§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (9th March), "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee on Army Estimates, 1903 4."
§ Question again proposed:
§ Debate resumed.
*MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)I think the House will agree that there has been a most salutary change made in the form of our discussion on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair. If I rightly apprehend the case we have returned permanently to the old practice of allowing those Members who succeed in the ballot to introduce their Motions at the commencement of the debate and of permitting a general discussion before the Minister in charge of the Estimates makes his statement. That, I say, is a salutary change in our practice, and I hope the same course will be pursued when the Navy and Civil Service Estimates come before us. The right hon. Gentleman has.circulated a statement with regard to the.Estimates as to which I can only say we should have been glad if it had been fuller. May I suggest that the more ample statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty is better calculated to meet our requirements? And if the right hon. Gentleman had gone on the same lines we should have approached this important discussion much better armed than we now are. Now, no one in this House has yet expressed what must be the feeling of everybody outside with regard to these Estimates. There is universal disappointment outside the House at their amount. They seem to be the most extravagant Estimates ever presented, although they are presented at a time when we had hoped that the circumstances 271 were such as to enable striking reductions to be made. Both the first and the second Papers circulated by the right hon. Gentleman are not only meagre but, as I think, a little misleading. While he has circulated an Estimate which amounts to what in a time of peace cannot be otherwise described than as astonishing—for it reaches a figure of £34,500,000—he makes a disingenuous effort to prove that the normal Estimates amount to ouly £27,500,000. I complain of that. I do not think it is the case, and I do not think it is right to suggest that there is any prospect in the future of a reduction such as that which the right hon. Gentleman hints may take place. I complain of the use of the word "normal "; it is not legitimate. What is the meaning of the word? It means "usual and customary, and not swollen by any extraordinary circumstances." The Estimates with which the right hon. Gentleman has compared his figures for this year are not of a normal character.
The Estimates of last year were produced in the midst of a war panic, and were accordingly swollen beyond precedent. So indeed the Army Estimates of the last two or three years had been swollen by a similar panic, and nobody has been inclined to put any obstacles in the way of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to any expenditure which may have been deemed necessary during the existence of the crisis. We ought, therefore, to go back to the year before the war in order to get the normal Estimates. I take the year 1899 as being a normal one. The Estimates then amounted to 206 millions, and even they were the largest Estimates that had ever been presented to this House in time of peace for the purposes of the Army. I say it is with these Estimates that the right hon. Gentleman should make comparison, if he desires to compare his present Estimates with the normal military expenditure. If we take that year, there is not only an astounding difference in the total amount of the cost, but there are one or two features about the present Estimate which must strike the House as most extraordinary. In that year the total number of men provided for was 184,000. This year the number is 235,000. This gives an increased number of 27½ per 272 cent. But when we come to look at the amount of money demanded, we find that the increase is no less than 66 per cent., so that we have not only a much larger Army than I think we ought to have, but the cost of the Army is disproportionately great. Every item is totally out of proportion. Take that of pay; four years ago it amounted to 60 millions, now it is 9. 6 millions—an increase of 57 per cent. Then take Votes 3, 4 and 5, which cover the Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers. There we have an increase of 110 per cent. In provisions the increase is over 100 per cent., and in transport it is 167 per cent. These are perfectly astounding figures, and they show that in four years we get an increase, which many think is not required, of 27½ per cent. in the strength of the Army, and of from 70 to 100 per cent. in its cost. If the demand had been made on the old basis of cost, the right hon. Gentleman might have asked not for 235,000 men, but for 320,000 men, and, therefore, I say that the figures which he has presented are of a most astounding character. I suggest further that it was hardly fair to speak of £27,500,000 as the normal expenditure, because in his statement the right hon. Gentleman treated separately certain items connected with South Africa, Somaliland, etc., and it was only by taking out those items that he succeeded in reducing his Estimates. He has only gilded the pill that we may swallow it without complaint. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he suggest that he will be able to reduce the Estimates to £27,500,000 next year or the year after? If not, the whole argument set forth in the statements he has circulated is misleading. If we can get a statement from the Government that this is a swollen Estimate, which will not be repeated, and that in future we shall not go above £27,000,000, then indeed we may view the situation with more content than we can in face of the figures now presented. But is there any real hope that a serious decrease such as the right hon. Gentleman indicates can take place in this great expenditure?
I am glad to see that The Times, the most sturdy supporter of the Govern- 273 ment in this country, has taken alarm at its proceedings with regard to Army expenditure. The moment the Estimates appeared it attacked them in a very powerful leading article, and expressed what I think is the feeling of all classes of society in every part of the country with regard to them. I took the trouble to read that leading article very carefully, and I noted in it seven substantial reasons, none of which are referred to in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which will make reduction impossible. The Times criticises the Government for not making some provision for items of expenditure with which the country is threatened. First there is the introduction of a new rifle, and no provision whatever is made for the expense in that respect, which certainly will have to be met in the immediate future. Then there is the completion of the Army Corps system. The Government cannot withdraw that, scheme, and it will involve considerable extra expenditure. At the beginning of 1904 there is to be an increase of pay representing 6d. per day to the troops. How can that be met without maintaining the existing figures? Then in the course of yesterday's debate several hon. Members put forward strong claims for an increased expenditure on the Volunteers. Again no additional sum is provided for the improvement of the Intelligence Department, the one branch of Army expenditure in regard to which everybody is agreed that something more must be done. The Education Vote is left in an unsatisfactory state, and no provision is made for the additional training ing grounds and barracks that may be required. This paper, usually such a loyal supporter of the Government, suggests that, for all these reasons, it will he impossible for the Government to realise the economies which they are leading the House to expect, and it says we may take it that £34,500,000 will be the normal expenditure which the country will have to face in future forits Army. It would be better, then, for the Government to make a clean breast of it, and say that these are the Estimates which they think will be necessary for the Army.
During the last year or two the Army and Navy Estimates have practi 274 cally been of the same amount, and we are now face to face with a very grave situation, which should cause the House some reflection. Can we continue to face it with equanimity? I will quote one or two authorities. I think the highest authority we now have is the Colonial Secretary. At the recent Colonial Conference he drew attention to the fact that our annual expenditure for military and naval purposes represented 29s. 3d. per head of population, and he contrasted it with the expenditure of other nations. Were he here to-day what would he say to the proposal of the Government, which brings the expenditure up to 34s. per head? Speaking of the smaller sum, the right hon. Gentleman said no one would believe that the United Kingdom could for all time make that inordinate sacrifice. What would he say about 34s. per head? Compare our expenditure with that of other nations, and remember at the same time the position we occupy, being surrounded as we are by sea and not having to protect extensive land frontiers. The expenditure of France is 21s. per head, of Germany 15s. per head, and of Russia 7s. per head. These are the great Powers with which the comparison should be made, for they are the Powers with which we are engaged in desperate business rivalry. And when the comparison is made I think it must be admitted that the burden thrown upon us is far too great, and that no Government should lightly seek to increase it. Now, I will quote another authority, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. He has declared that a large Army is nothing but a costly, wasteful, and foolish luxury. On some points of expenditure the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, but in this respect I do not think he could have used happier words.
Finally I would call the attention of the House to a series of four articles which appeared in The Times. The conclusion at which the very able writer arrived is summed up in two sentences. He says that our present normal expenditure of over £30,000,000 on the Army is far in excess both of our military requirements and of our national resources, and if a certain policy which he suggests were adopted, an immediate reduction to £24,000,000 might be effected. Instead of a reduction to £24,000,000, we have an 275 increase to £34,000,000, and therefore I say that the situation is one of great gravity. I might refer to the excellent speech delivered not long ago by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer at Bristol. There is no man to whom the Government or the country ought to be more indebted for his courageous efforts to meet the financial difficulties caused by the War. He is no longer Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I heartily wish he were here to express his opinion. At Bristol he dealt with the new Estimates in advance, and he said there was no reason for an increase of the normal expenditure on the Army. He also suggested there was no reason for increased naval expenditure, yet the Government are proposing an increase in both directions. I am not a specialist in these matters, and I know nothing about naval expenditure, but I think the general sense of the House of Commons is about level with my own in regard to these questions. I say we ought to control the expenditure, and I think some good work has been done by hon. Members opposite in recent debates, and especially in the country, by the hon. Member for Oldham, in the discussion of these matters. But in some of these discussions we give ourselves away to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Estimates, and we do so by discussing the methods of reduction and other details. The moment this House goes into these details it delivers itself over to the Minister in charge, who is able to produce figures—often very suspicious figures—and to quote the opinions of his advisers on these technical questions against our views. We ought to confine ourselves, therefore, to finance. We ought to say the country cannot afford this huge outlay, and we ought to call upon the Government to reduce it.
I often wonder what atmosphere the Government live in, and if they are to be found in the ordinary walks; of mankind. If they were they would know that there is a very gloomy feeling abroad with regard to our national expenditure. We are at the end of a sort of season in business, which lasts from October till April, when new industrial enterprises are presented to the public for financial support. But there has 276 been no season at all this year, because there is no money in the country. You cannot get money for any industrial enterprises, because of the huge claims the Government continue to make. While the war lasted, and while the grave incidents which marked its unfortunate course were occurring, the nation was ready to make any sacrifice. But now the war is over it finds we are being plunged into worse experiments of taxation and apparently into a larger expenditure, and it is by no means content. The public might fairly expect a reduction of expenditure in place of the swollen Army Estimates which have been presented to this House. Perhaps nothing can be done this year, but I think if hon. Members will agree with the Colonial Secretary that this is a burden the nation cannot continue to bear for all time, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife that it is a costly and foolish experiment, and will express its concurrence, in those views, no Government will be able to refuse to listen to it.
*MR. WYLTE (Dumbartonshire)I wish to make a few remarks with reference to the grievances of the Volunteer force and the unsatisfactory replies given in regard thereto by the representatives in this House of the War Office. I was surprised to hear my noble friend the Financial Secretary make the statement that, because a Royal Commission was to be appointed in connection with the Volunteer movement, the subject ought not to be discussed in this House. I do not agree with that, because a Parliamentary discussion prior to the sittings of a Royal Commission has frequently widened the scope of the reference to that Commission, and has in many cases given such indications of the willingness of the House to pay for certain schemes as to have guided them in their findings, and done much to induce the House to give practical effect to the recommendations eventually made by the Commission. I have given notice of a Motion in connection with the Volunteer force which has been approved by a large number of Volunteer officers throughout the country, and I am therefore speaking in the name of many officers on the active list. The Prime Minister, in the brilliant and convincing speech which he made to 277 justify a very large increase of the land forces, necessitated by our contact with Foreign Powers, stated that in the three Army Corps for home defence we should find, as far as infantry are concerned, there will be fourteen battalions supplied by the Regulars and sixty-one by the Volunteers, while of cavalry regiments, five will be supplied by the Regulars and ten by the Volunteer—.He said we may all, therefore, agree that it is on the citizen Volunteer force that we have to depend for national defence. Thus an exceedingly important position has been authoritatively assigned to the Volunteer forces, a position in some respects the most important of all, for whilst we look upon the Navy as our first line of defence, but we look on the Volunteers as our last line, and, if they fail, then all is lost. I wish to ask what treatment has been given to this force to which such an important function has been assigned. The Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary have justified recent measures, mainly by the statement that they are about to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Volunteer and Militia forces. But the fact remains that whilst they have materially increased the strength of the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Yeomanry, they have as deliberately planned a decrease of the Volunteers, by exacting from them longer and more arduous services without corresponding allowances and facilities.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)I must protest against that statement. It is absolutely contrary to the fact. The regulations now imposed on Volunteers were proposed by a Committee on which I sat, and on which the Members of the War Office were in a minority, the majority being members of the Volunteer force, and it is by the unanimous decision of the Committee that the regulations were issued.
*MR. WYLIEI am speaking on behalf of a large number of Volunteer colonels who are still in active service.
§ MR. WYLIEThey were selected from these. The Amendment to the Address which I put on the Paper, was unanimously adopted by a meeting of eighty Volunteer colonels. The Secretary of State took great credit last night for what he called the enormously increased expenditure on the Volunteer forces—£1,720,000. But it is only about 2 per cent. of the total expenditure on our defensive forces, or 30 per cent. less than the cost of two battleships, or less than the cost of 20,000 Regulars. If the War Office, when they asked for increased services from the Volunteers, had increased the allowances, not by a large sum, but to the extent of £250,000, it would have been regarded by the Volunteers as an admirable acknowledgment of the splendid services rendered by them in the field, and with satisfaction by the nation at large. There is yet time for the War Office to repair the error they have committed, and I would, with diffidence, but with the approval and authority of a very large number of Volunteer officers, venture to make certain suggestions. The first is that the camp regulations should be so modified that during the whole summer camps should be continually in existence.
§ LORD STANLEYThey already are. There are camps in existence throughout the season at which officers and men can earn their grant.
*MR. WYLIEThe alterations in the regulations have been so numerous that I cannot be expected to be posted in all the details. If what the noble Lord says is correct, and men are able to go into camp to put in their drills who have not been able to go with their various battalions, one of the strongest objections to the new regulations will have been removed. Then the minimum camp allowance should not be less than 5s. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred to this point last night, and showed the great amount of jealousy which exists between the Army Corps Volunteers and the Volunteers who are not so privileged. The selection of Army Corps Volunteers is in some respects arbitrary. I know of one battalion which is a better battalion than that attached to the Army Corps, but which receives only 2s. 6d., while—
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)The Army Corps battalion have fourteen days' camp, which is a very serious demand to make upon them, whereas other battalions have only seven.
*MR. WYLIEI am aware of that, and should be pleased for the allowance to the Army Corps battalions to be increased, but there should not be a less allowance than 5s. for any Volunteer going into camp.
In connection with rifle ranges and ammunition, I am glad the War Office have been taking up the question of ranges more energetically, but there is still room for improvement. As to ammunition, the Volunteers receive 90 roundsper annum, while the Regulars have 250 rounds; and a new regulation has been issued to the effect that 70 of the 90 rounds must be fired in camp, leaving only 10 rounds for matches and 10 rounds for coaching inferior shots. Anyone can see that this allowance is absolutely insufficient for the proficiency now demanded. The Commander-in-Chief has intimated that marksmanship is the principal qualification for the soldier, and if the Volunteers are to be put in a proper position in this respect, their amount of ammunition should be increased to a minimum of 150 rounds, or still better, 180 rounds.
Then there should be a more liberal arrangement in connection with drill halls. In country districts, especially, the battalions should be assisted to have a drill hall in every village. I would also strongly urge that the mounted infantry should be reinstated in the grants of which they have been deprived. The experiment of the War Office, in regard to the mounted infantry connected with the various infantry battalions, vras most successful, and, if persevered in, would have had the effect of drawing into the force a very large number of mounted men as efficient, in many respects, as the Yeomen, but not more than half as expensive. The grants to the cycle corps, too, should be restored to the £2 originally granted.
These modifications would involve an expenditure certainly not greater than £250,000, which would be cheerfully granted by the House, and would, I 280 think, give satisfaction to the country at large. I hope the scope of the reference to the Royal Commission will not be limited to the immediate necessities of the Volunteers, but will include the question of a very large extension of the Volunteer forces, so that they should be commensurate with the needs of the Empire. The Prime Minister, the other night, urged the proximity of Russia to our North-West Indian Frontier as an important reason for the great extension of our land forces he was then defending. But there are other countries—France and Germany—to whom we are in close proximity by land, and if there should be a combination of those countries against us, or if Russia should attack us, the principal inducement for them to do so would be the profound contempt which they entertain for the very small number of our land forces. Two years ago I was speaking to a Russian staff officer, and I was amazed at the frank expression of opinion which he gave on this subject, and I know that the same opinion is prevalent among the officers of other countries, particularly France and Germany. We know that the idea is erroneous and without foundation, but the very fact that it exists is a constant menace to the peace of the Empire. So much has this been recognised that there is growing up in the country a strong feeling in favour of conscription. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh last night admitted the fact—
MR. M c C R A E (Edinburgh, E.)I really must interrupt the hon. Member; I said nothing of the kind.
*ME. WYLIEI think the hon. Member said he would like to see compulsory service imposed on all men in the country.
MR. M c C R A EWhat I said was that every young man capable of bearing arms should do a certain amount of training so as not to interfere with his ordinary avocation—which is a very different thing from conscription.
*MR. WYLIEIt is a modified form of conscription; but I beg the hon. Member's pardon if I misrepresented 281 him, though I may say that other Members on this side had the impression that it was an admission in favour of conscription. At any rate, I am justified in saying that there has been a feeling in favour of conscription growing up. ["No."] I will give an instance. The hon. Member for Flintshire, a strong advocate of "peace, retrenchment, and reform," while living on the Continent last winter was so impressed by the Anglophobia prevalent that he wrote a letter to The Times strongly advocating universal conscription. Lord Wemyss has resigned his connection with the Volunteer force because the Government have not adopted what I consider to be a very objectionable form of conscription, viz., the Militia Ballot. Then there has been formed the National Defence League, which is—
*MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The question of conscription does not arise on the Estimates. It would require legislation, and what requires legislation cannot be now discussed.
*MR. WYLIEI was rather led away by the interruptions of hon. Members. In conection with the Volunteers I may say that the National Defence League has two objects—one of which is that drill should be an obligatory subject in all schools, with which I quite agree. Such a system would greatly improve the physique of the youth of the country—
*MR. WYLIETo come to the immediate purpose of my remarks. I believe that with very little encouragement the Volunteer forces could be enormously increased in number, say to 600,000, with a reserve of 500,000, and a second reserve of 1,500,000, at a cost out of all proportion less than the sum of money expended on any other branch of the service. What I would suggest is that the capitation grant should be increased from 35s. to a minimum of 50s., rising to 60s. as a maximum according to the various-degrees of efficiency. The success of the 282 War Office in regard to the Yeomanry has been very greatly due to the fact that the yeoman when he leaves his training goes home with £6 or £7 in his pocket as compensation for the amount of work that he has lost, and for the services he has given to his country. If this principle were to apply to a much more limited extent to the Volunteers, so that those who have been a week in camp would be able to save not less than £1 or 25s., and those in camp a fortnight not less than £3, then the number of Volunteers who would be induced to join would be far greater than anything yet achieved. In this way Volunteer officers have told me that the prospect of which my hon. friend the Financial Secretary spoke, of inducing an unlimited number of Volunteers to join would be fulfilled.
In connection with the training of the Volunteers there should be a paid sergeant major and a quartermaster sergeant, and, above all, there should be a permanent staff at the War Office for the purpose of managing Volunteer forces, and in sympathy with them. If these various conditions were complied with I have no doubt the Volunteer forces would be enormously increased in numbers and efficiency. Such a scheme as I have indicated could only be carried out by the Government, although it might be initiated by the War Office. I am glad to know that upon this Committee of Imperial Defence there will be the Prime Minister and three other Cabinet Ministers, and I hope that after the Royal Commission has given its Report an enormous enlargement of the Volunteer forces will be one of the principal objects which will come before the Imperial Committee of Defence. During the last twenty years there has been a gradual awakening as to our responsibility in regard to the Empire which has caused many in the country to advocate a very large increase in our land forces. Some such scheme as I have advocated, and which has been advocated by so many practical men throughout the country, would commend itself to the peace party as the surest means of averting war and conscription, which otherwise must assuredly come. It would also commend itself to the association for the supply of food in time of war as 283 the cheapest form of insurance against war. It would commend itself to social reformers as one of the best means of securing the physical development of the youth of this nation; and it would also commend itself to the whole Empire as an enormous addition to its defensive power, and as thoroughly in accord with the traditions and instincts of the British people, which are entirely in favour of a purely voluntary service.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in any of those controversies into which he entered with various Members on both sides of the House. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke of the Volunteer movement, and I welcome the assurance he gave us that, in his opinion, the home defence of the United Kingdom ought to be entrusted less to Regular troops than to the civilian Army, a doctrine which appears to me to be growing in strength every day. On the Volunteer question I for one would be prepared to go beyond the present system as regards the payment made to these Volunteer forces. I do not myself see why a Volunteer-force should be even in part a gratuitous force. So far as a civilian force could be enrolled and organised I should be prepared myself to defend the system which made compensation in full for all the time and labour that each individual member of this force gave to his country. But I have risen less for the purpose of alluding to this question than for the purpose of saying how I entirely sympathise with the protest which has been made to-day by my hon. friend the Member for Islington, and which has been so effectively made by him against the enormous expenditure involved in these Estimates. Along with the cry for a citizen and a civilian army has been raised the cry for retrenchment and economy, and this cry has been made outside and inside the House of Commons on all occasions but on the Estimates. On the Estimates the cry is always for further expenditure; and, sympathising as I do with the demand for economy, I, for one, cannot resist giving my support to-day to the protest raised by my hon. friend.
If we mean to do anything in this matter we ought to tackle every Estimate 284 in turn, and have the courage of our convictions by voting against all expenditure which we believe to be excessive. We were talking the other day about the Joint Committee of Defence, as it is called, the main object of which is to secure that the Army and Navy should be considered together, not as two independent forces, but as two branches of the same force. Sir, I wish this principle could be applied to our discussions in this House. We are the real Committee of Defence, and we ought to be able to consider the Army and the Navy together in regard to their demands on the public purse. That is not possible for us to do, and I can only make a very bare allusion to Estimates which represent, not the Army, but the Navy expenditure, showing an enormous increase upon the already enormous amount which the country is spending. I do not give that as a reason why I should vote against any particular item in the Army Estimates this year; but I do say the tremendous sum that is being asked for the Navy increases and intensifies the necessity that we should enforce economy in every possible particular in the Army Estimates. If there is to be any choice, everyone will agree that preference should be given to the Navy. Everybody will admit that there must be a limit to the military expenditure of this country. I think we are very near to the extent of our resources; and, if economy must take place, then the first arm to economise must not be the Navy but the Army. I want to put in a sentence or two about this system which is embodied in the Estimates now before us. It is the most concise and the most comprehensive that I have ever seen. I am going to quote the deliberate language used by the Secretary of State for War, speaking on behalf of the Government, including the first Lord of the Admiralty, and addressing the Colonial Premiers. In no document is this view so well set out. Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said—
We are prepared—and our organisation enables us in the future—to send 120,000 British troops abroad to any part of the British Empire which may be threatened. We keep up a home field army of another 120,000 men; we keep another 190,000 men for our garrisons; we have a large number—somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000—employed in various positions for the defence of London and for strategic positions which might be threatened in case of 285 invasion. But, large as these preparations may sound, they are certainly not deemed too large by our military advisers, in view of the possibility of our at any time losing command of the sea; and I would venture to remind the Conference that what Great Britain does off her own bat towards the defence of the colonies and dependencies, is not limited by her power to send 120,000 men to any threatened position in case of emergency. We have close upon 80,000 British troops in India. We have always some in the colonial garrisons, and at present—and probably for some time longer to come—we must, in view of South Africa, look to keeping a larger number than that. Therefore we have, either abroad at this moment or liable to go abroad on any emergency, close upon '250,000 men.That is the account which the right hon. Gentleman gives of the system he is asking us to pay for in these Estimates, and I gather that the noble Lord opposite approves of the sentiments so expressed. There are one or two things to be said about that statement. I will not repeat what has been said about the hypothesis upon which the whole thing is said to be based, namely, the possibility of our losing command of the sea. I do not think that is possible even if the Navy Estimates were not so high. I see nothing in that, but I do express my surprise that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have assented to this proposition being laid down in his name. There is one caveat I wish to enter. The right hon. Gentleman told the Conference that his Estimates are approved of and settled by the advice of those whom he calls his military advisers. That, as we know, is the regular official answer to any criticism of any kind on the Estimates.I want the House to consider for a moment what is the legitimate function of the military, and I would say also of the naval, advisers, with respect either to Army or Navy finance. The authority of these professional advisers is undoubted, and nobody would be more ready to admit it than myself in certain specific matters. In all matters of detail that ought to be conclusive. Take the Army case. The kind and amount of ammunition, the amount of cordite that ought to be in stock, is a question on which the opinion of the military authorities ought to be conclusive. I think that a Minister of War who on such a question came to us and said that he had acted upon the advice of his military advisers would give a complete answer 286 to unofficial criticisms. In the same way, on a technical thing like the kind of boilers to be used in the Navy, I think the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being amply protects himself if he acts on the authority of his professional advisers. But when it comes to be a question of what is to be the size of the Army, or what is to be the size of the Navy, what is to be the military or naval expenditure, I venture to assert in presence of this House that the military and naval advisers have no conclusive authority. They have no more authority than a private citizen ought to have who has intelligently studied the subject, because the size of the Navy, and the number of the Army, depend upon policy with which those gentlemen have no special concern. I am not speaking particularly of foreign policy, but other matters of policy, such as those laid down in the statement, from which I have quoted, by the right hon. Gentleman. He says, for instance, that 120,000 men are being maintained in the Regular Army as a weapon for the defence of the whole Empire, and for the defence in particular of the self-governing colonies. But the, question, for instance, whether the people of the United Kingdom ought to go on bearing, as they have to bear now, not only the whole burden of naval defence, but also a large burden for the military defence of the self-governing colonies, is one of policy which a soldier has no more authority on than a private Member of this House. That is the position, I take it, and that is the point I want to make, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not dissent from that proposition. If that is so, I do not see why he is entitled to say that his military advisers support the policy which he says lies at the bottom of the statement made to the Colonial Conference. It is to safeguard myself against the assumption that the admirals and the generals have any right to dictate to this country, and also to safeguard the House, that I venture to make these observations.
The right hon. Gentleman in the statement I have quoted, and which statement contains the true theory of the Estimates, has specified as the objects of them the various things I have mentioned.?
287 object to what he says with regard to the Estimates, and I want to give one or two specific reasons why I should be prepared to vote for any Motion for cutting down the Estimates. First of all, I am an entire convert to the theory, expounded with great success on the other side of the House, as well as this, that the maintenance of a huge Army for the home defence of this country is insane, and that we ought to throw ourselves upon the enthusiasm and the patriotism of our fellow citizens for the defence of the home shores, and, as I said before, I would make that as little burdensome to the individual voluntary citizen as possibly could be done. I think it would be an economical expenditure to pay him all his outlay and to compensate him for his services as well. Home defence should be the business of the private citizen, and I shall be prepared to give my strenuous support to every Motion for that purpose.
However, when it comes to maintaining a great Regular Army in order to feed the Indian Army I object. India pays pretty fully for the uses of the Army at present. I believe that to be true. If you exclude India from the rest of the Empire, what you have got to defend consists mainly, at all events, of the great self-governing colonies. The articles in The Times to which my hon. friend referred, seem to countenance the theory that home defence should be reserved for a citizen Army. The writer advocated a system whereby a considerable Regular Army should be maintained on Navy lines for Imperial defence. That was the thesis of The Times writer. And if that he so, and that must be his meaning, we are to be asked in this House to maintain 120,000 men, not specially for India, but for the whole Empire, of which the self-governing colonies form one-fifth. In trade, numbers, and wealth the self-governing colonies are in the proportion of one to four of us. If in addition to finding them their Naval defence, with nothing but a fabulous contribution from them, we are to be called upon to find military defence also to the extent of 120,000 men, then I say that is not a question for generals, it is a question for this House; the same difficulty arises as the Colonial Secretary 288 has discovered in the case of the Navy, namely, the difficulty of forcing upon the people of the United Kingdom this enormous expenditure, in the benefits of which the self-governing colonies share equally with ourselves, but to which these colonies do not contribute one single farthing. Any Motion, therefore, which has for its object to raise the question of the policy of our continuing this system of finance would have my support, unless a stronger case is made out than the Government have made out so far. I would be prepared to take as to the Army the same line which I have taken for so many years in regard to naval defence, that, namely, of resisting this extreme demand which the self-governing colonies make in connection with a force which is maintained for their protection as well as our own.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is this. I am willing to bear my part in supporting all necessary and justifiable expenditure on the Army as well as the Navy, but I should like to be well assured in the case of the Army and in the case of the Navy that we are getting full value for whatever money we may expend on either service. In the case of the Army one cannot shut one's eyes to certain obvious and notorious facts. You have an Army which, as compared with the Navy, might fairly be described, without offence to anybody—nothing is further from my mind than that—as consisting very largely of a ceremonial and ornamental, as distinguished from a business body. If there is any comparison to be made in these services I think public opinion holds that the Navy is the more serious of the two in all its departments. If I were assured that there was complete equality in the two services in this respect one of ray objections to these Estimates would disappear. Let me take the expense of one item. I see in the Estimates that it costs £26 a year or more, to clothe a new recruit in one of the regiments of His Majesty's Army, and it costs £15 a year to keep his uniform all right. I do not think it is a fair business expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "What regiment 1"] It is one of the Guards. There are a number of them in a similar position, and that is only one. I think that is the highest. I forget which regiment. This is evidently 289 an ornamental expenditure, at all events as compared with similar expenditure in the ease of the Navy.
§ LORD STANLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman give the exact name of the regiment?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI will give it to the noble Lord when I have sat down. I have not got it here. I will not dwell on that point, but there is one other I should like to say a word upon. I should like to think that the avenue of admission to the rank of officer in the Army was as open to all capable citizens as in the case of the Navy. In the case of the Army it is not so open. It is barred in the Navy, but to a comparatively small degree, by the extravagance—I do not know that that is the correct word—but by the excess of expenditure over income, and by the system of nomination. In the case of the Army it appears that the Secretary of State for War has done next to nothing to fulfil the pledges he made three years ago, when the first disasters of the war began to affect public opinion in this country. We know perfectly well that what he has done does not make it possible for a young officer to live on his pay.
§ Mr. BRODRICK was understood to say that it was the same in the armies of other countries.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI do not know that it is. How about the United States? In the case, at all events, of the United States Navy—and I have no doubt in the case of the Army also—from the moment a young naval cadet enters the United States Naval School he receives a salary which is sufficient to pay his entire expenses, and however rich his parents may be they are not allowed to send him any money for his expenses. That is a system I should like to see introduced into the Army as well as the Navy. No one will pretend that it exists at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on this point the other day, gave this extraordinary defence of the present system. He said that in every profession the expenses of the early years are greatest. But the Army is not a profession, and the Navy is not a profession. In open 290 professions adventurers of all kinds take their chance. They may have money or they may not. They may get immediate occupation or none, but is that system to be applied to the services of the nation? Surely it is our business on behalf of the State to seek for the most capable young fellows who can make their way into the Army as officers. If you make their nominal salary so much lower than their necessary expenditure, then only rich men can enter the Army, and you deprive yourselves of the services of 90 per cent. of the possibly capable people in the country. I am sure that the blouse has long ago made up its mind on that point. I, for one, would be prepared to resist any expenditure on an Army the commissioned ranks of which are deliberately kept apart from the people, and only retained for rich people. The noble Lord scoffs, but probably he has not read the Report of his own Military Education Committee. I do not agree that the composition of that Committee was satisfactory. It was composed of Army representatives, and the heads of great public schools and other interests were ignored. But even they could not deny that in the Cavalry a private income of from £500 to £700 over and above his pay was necessary to enable an officer to live. Surely that proves my case. The noble Lord defends even that ! A remarkable instance was revealed in the evidence given before the Committee. One of the witnesses reported a case in which in an examination for Cavalry commissions the total number of marks was fixed at 20,000. There was one candidate who got 168 marks! If the number of marks had been represented by the ordinary number of 100, I suppose the marking of that candidate would have been three quarters of a mark! He got his commission nevertheless. Does the noble Lord approve of that?
§ LORD STANLEYIf he did well in war I do not disapprove of it.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONDoing well in war comes after his admission into the Army, and examination, as I understand, is a test of capacity to enter the Army I do not think the noble Lord would justify a system such as 291 that. Of course that is an extreme case; and the necessity of having a private income of from. £500 to £700 over and above pay only applies to the Cavalry. But is there a single regiment in His Majesty's service—not being a regiment on the Indian Establishment—in which a young officer can live on his pay? If there is not, then I say the capable young men of the country are excluded from the Army, and I shall adopt every chance I have of voting against it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMay I make an appeal to the House to agree to the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair'? The House is aware that until the Motion is agreed to my right hon. friend cannot make his statement before proceeding to the very important matters that have to be discussed this evening. Let me add, as an inducement to the House if possible to pass on to the next stage, that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of public business that we should finish Vote A and Vote I by Thursday evening.
*ME. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)I wish to refer to that part of the Army which is drawn from the far North of Scotland, viz., counties north of Inverness-shire, and to the want of barrack accommodation in these counties. For years northern recruits for the Army or Militia have had to travel to Fort George, near Inverness, for their annual training. There ought to be accommodation nearer at hand than Fort George. True, there is some accommodation at Dingwall, but only sufficient for a portion of the staff of the 3rd Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders and Ross-shire Militia, the remainder of the staff and all men of that regiment having to go to Fort George. This is an absurd arrangement, and in keeping with the War Office mode of conducting business.
*MR. SPEAKEROrder, order: The hon. Member is departing from the practice of the House in discussing on the general Question small details of that kind.
*MR. WEIRWell, Mr. Speaker, what I want to call special attention to is the 292 lack of barrack accommodation in the northern Highlands. I urge upon the Secretary for War the importance of seeing that recruits are properly housed. At Fort George the accommodation in the casemates is not fit for pigs. If it were improved there would be far less difficulty, and less expense, in securing men to enter both the Army and Militia. It is not necessary to refer to the bravery of the Highlanders, who have won fame on every battlefield, but I contend the satisfactory housing of these men ought to be considered. Not long ago the commander of a Highland regiment deplored, at a public dinner in Inverness, the fact that so few Highlanders joined his regiment, and that recruiting sergeants had too often to go to the slums of Glasgow for recruits. I want to see Highlanders in the Highland regiments, and the characteristic dress maintained. Not long since the War Office proposed to abolish the kilt, and put the Highland soldier into tight-fitting trousers, stock collars, and German caps. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would look into the arrangements, made for the housing of Highland regiments at Fort George. Instead of cruising to Malta and receiving salutes, let him go to the North of Scotland and see for himself what is needed to encourage recruiting in districts where the best material in the world is available.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries. Burghs)I will not detain the House more than a few minutes. I rise merely for the purpose of joining in the protest, of the hon. Member for Islington against the extravagance of these Army Estimates. It is impossible to enter into a discussion of the details now, but I would point out that these Estimates now amount to £34,500,000 whereas four years ago they only amounted to £20,000,000. I am perfectly well aware that, in the Paper he has laid before us, the Secretary for War, in a kind of phrase not unfamiliar in other concerns, tries to make out that the Estimate is not really £34,500,000, although the taxpayers will have to pay that sum.
§ MR. BRODRICK was understood to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to last year's Estimates.
293SIR ROBERT RELDI am not speaking of last year's Estimates, and for this reason, that there was a war going on in that year and this year there is not. The right hon. Gentleman should have patience when any criticism is offered. Criticism of these Estimates is required, and I hope will be repeated for what it is worth, both in this House and in the country. The question I am dealing with is that this year the Estimates amount to £34,500,000, and that they only amounted to £20,000,000 four years ago. There is a distinction drawn in this Paper between normal and abnormal expenditure, but there is no year in which there are not abnormal items of expenditure, and the result is that this method of calculation does not mitigate a very serious evil.
The country cannot stand this enormous (expenditure on the Army as well as on the Navy; and, for my part, I will take every opportunity of expressing my dissent. The Prime Minister said with perfect truth that the people who approved of and clamoured for Imperialism five or six years ago ought not now to take exception to the Estimates. I entirely agree. Put those of us who have opposed the spirit of extravagance, militarism and aggressiveness that has characterised the policy of this country for many years, are entitled to protest, and will protest, against it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)May I say a word or two in order to prevent the possibility of future misunderstanding'? The Prime Minister said something about the necessity of obtaining Vote A and Vote I on Thursday night. We shall see. I wish to say that, so far as the ordinary mind can form an estimate, it does not seem at all likely that that can be done without such a curtailment of the facilities of debate as would not be in the interests of the House or of the country. I think it only light to say these few words lost we should be held as assenting provisionally to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, and agreed to.