subject I am actuated by any other feeling than the best interests of the Volunteer system. In relation to this I may say that the Minister for War, on the 8th of March, 1901, said that the main amount of interference with military matters was caused by civilians in the House of Commons itself. The Volunteers are composed of civilians, and the chief political expert in the House of Commons who represents the country at the War Office, is a civilian. I do not think there is anything occult in the working of the Department or in military knowledge; and I do not think that the House would have us hold our peace, if we feel very strongly, lest in the great national seance we should disturb the planchette which brings into existence martial phantoms for the arid plains of Salisbury and the humid heights of Edinburgh Castle. May I ask what is an expert? Is not an expert a man who knows what to do, and how to do it? And in that position the Minister of War is classed. He is the man who should know what to do, and his professional advisers are those who should show him how to do it.

I have two propositions to make, and they are these—firstly, that the Volunteer system as it stands, and as dealt with by the Minister for War, stands or falls with his Army Corps system; and secondly, that the Volunteer system, as it is, represents a confusion of principles. That confusion of principles I believe to be due to the fact that when the war machine was working at its highest pressure, and at a time when the War Minister and all its officials were intensely applying themselves to the great difficulties of the situation, the War Minister brought in a scheme for the reform of the Regular Army, and added to it the reform of the Volunteer system by attaching it to the Army Corps, which were to serve the country for home defence when needed, to be sent abroad in time of trouble, to garrison India and our coaling stations, and also to provide an expeditionary force. The War Minister saw safety in a larger Army and a fitter Army; and I honestly believe that he tried to give us both. That he has not succeeded I believe to be due to the fact that he was in too great a hurry, and that, as the country was crying out for something new, he thought he had grasped the principle of the thing necessary, and gave it to the country. We asked for reform, and he gave us expansion. We asked for radical treatment of the Army, and he did not give us radical treatment. He did not dig to the roots; he engrafted on the branches; and now I honestly believe we have the same old shrivelled tree, and the same old shrivelled fruit. He has linked the Volunteers up with the Regulars, and I believe that the linking up of the Regulars and Volunteers in the Army Corps will not work; and that the new regulations have not worked is shown, I submit, by the fact that at the present moment a Royal Commission has been appointed to deal with the protests, the anxiety, and the trouble which has been caused in the Volunteer system by these regu- lations. What have they done? They have depleted the force, on the authority of the Minister of War himself, by 35,000 men. Others, who are competent to know, say that they have depleted the force by 65,000 or 70,000 men.

The Minister of War said on Thursday last the diminution of officers in 1901 was only 1½ per cent. more than in 1896.† He pointed out that the diminution had been going on for twenty years, and I ask, if the War Minister knew that the depletions had been going on for twenty years at the time he brought in [his Army reform scheme why he imposed these regulations? It seems to me that he recognised the fact that the art of efficiency was difficult, and he was determined to make it impossible.

*MR. BRODRICK

No no.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

I do not say he was determined to make it impossible in the sense that the War Minister accepts my statement. But he imposed regulations which I believe were not sufficiently considered. Those regulations have not proved successful and a Royal Commission. has been appointed. That is a failure, I admit, but I welcome it with a fearful kind of joy. It is designed to kill agitation in the healing springs of time. I believe that is the object in appointing a Royal Commission at the present moment. I do not suggest it is not justifiable under the circumstances, and I wish to say I believe that the appointment of this Royal Commission is intended to deal with the inefficacy of the old regulations and the grievance of the Volunteers. But this appointment proves that the great reform scheme has broken down as far as the Volunteers are concerned. Our Volunteer force is, or is not, a vital part of our defence. If it is not, why include it in the Army reform scheme?

*MR. BRODRICK

The Volunteer units of the Army Corps have already taken their places, and are pronounced efficient for the purpose of Volunteer officers.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

My argument is not affected by the statement of the War Minister. I shall put forward a proposition, presently, to deal with this point. What is the truth about this? The new regulations have broken down in many quarters. My hon. friend showed that the compulsory camps have not worked, and will not work, successfully; that the musketry regulations are too severe; that we have not ranges sufficiently convenient for practice; that we have not control over them for permanent ranges, nor are they near enough to the Metropolis for the accommodation of metropolitan corps. The chief objectors to the regulations have been, I admit, the Metropolitan Corps, but surely they are a very important factor in the whole scheme of Volunteer organisation. My hon. friend also suggests there is an insufficiency of ammunition, and I do not believe there is a Volunteer officer in the Metropolitan area who will not say the same thing. He cannot bring his men to a proper state of efficiency, particularly those who wish to perfect themselves, with the limited amount of ammunition given at the present time, and if he supplements that amount it has to be paid for either by the commanding officer himself, or those who hold themselves responsible for him. Now, on the point of the education of officers, I will not submit any remark except that I think it will be a step in the right direction if Volunteer officers can attend the garrison classes free. I believe there; are many Volunteer officers who feel it a very difficult matter indeed, whatever their enthusiasm may be, to pay what is practically fifty or sixty guineas for completing their course.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

They have their pay.

*SIR GILBERT PARKER

Yes; but they do not receive pay adequate for these classes. But let us suppose that the Royal Commission will set this right. I again repeat that a full scheme of defence represents confusion of principles. Now, we have the six Army Corps; the first at Aldershot; the second at Salisbury; the third in Ireland; and the fourth at Colchester. The Minister of War said these would be under a commander who would lead them in war, and that his object was to centralise responsibility and decentralise administration.

And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned till This Evening's Sitting.