§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT, (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)moved an Amendment providing that, for the purposes of the reorganisation under the Act, the description of "the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers" should be substituted for "His Majesty's military forces other than the Regulars," the phraseology used in the opening sentence of the clause. He had anticipated that some other Member of the House would have given notice of the Amendment, which, he said, was one of substance as far as the Volunteers were concerned and of nomenclature as far as the Yeomanry and Militia were concerned. The continuance of the Irish Militia was an argument for keeping the name of the Militia in the Bill. the Secretary of State in that House and Lord Portsmouth in another place had declared, as he understood it, that they would consider if it were possible to retain certain battalions of Militia in England and Scotland on their accepting certain conditions not yet laid down; but whether that was so or not the continuance of the Irish Militia made a case for keeping the word "Militia" in the Bill. As far as the Yeomanry were concerned, the right hon. Gentleman had explained that for a time they might continue as they were, and that, for three years at any rate, where county associations had not come into force, they might continue to enrol men under the Yeomanry system. So far, therefore, as those two branches were concerned it was merely a question of nomenclature. But as regarded the Volunteers the matter was one of substance, for, both as to their history and as to their popularity, the term had a definite signification. He was one of those who desired the Secretary of State to reduce the number and simplify the 1482 nature of the various forces we now had, but at the same time he was a strong supporter, and the Volunteers throughout the country as a whole were strong supporters, of the retention of the civilian element in the force. They preferred to continue to use the old word "enrolment" instead of "enlistment" because it was popular and calculated to attract the civilian element, while "enlistment" was unpopular and likely to repel. Taken in connection with the friction which had always naturally existed between the military and the civilian element owing to the inability of the War Office to understand the latter, the retention of the word "Volunteer" became of increased importance. It was not necessary to go into the history of the name. Every one remembered that the term "Volunteers" was deliberately adopted in the time of Mr. Pitt, and in the American Colonies as well as here it was the more popular name for the civilian forces. The American Volunteers fought for us far better than the American Militia of the wars of the 18th century, and the term "Volunteers" was enthusiastically adopted here in 1859 on the revival of the Volunteer movement in this country. The Australian Colonies, and New Zealand too, had retained the name Volunteers for their recently created forces of that description, while in America the term "Volunteer" or "National Guard" had been preferred. There might be taken some objection to the form of his Amendment because it spoke of the "Yeomanry" and not the "Imperial Yeomanry," but he had purposely dropped out the word "Imperial" because he never liked it or understood it in connection with that force, which was enlisted for home service, and was not Imperial in its nature. The scheme of Mr. Seddon which had become the law in New Zealand was one for the creation of an Imperial Yeomanry throughout the Empire for service across the seas, but it had never been taken up in this country, and no such Yeomanry existed. The important part of the amendment, however, was that which touched the name "Volunteers," because that implied a desire to retain or to give as far as possible civilian management of the Volunteers, and to see them represented at the War Office by a man who understood them and commanded their confidence. The Secretary of 1483 State for War would perhaps remember a very interesting occasion recently when he took the chair at a lecture on the Swiss Army, and he would not forget the importance which was attached there to the keeping separate the civilian and military ideals. Hitherto the regular soldiers at the head of our Army had shown inability to understand the Volunteers, and he held that it was most desirable that the Volunteers should be represented at the War Office by some one who could understand them, and whom they could trust. At the present moment the principal officers on the Army Council—very distinguished as they no doubt were—had not shown their ability to understand the Volunteers and their peculiarities, and it was therefore most desirable that the Volunteers should be managed there by a man having his own Department and having the same powers as his colleagues. On these grounds he asked the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words His Majesty's military forces other than the Regulars,' and insert the words the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,) Haddingtonsaid that he was rather at a loss to know whether this was the first of a long series of Amendments intended to transform the Bill, or an Amendment standing by itself. In the latter case, it would effect nothing at all. The purpose of the clause was simply to institute associations in the counties to reorganise "the military forces other than Regulars." That term had been used deliberately, because the functions of the associations would extend to many useful things betides those connected with the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, such as dealing with Reservists and discharged soldiers; and the Amendment, therefore, only narrowed the functions of the associations, and without purpose. He did not remember I that this question was raised on the Second Reading debate.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEI had an. Amendment on the Paper to create a member of the Army Council to represent the new force.
§ MR. HALDANEThat is another matter.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEIt is closely connected with it.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid he had expressed his sympathy with the idea that the new force should have civilian representation at the War Office. In the end that would be the proper function of the civil member of the Army Council; but, to begin with, he proposed, to take the organisation into his own hands. He had latterly been much in contact with the Auxiliary Forces, and he was more or less familiar with the machinery proposed in these changes, and therefore the work was such as he would not find it difficult to undertake. The suggestion that it was important to retain the name "Volunteers" was a new one. He had found that there was nothing the Volunteers desired so much as to be taken seriously, and, by usage, the name "Volunteers" connoted something that was not very real. Many Volunteer officers had told him that they were willing to undertake till that was asked of them if they were treated as really responsible people. He was not particularly enamoured of the title "Volunteers," and the Bill had hitherto gone on the assumption that "Territorial Army" or "Home Force" was the best description of the new second line. He regarded the Amendment as rather retrograde in effect and felt that, after careful consideration, they had adopted the best phraseology possible.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)did not think it mattered very much whether the new force was called the Territorial Army or retained the old known names, Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers, but the burden of proof rested on the right hon. Gentleman to show that there was some distinct advantage to be gained by changing the names. The right hon. Gentleman had been endeavouring to make himself acquainted with the Volunteers during the last twelve 1485 months, but he (Sir Howard Vincent) had been doing so for the last twenty-three or twenty-four years, and so far as he was aware there was no feeling of anything like repugnance at, the term "Volunteer." On the contrary, he believed that the great majority of Volunteers were proud of the name; and there was always great risk in changing names which had be come familiar. Parents did not object to their sons going into the Volunteers, because they knew the liabilities involved and were assured that the civil avocation of the Volunteer would not be interfered with; and there would be considerable risk in changing the name because parents would say "Our boy has gone for a soldier: he is enlisted and not enrolled; he has incurred fresh liabilities of which we are entirely unaware." He quite realised and appreciated the desire of the Secretary of State to invest the Volunteers with actual functions, but he did not think anything was' to be gained by changing the name to which the country and the force were accustomed. Strongly sympathising as he did with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet he would support the Amendment if it were pressed to a division.
§ SIR F. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)thought there was great evil in obliterating a name which carried with it so vital a principle as was embodied in the word "Volunteer." His chief objection to the change was that it might be interpreted, by those who were interested in developing that line of thought, as the introduction of conscription on the Continental footing. It would be declared that the corner stone had been aid for the complete militarisation of the citizen soldiery.
§ MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)asked the right hon. Gentleman what he proposed to call the individual member of the Territorial Force. They could not call him a "military person." He was now either a Volunteer, a Militiaman, or a Yeoman. The individual member would want to have some simple name by which he could distinguish himself. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the term generally used in the United States. He did not quite agree with him. As a matter of fact individual members of the National Guard or Volunteers were known as 1486 Militiamen, and they became Volunteers only in the case of war, when they were disbanded in their capacity as a Militia force and re-enlisted as United States Volunteers.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid he would be very sorry to attempt to define before-hand what the name would be. One always found that the social habits of the people evolved the best name in these circumstances. There would be an ample choice.
§ MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether there would be no official name at the War Office by which the individual members would be known? Were they to depend on the social habits of the people to find the name?
§ MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)said he did not gather that it was intended to do away with the term "Volunteers."
§ MR. HALDANENo, so far as I know it may go on, and if the Territorial Force prefers to keep the name "Volunteers" it is possible it will be so named. But I did not want to pledge myself to any name beforehand.
§ MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid he was pleased to hear that, because, speaking as a Volunteer officer, he did not at all agree in the view that names counted for nothing, but thought that sentiment was a thing that even a Secretary of State for War must pay some regard to. He sincerely hoped his right hon. friend would pay attention to what had been said on both sides of the House, and allow them in the future to keep the name they now had. Volunteers were quite prepared to do more work than they had done in the past, but he was sure they would prefer to keep their old name.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)said the right hon. Gentleman had placed himself in some difficulty. He had admitted that the Militia were not to be changed and that their organisation was to be incorporated in the new Territorial Army, and he had also stated that the Yeomanry were to be retained. There only remained, therefore, the Volunteers. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman began to appeal for recruits for his 1487 new organisation, he must appeal to them as "the Territorials," or, as had been suggested, "the Terriers," or as Militia or Yeomanry or Volunteers, as under the old system. He thought that before the Committee went further they ought to have some sort of suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the individual member, the Yeoman, the Militiaman, or the Volunteer, was to be called. [An HON. MEMBER: Haldanes.] Much, as an individual member of the force, he might approve that, he thought it would scarcely suffice under the circumstances. The new force must have a definite name, as well as a definite duty.
COLONEL HERBERT (Monmouthshire, S.)thought the difficulty could be disposed of by the very simple device of calling the force collectively the Territorial Army and of giving to each member of its different branches the designation which he had always had—the Volunteer soldier, the Militia soldier, and the Yeoman soldier. There was a precedent for that in a certain distinguished regiment, and he did not see that there could be any difficulty in making the distinction.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said it was evident there was something more behind the Amendment than the more question of nomenclature. He did not quite understand the objection of the Secretary of State to the Amendment on the ground that it would have a limiting effect on the Bill. If they put in the words "Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers" instead of the negative words of the right hon. Gentleman, it would still be possible to deal with all the subjects with which the Bill was intended to deal, because the right hon. Gentleman had very wisely put in the saving phrase "and for such other purposes as are mentioned in this Act." Did the Government desire to minimise or to diminish, if not to obliterate, the distinction which existed between the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers? If so, he dissented from that policy. Those distinctions corresponded to real differences. They would get a man to be a Yeoman who would not be a Volunteer or a Militiaman, and similarly they would get a man to be a Militiaman or a Volunteer, but nothing else. If the right hon. Gentleman altered the description which he had chosen to put in the 1488 first clause he would get rid of a criticism which he had heard some people bestow upon the Bill—namely, that if the necessity arose, by a mere change in a clause the Bill could be turned into a measure for universal compulsory service. He was sure that that was neither the policy nor the wish of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not absolutely sure that it was not the policy of some with whom the right hon. Gentleman was necessarily and rightly in close consultation. He would like to see in the first line of the Bill words which would make it absolutely clear that the Bill applied only to the old recognised forces which he desired to see kept up—namely, the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers. That would, at any rate, prevent misconception and make the policy of the Government perfectly clear, and for that reason he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. HALDANEpointed out that the very purpose of the Bill was to get rid of compulsion in the Auxiliary Forces. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the Militia was a force based on compulsion, and it was not raised by compulsion only because every year they passed a clause suspending the Militia Ballot Act. They could not apply the compulsory clauses of the Militia Act to the new force. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken in favour of retaining the old lines behind the Regulars, but they had decided on the Second Reading, by a majority of three to one, that they would not attempt to organise on the old lines. As for the question of the name, the debate had convinced him that it would be an absolutely foolish thing if the Government tried to stereotype the name in the Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] Surely they did not really think names were created by Act of Parliament? The men of the new forces would be called whatever they wished to be called, and that might be left to work itself out.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Bill does not interfere with the Militia Acts?
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that those Acts would become obsolete and have no application to this force.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEIt has been held by the Law Officers of the Crown and it has been repeatedly stated in another place that the Militia Ballot Act is now obsolete inasmuch as it provides for a Militia force of a kind which no longer exists.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)suggested that if the Militia were exempted from the purposes of this Act then the Ballot Act might become operative. They all sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulty with regard to nomenclature. He was creating a new democratic force, and not unnaturally wished to abolish old titles, because it was easier to create a new force under a new title. But personally he would like to see the old names retained, and therefore he would vote for the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said there was a good deal more than a matter of phraseology at issue. The Amendment, if passed, would save the Militia, which otherwise would cease to exist, whatever might be said to the contrary. Many people attached great importance to the Militia Ballot Act, because in time of war it was the only stand by we had whereby we could provide troops. It was doubtful, indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman would find it possible to get the large number of men he was asking for without some system of ballot. The great point was to save the Militia, and he was perfectly indifferent as to how it was accomplished so long as it was done.
§ MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said the House had already decided the lines on which organisation should proceed. His objection to the Amendment was that it would stereotype the divisions which already existed. It would place the Militia definitely in the Territorial Army, and prevent the Secretary of State considering whether they should not subsequently take their place in the first line. In the working out of the scheme he believed it would be found that the Militia would eventually take their place in the first line. In any case, he asked the House to give the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly free band in that respect and not commit him to the policy of amal- 1490 gamating them with the volunteers and Yeomanry.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)understood that the right hon. Gentleman accepted the main point in the Amendment and admitted that the Volunteer force was valuable, because men joined it who would hesitate to join what was called the Territorial Army. There was always a suspicion that the term "Army" involved service abroad, and undoubtedly if they abolished the term "Volunteer" they would lose many men from the force. What they did by the Bill was to give unity of command to the Territorial Force, and to differentiate completely the Foreign Army from the Home Army. What the men would be called would be decided by their designation in the Army List. There was nothing to prevent them from being called the 1st Dorsetshire Volunteers, the 2nd Lancashire Volunteers, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman indeed had said that he saw no harm in that. There was no harm to be done by retaining the word "Volunteer" so long as they made it quite plain that they intended to stick to the principle of organising the Army on two lines. He would be disposed to support the Amendment of his right hon. friend, because he agreed with him with regard to the use of the word "Imperial" before Yeomanry. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] He trusted hon. Members opposite would not suppose that he objected to the word "Imperial" in every aspect or in its general aspect. He understood that the general feeling of the Yeomanry officers was that they did not like "Imperial" added to the word "Yeomanry" as it was a meaningless title. [OPPOSITION cheers of "Why meaningless?"] Because it did not mean what it said. The word "Imperial" was invented during the time of the war with the intention that the Yeomanry should be formed not only in this country, but in the Colonies, and that they should be liable to be called upon to serve in all parts of the world. That had been refused by the Colonies themselves, and so the title should be dropped as not hallowed by usage and inapplicable. He thought that as the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had practically got all he asked for, he would not vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)said that to his mind the Amendment involved one of the main principles and objects of the Bill as a whole. He did not see any necessity for the Bill unless it was to unify the triple organisation of our old auxiliary defence force—Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers; if they were going to retain those three titles it seemed to him that the object they had in view would be frustrated. The noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham had supported the Amendment for a reason which should make Labour Members oppose it. He had stated that by the Bill they were indirectly destroying the compulsory power of the Militia Ballot Act. He (Mr. Ward) was against compulsion in every direction in regard to military service. He felt certain that it was not necessary so far as home defence was concerned; and knowing that in some sections of the community there was a tendency to advocate compulsion, the mere suggestion of the noble Lord that by giving the home forces a new title they would forward that movement, was one of the best reasons why every democrat and every Labour Member should oppose it.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to repeat that the Militia Ballot Act was not applicable to the present Militia force. That Act was obsolete. On the point really at issue he was not altogether satisfied; but as he had got a half of what he wanted he would not challenge a division.
MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E. R., Holderness)said he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division that the word "Imperial" before "Yeomanry" was useless. The title was given to them at the time of the South African War, and it was allowed to be retained when they
§ came home as a name of honour for what they had done during that campaign. As to the wish of the Government to do away with the old names of the Auxiliary Forces, he and his friends wanted a definite reply from the right hon. Gentleman. As a Yeomanry officer he strongly protested against getting rid of that title; it was an old title of which they were proud. He earnestly trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his determination and accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he wished to draw attention to the very significant statement made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, viz., that the Bill would ultimately make the Militia practically obsolete; that they would be a portion not of the second, but of the first line. He supposed that the Special Contingent Reserve Battalions would absorb all those recruits who previously went into the Militia. Now that they understood that the Militia was to be practically removed from the Army system of the country, he thought that all hon. Members would regret it. The statement of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was the most significant statement made in the House since the Bill was brought in. He thought they ought to press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Militia were to be obliterated altogether.
THE CHAIRMANsuggested that it would be very much better to take the debate on the Militia on the next Amendment which specifically dealt with that force.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes, 212; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 182.)
1495| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barker, John | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barlow, John Emmott (Somcr't) | Black, Arthur W. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barnard, E. B. | Branch, James |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Beauchamp, E. | Brigg, John |
| Astbury, John Meir | Beck, A. Cecil | Bright, J. A. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh |
| Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Billson, Alfred | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Richardson, A. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Holt, Richard Durning | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight | Idris, T. H. W. | Robertson, R. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Illingworth, Percy H. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jardine, Sir J. | Robinson, S. |
| Clough, William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rowlands, J. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Jones William (Carnarvonshire) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Sears, J. E. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Kekewich, Sir George | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Cremer, William Randal | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Crombie, John William | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Crooks, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lambert, George | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Lamont, Norman | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Duckworth, James | Levy, Maurice | Straus, B. S. (Mile End |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lewis, John Herbert | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lough, Thomas | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Erskine, David C. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Maclean, Donald | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. | Tomkinson, James |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Crae, George | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Verney, F. W. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | M'Micking, Major G. | Walker, H. Dc R. (Leicester) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Maddison, Frederick | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Mallet, Charles E. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Tent) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Marnham, F. J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Massie, J. | Waring, Walter |
| Glover, Thomas | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Mond, A. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Grant, Corrie | Morrell, Philip | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morse, L. L. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Nicholls, George | Whitbread, Howard |
| Hall, Frederick | Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'st'r | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Partington, Oswald | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Paul, Herbert | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Paulton, James Mellor | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Hazel, Dr A. E. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Henry, Charles S. | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Radford, G. H. | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Raphael, Herbert H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Carlile, E. Hildred |
| Ashley, W. W. | Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond. | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bowles, G. Stewart | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jenkins, J. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Jowett, F. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cooper, G. J. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Seddon, J. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Shackleton, David James |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Starkey, John R. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Mackarness, Frederick C. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Macpherson, T. J. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Thorne, William |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Moore, William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Haddock, George R. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Nield, Herbert | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Percy, Earl | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Younger, George |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | |
| Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Remnant, James Farquharson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n | Sir Gilbert Parker and Mr. |
| Hills, J. W. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Stanley Wilson. |
| Hunt, Rowland | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter |
§ *MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)moved an Amendment exempting the Militia from the operation of the Bill. He said that this and consequential Amendments obviously raised a matter of the most important kind in regard to the most far-reaching military changes which had been brought forward in this country for many years. Those who had given him the information enabling him to bring forward the matter were very anxious that he should make it quite clear to the Secretary of State for War that, although they thought he was mistaken, they were not unmindful of his courtesy and consideration in regard to the changes which he had proposed. The first point which had struck those who were interested in the military forces of the Empire was the very serious step which the right hon. Gentleman was taking in regard to the Militia. In fact, in dealing with the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteer, the right hon. Gentleman had completely ignored the historical bases upon which those forces bad depended in the past, and grown up to their present condition. Each service was possessed of some special attraction to those who were willing to serve in it. The Militia went so far back as the old Train Bands in the time of Charles the First, and continued until the time when service was made compulsory in the reign of George III. Following the system inaugurated in 1852 with the Compulsory Ballot Act, one found that 1496 the Militia had had its origin and had developed on lines peculiarly its own down to 1865 when the Militia Ballot Act was introduced, which had been maintained ever since by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. From that time forward also one found that there were a number of circumstances connected with the Militia which were not to be found in the case of the Volunteers or of the Yeomanry. As the Duke of Bedford had pointed out in another place, since Pitt reorganised the Militia there had never been a time when the country had made a demand on them and the force had not responded to the wants of the country. From 1803 to 1813 a very large proportion of the total number of those who served in the wars came from the Militia, so that the right hon. Gentleman would see that whatever excuse might be derived from the Militia being always "bled white," applied with as much force at the beginning of the last century as now. Coming to 1853, the next comparable crisis in the history of the nation, the force was revived, and it had to do garrison duty not only in the United Kingdom, but also in the Mediterranean, Egypt, and other places. During the Indian Mutiny both for purposes of drafts and for garrison duty the Militia rendered valuable service. During the war in South Africa the only military force which provided full units for itself was the Militia, in spite of the fact that the force was said to be "bled white.'' 1497 That continued during the whole course of the war, and they sent complete units to the extent of sixty-one battalions of Infantry absolutely serving in South Africa, and nine battalions serving in the Mediterranean and in Egypt, seventy in all. That meant that 100,000 men served in South Africa, Egypt, and the dependencies of the Empire, and the Regular Force absorbed 50,000 men by transfer from the Militia. He did not propose to enter upon the question of the behaviour of the Militia, because the Committee would recall that their conduct had been praised by General Knox, who said that he could not recollect an instance in which they had failed him; Lord Kitchener had said that their conduct was highly creditable, and they had also been praised by General French for their brilliant defence of Fraserburg. It was sufficient as a summary to say that 226 Militia officers were mentioned in despatches, and 245 non-commissioned officers and men were the King's medal for distinguished service. In 1902, 8,000 men passed from the Militia into the Army, and the average was now 12,000 a year. What evidence had the right hon. Gentleman leading him to the conclusion that he would obtain in the future the 12,000 troops he formerly obtained from the Militia? He might point out that many men passed into the Regular Army through the avenue of the Militia whom the Regular Army would not otherwise obtain, simply because they were enabled in a tentative fashion to discover through their Militia service whether or not a military career would have attractions for them. Out of 100 men who underwent six months training under the Spectator scheme, and who became competent soldiers during that period, only one intended to go into the Army at the time the training commenced, but twenty-six joined as a result of the training received. The point had been emphasised over and over again that it very large number of the recruits obtained each year for the Army would never join but for the locus pœnitentice they received in the Militia. The Commission which inquired into the experience of the South African War put it on record that there was imperative need for organised expansion outside the Regular Army, and yet the right hon. Gentleman was destroying the only force which in the history of the country for 150 years 1498 had never failed to provide a reliable source of expansion. They were entitled, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was to take the place of the paid Militia Force which had served under the Army Act for 150 years for the necessary expansion and which was now to be destroyed. What was to take its place? It was not easy to say what was meant by the Under-Secretary in another place or even the reports of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place one was supposed to look as a substitute to a civilian force on entirely voluntary lines, paid for the week or fortnight when the camp was held. There was to be no preliminary recruit training, and company and musketry drill was to be out of the men's spare time. No experienced Militia officer would say that in the Territorial Force, in which was to be incorporated that part of the Militia that was to be for ever destroyed, they would over discover an efficient substitute for the work which the Militia had done in the past. There was the supply of drafts and the supply of units in time of war. Let them compare the very inadequate training of the Territorial Force with their four weeks annual drill, with food, bounty pay, clothes, and winter months non-training bounty, 1s. a day for a week or a fortnight. It was not surprising that when the Duke of Bedford, as he had stated in another place, communicated with the commanding officers of Militia and asked whether they thought the units under their command could accept the conditions of service offered by the Secretary of State, 104 returned a blunt negative. Only three said yes and fourteen answered not at all. It should make the Committee pause when an overwhelming majority of those who in the past had been responsible for the organisation of the Militia were almost unanimously of opinion that it would not be possible for the force in future to respond to the expectations which the right hon. Gentleman had based upon it. It was vaguely anticipated that part of the Militia would go into the Regular Forces and become an element in the nucleus battalions to which the right hon. Gentleman looked to perform many of the duties now discharged by the Militia. If reliance was seriously placed on the nucleus battalions to render services comparable with those of the Militia, he 1499 would point out that they would be composed as to one-third of recruits too young for service abroad, and that they would be drilled with other comrades than those with whom they were to serve and under other officers, a condition which all with any experience of drill of this kind knew to be open to very serious objection. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to state what the proposal of the Government was for providing the organised force which experience had shown to be necessary for home and colonial garrisons on the out-break of war, for the drafts to meet casualties, and for keeping open the lines of communication. Where was he to find the force? Where were the drafts to come from to meet casualties? In that regard they might refer briefly to the experience of the war in Manchuria, which, if nothing else, showed that what they had to face in the future with regard to the responsibility for drafts and the repair of wastage was the destruction of whole battalions. If the nucleus battalions or the special contingents were to be used for that purpose, it was obvious that their usefulness for services such as had been rendered by the Militia in the past was almost entirely destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman knew what were the numbers that would be required on the outbreak of a great war to protect the lines of communication when all the Regulars were required to serve at the front. If the special reserves were going to develop in the direction of provisional battalions for that purpose their drafting functions were gone, and it was extremely difficult to discover where the right hon. Gentleman was to find regiments to guard the lines of communication. He submitted that it would be madness to put the Militia with the Yeomanry and the Volunteers in the melting pot until there was some force adequate to take its place. It had been pointed out that there was a deficiency of 37,500 in the Militia, but that was a reason not for destroying the force, but for improving it and restoring its efficiency. The Secretary of State for War must be aware that, in the judgment of the vast majority of the Militia, if they had control of their own recruiting and received some of the concessions which they had asked for, the Militia would be perfectly competent to continue the service it had rendered in 1500 the past. The right hon. Gentleman was himself but a recent convert to the necessity of abolishing the historical force, for a year ago in speaking of the general reforms he wished to make in the Army he declared his intention of protecting the Militia as far as possible from the liability to be exhausted by drafts. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not have made such a statement without carefully considering whether or not the Militia was entitled to survive after that reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman had at that time indicated in great detail that the salvation of the country was to be found in the development of an expeditionary force which was to consist of 154,000 men, of whom 30,000were to be on a Militia basis. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it was wrong that the Militia should be exhausted by drafts, and indicated his intention, as far as he could, to protect the Militia from the liability to that species of exhaustion. He showed at the time that, equally with themselves, he was desirous of preserving the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
We have a large number of Militia Garrison Artillery, about 14,000. The Committee may ask: are you sure these Militiamen will do their work, and my answer is yes, the General Staff are perfectly sure.The right hon. Gentleman's observations showed most clearly that at that time, only a year ago, he and those who were informing him were strongly of opinion that the best hope for the forces of the Crown in the future was to preserve the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman said—The Militia must have a new function assigned to them in the organisation of the Army as a whole. They must either fall back into Volunteer work, in which case they would not be paid any more than the Volunteers are paid, or else they must take upon themselves the same obligation as the Regular soldier, and that is to be ready to serve abroad in time of war. In time of war they can be of no use to us unless they form an efficienct first line of support to the Regular Army in the field…It is therefore clear that we must ask the Militia to form a first line of draft for the Regular Army in the field and therefore to accept the obligation of going abroad in time of war…The Militia have to elect between going into the condition of Volunteers and coming nearer to the Regular Forces. What we are anxious to do is to take the Militia battalions and make them battalions of the Regular Army… We propose to put 1501 behind every Regular battalion of the home Army a third or Militia battalion.Those who were most qualified to speak for the Militia to-day would not have shrunk from the modifications which the right hon. Gentleman was willing to make at that time, nor from the burdens which he thought it necessary to impose upon them. If they had, been asked to discharge those duties the Secretary of State would have obtained from them the services which he required. Only twelve months had passed, and the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinion. He was satisfied that the opinion of the vast majority of those who had served in the Militia was that the first plan of the right hon. Gentleman was far more in the interests of the armed forces of the Crown than his present proposals. He begged to move his Amendment, believing that the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the matter very carefully before casting away a force which for hundreds of years had never failed to do what the country had asked of it in time of need.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Regulars' to insert the words 'and the Militia.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Gentleman had presented the case very temperately, but in a way which he thought would not have been possible for him it he had sat longer in Parliament, for he would have been in his seat through the period when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the affairs of the Army, and when they had to deal with this question in a fashion which must have made them, and obviously did make them, realise the difficulties with which they had to deal. During the ten years they were in office there was only one definite proposal put forward on behalf of the then Government as a means of redressing the evils to which the Regular Forces, particularly the infantry of the Line, were subject. When he succeeded to responsibility in those matters, a prolonged investigation disclosed—and about this there could be no manner of doubt—that there were such gaps in the Regular Forces that they 1502 were wholly unfit, as at present organised, to be put into the field, unless steps were improvised which ought never to have to be improvised on the outbreak of war. One chief difficulty was that there was no machinery for providing infantry drafts to make up the wastage of war—absolutely none. When that difficulty presented itself to the late Government in 1904, there was put forward in an official Paper of the 2nd August, 1902, the proposition of the then Government for putting right that state of things. Was it what the hon. and learned Gentleman supported? Absolutely not. It was to abolish altogether fourteen battalions of the Line (he felt himself a poor innocent compared with the strong men of those days), and to convert twenty-six more into what were called short service or general service battalions; that was to say, that instead of trained men who had been for a prolonged period with the colours, they were to remain only two years with the colours, and afterwards to be passed into the Reserve. Then they dealt in another fashion with certain other battalions by reducing their establishment and their strength. As regarded the Militia itself, thirty-three battalions were to be taken away and converted into those short service battalions. That was a very drastic proposition, he thought the only practical proposition, put forward by the late Government for dealing with the provision of drafts to make up for the wastage of war. That proposition did not succeed. He had never been one of those who reflected hardly, or at all, on his predecessors who had these difficulties before them and did not succeed in solving them, because he recognised how immense the difficulties were. It was a task of tremendous difficulty, where they had only a Volunteer service, to provide for these things. The present Government had now to solve the problem, and if their solution appeared to be drastic, the reason was that the difficulty could only be coped with by going to the very root of it. It was true that the Militia were an old and very important constitutional body—far more important formerly than in the present time. There was a period in which the Militia might be said to have constituted the main part of the forces of the Crown in this country. That state of things had changed by 1503 degrees. It was changed very much when Mr. Pitt began to draft the Militia into the service of the Line, which had to serve so much abroad in the great Napoleonic wars. To-day, in an island such as ours, where our men had to do their fighting usually at a great distance from home, it was the first and primary duty of the War Minister of the day to see that the Regular Line was put into a sound condition, and that could not be accomplished without supplying the drafts for making good the wastage of war, and without having scientific machinery, well thought out, and to be counted upon as workable for the purpose of furnishing those drafts. It was those considerations which had led them to put forward the present proposals. What was the position of the Militia? Was it a force which could provide those drafts and also fulfil the useful purpose of furnishing units for the lines of communication, garrison service, and service in the field, of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken? Lord Lansdowne had pointed out in the House of Lords that the Militia was a decadent force, and, to use his phrase, it was—
plundered at one end by the Regulars and pillaged at the other by the Volunteers.The Regulars relied upon the Militia for a large number of recruits. They drew some 12,000 every year from the Militia. That took away a great deal of the strength of that force. On the other hand, the Volunteers had more and more been displacing the old county Militia, so that the Militia had been becoming more and more a professional force. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a letter in The Times by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, which, so far, he had not had leisure to read, in which it was pointed out that the men in the third battalions would be recruited as young as seventeen. So they would, but as little as possible, though they would inevitably have to be taken young. They would be taken at seventeen into the Militia now, in order to get the material from which the Regular Army could draw recruits. They took them at seventeen, and they then got them at eighteen for service in the Regular Army. That was the experience of the past, and that was why the Government felt compelled to make provision for it in the new organisation, and they hoped, and had good 1504 reason to hope, that the age at which they would get recruits would steadily rise. The position of the Militia at present was this. The first function was to supply recruits for the Army. That ought not to be so, but unfortunately it had grown up, because the Militia had more and more ceased to fulfil its old consitutional purpose and had more and more ceased to be a county force. That was the inevitable result of the Cardwell scheme; it was recognised as its primary function to be an auxiliary of the Regular Forces, and they could not go back upon that without damaging an important source of supply of troops for the Army. In the second place, the position of the Militia was this: Under the pressure of which Lord Lansdowne had spoken their strength had been steadily dwindling; they were now 40,000 below establishment, they were nearly 1,000 short in officers, and the position was growing worse and more serious; it had been going on for years. At the time of the South African War the Militia provided, under a system which had been in operation some years, what was called a Militia Reserve, a reserve of Militia who took engagements to go out as drafts for Regular battalions, they were often the pick of the Militia battalion, and they performed splendid service during the war. But their absence ruined the efficiency of the units and left many of them altogether out of fighting condition. As soon as the war showed signs of coming to an end the Government of the day abolished the Militia Reserve, taking away from the Regular Army the sole source they had for getting drafts to supply the wastage of war. That was done in the bona fide expectation that there was an alternative in the three years system which it was supposed would give the drafts and at the same time furnish a Reserve. That turned out to be a delusion. Nobody was in favour of the three years system, and everybody rejoiced that it was abolished except under exceptional conditions. That altered the conditions for the worse, because the Militia Reserve was gone, and the situation now was that there was no service to supply the wastage of war. What was the next thing that happened? The Militia were found to be still going back, and when, a year ago, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he proposed to do what Mr. Cardwell had 1505 intended, and to make the third battalions drafts for two Line battalions—it was not a perfect form, but it was machinery for keeping the thing going—the Militia Commanders said, ''If you draw upon us for drafts you will reduce us to the condition we were in at the time of the South African War, and will make us useless units." And they were right. His military advisers pointed out that 124 or 126 Militia battalions were so under strength that there was no way of making them efficient except by compounding them out of all shape and reforming them into composite battalions, in which no identity would be left. It seemed to him, therefore, that the scheme had broken down because the people concerned were not willing to carry it out; and the obvious course to take was to constitute a reserve battalion with the express function of training men to provide for the wastage of war. Those battalions would be available for other and collateral purposes; they would take in surplus recruits and new recruits, and, giving them a large complement of officers, they could in the event of war throw off a battalion for war purposes, while in time of peace there would be a nucleus as a training school for drafts for the Regular Army. If they took men at the age of seventeen, they would only do what the Militia were now doing—providing for a stream of recruits for regular service. They would pass on at eighteen into the Line, and so he calculated, from experience, they would get a stream of recruits for the Line. It was the only method, for it was obvious they could not keep up 124 ragged battalions, some between 200 and 300 below strength. They were driven to that course by the iron logic of facts and by the attitude of the Militia commanders. It had been said it was a quarrel between the commanders and the War Office; but it was not so. The matter was very carefully considered, and he gave the Militia commanders a full testimonial, so far as he was in a position to do so, that they came to their conclusion against being drafted in the conviction that if the drafts were allowed to take place their condition would become worse and worse, until the Militia would practically become extinct. There was no other way, for they were not justified in expenditure for keeping up the Militia under such conditions. They agreed in 1506 that view with the late Government, but where they differed from the late Government was in taking a more conservative and less drastic position than a complete rejection of the Cardwell policy, and making a third battalion a means of training, the Militia proper going into the Territorial Force. The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool had asked what provision had been made for securing the lines of communication and providing for the garrisons. In the first place, the whole of the Irish Militia would enlist under Part III. and become special reservists; but where as in the past there were eight third battalions of Irish regiments, they would be united to other twelve regiments, more or less of a Militia character, but they would not be a Militia in the old sense; they would belong to the Line, and the difference between the reservists and the training battalion would be that the primary function would not be for drafting. In other words they would simply be twelve regiments composed of special reservists. Subject to that they would try to preserve their traditions as much as possible. There were twelve regiments for the lines of communication. The expeditionary force would take up only sixty-six battalions of the Line, and there would be six over, available for lines of communication added to the twelve. In time of war he reckoned on the training battalions throwing off a battalion, the men being moved to barracks vacated by the expeditionary force. In that way he had no doubt that they would have an ample supply of battalions for the lines of communication and other work of that kind under the organisation which he had proposed. The Militia officers would have their position in the Reserve of Officers. A Militia captain, if he fulfilled the conditions, would enter the Reserve of Officers, and practically have the same employment as at present, receiving pay and allowance and a retaining fee for his liability to take service abroad upon mobilisation, when he would become an officer of the Regular Army. He hoped in time to create a Reserve of Officers by the scheme upon which he was still working, and meanwhile hoped for the assistance of a suitable number of Militia officers who would be willing to take service in the Reserve of Officers. The Militia would cease to be the old Militia, but they would be enormously 1507 more effective; part of them would become Regulars, and another part would go to the county for the functions of the county force which the Militia had fulfilled in the past. There were ample possibilities in the future for such battalions. If they wished to go for service abroad, it was open to them, under Clause 12, to engage to do so. In other words, what the Government had aimed at in their scheme was to open up possibilities of improvement which would depend upon individual willingness. How these things would turn out he could not say, for no one could look into the future; but this he did say, that the scheme of the Government, with its provision for the abolition of the present constitution of the Militia, was essential to getting the Line rank into decent condition. He dwelt upon that point with all seriousness, and with a deep sense of his responsibility in the matter. He felt that the condition of the Line was very serious indeed at the present time. Its deficiencies no one could ignore. Nowadays the wastage of war was very high, and if the Line was to be a workable force provision must be made for making up that wastage; and it was because the Government felt the only means they had for making it up lay through the reform of the Militia that they took the stop of placing their plan before the country.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said the plan of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Militia was one which he had regarded from the beginning with the gravest misgiving and anxiety. As for the rest of the scheme, whether it worked or did not work it would not necessarily destroy the Volunteer Force. The county associations might succeed or they might fail. Failure would not carry with it any great national disaster, and success would mean undoubtedly an improvement in the organisation of the Volunteers and Yeomanry. But the destruction of the Militia was a step which they could hardly retrace, or, at all events, could only retrace at a great sacrifice and after considerable time. He therefore most earnestly begged the Committee to pause and consider most seriously before they decided upon taking a course which, whether right or wrong—and he thought it was wrong—was one at all events 1508 fraught with very serious risks, and it might be irremediable risks in the future. The Minister for War had said that the mover of the Amendment would hardly have made the speech he had made had he been in the last Parliament and responsible in some degree for the military policy of the late Government. He did not agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman had always considered in a non-controversial spirit the military proposals of his predecessors in office, and he did not mean to go back upon the old history of Army policy under the late Government; but he did say that nothing occurred in that period which in his judgment ought to prevent any man from taking the course of preventing the destruction of the ancient Militia force of the country. It was quite true that a plan, which never received the assent of the House, was brought forward by his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, under which the whole stress of providing for expansion was thrown, not upon the Militia, but upon the new short-service battalions; and if there had been called into existence short-service and long-service battalions together, as that plan proposed, they would, no doubt, have given the country a force for foreign service which the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, oven in his own view, could never provide. There was an alternative plan affecting the Militia which was never brought before the House, but with which, as there was a record of it, the right hon. Gentleman must be fully acquainted. That plan, while retaining and continuing the peculiar qualities of the Militia, would have provided an improved form of the service which the force had so long rendered to the country, and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had rejected it. But what was the basis of his objection to the plan of the Government? He did not put it wholly or mainly on the ground of sentiment. He thought he was a foolish man who ignored sentiment and tradition in such a matter, and was oblivious to the long historic past of the Militia. Still, he would argue the case entirely from a hard, practical business point of view. How were they to get in the most efficient manner the forces they wanted in time of war? The plan of the right hon. Gentleman, put shortly, was to throw the whole stress of war upon the Regular Army battalions, 1509 and to provide machinery by which those Regular battalions would be fed in the time of war and the shortage to which they would be then exposed made up. Everybody admitted that there must be some machinery for making up the wastage to which the Regular battalions would be subject in time of war. But it was not common sense not to recognise the fact that in time of war they required units of different degrees of efficiency, and of different degrees of cost as measured by efficiency. The Regular battalions were the most expensive because they were the most highly trained of units. But was it the proper course to throw the whole work of war on those most expensive and, no doubt, most efficient Regular battalions, when some of that work might be effectively done by the less costly, because not so highly trained, Militia? Under the right hon. Gentleman's plan, he would be driven in time of war to use the costly units of the Regular Army, and, by so much, deplete his fighting line of the best troops he had at his disposal. He thought that must be a bad arrangement. What was the right hon. Gentleman's justification? He said that experience had shown that, if they tried to use their machinery for the double purpose of providing drafts and doing other work on the lines of communication and elsewhere, they would find their depleted regiments were perfectly useless for any purpose to which they might desire to put them. Did experience show that that was the fact? While it was quite true that the Militia battalions which served in the South African War were never, for the reasons he had stated, really the equals of the Regular battalions, they nevertheless did excellent work in maintaining lines of communication and in garrison purposes. Not only had recent experience shown that that was the fact, but the right hon. Gentleman by his own policy had admitted it. What had the right hon. Gentleman just told the Committee? He told them that there were Irish Militia battalions which were to be subjected to the double strain of providing drafts and doing work on the lines of communication, a strain which when applied to English troops destroyed the battalions altogether. If that could be done in Ireland, why on earth could not it be done in England? The policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland supplied the severest condem- 1510 nation of his policy of destroying the Militia in this country. At any rate, the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in, Ireland was much nearer the policy which he would like to see universally adopted in regard to the Militia than the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Great Britain. The supplementary system was wanted to aid in time of peace the general machinery of equipment, but he did not believe that the special reserve battalions would have the attraction for the recruit which the old Militia battalions had. The latter, as every one knew, and as the right hon. Gentleman had said, were a great means of introducing people to a military life, and if they liked the military life they then went into the Regular Army. He believed the Militia battalion, with its present traditions, system, and officers, would fulfil those objects incomparably better than this new and hybrid creation of the right hon. Gentleman, which was neither Militia, Volunteers, nor Regulars. The special reserve battalion would be a battalion only in name, and a depôt would be quite as appropriate a description for it as a military unit. It was an amorphous creation, and although that did not condemn it, it was a consideration which would influence the mind of the recruit. So much for the time of peace. But it was not in time of peace that those battalions were most important; their function was to begin as soon as war was declared. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to anticipate that then those battalions would throw off other battalions which would do all the garrison duty and defence of lines of communication which the Militia had so efficiently done in the past. The process of building new battalions, as far as he understood it, was a process which must inevitably take time. It might well be done in the course of a long war; but could it be done in the first week, month, or three months of a war? In the first three months of the South African War we sent abroad thirty-five battalions of Militia. Were we going to find thirty-five new budded battalions, the hasty offspring of these reserve battalions, in that period? By admission the right hon. Gentleman was creating machinery which could only slowly and imperfectly do that which was adequately done now by the traditional Militia system of the country. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon these reserve battalions as a 1511 machinery for providing drafts, and held that no machinery for that purpose could be obtained otherwise. That was not the view of Mr. Cardwell, of whose scheme the right hon. Gentleman was an advocate. Under the Cardwellian scheme the second home battalion was to do for the foreign battalion exactly what the right hon. Gentleman's reserve battalion was to do for both. He would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was on much sounder and safer lines if he had retained and improved the Militia, and made them liable for foreign service—as they were quite ready to be made liable. He could have made some arrangement with them, which be still believed could be made, whereby they might assist, at all events, in the work of providing drafts, supplementing them, if they required to be supplemented, by Mr. Cardwell's plan of large depôts. That was a plan which seemed to him to carry out all the right hon. Gentleman desired, while keeping that the loss of which they regretted. They would then be able at the moment war broke out to release from the garrisons the highly-trained men who were now locked up in them, and send them to India or else where. Battalions trained economically on a Militia basis were perfectly adequate for the less difficult operations of war, and as the war went on they would receive the necessary training to enable them to go forward with success and honour. They would have all the machinery necessary to supply the drafts necessitated by the wastage in the field. It was a fundamental fact that in war troops were required of different degrees of excellence, and it was very uneconomical to use troops of the first excellence for work of the second order of difficulty. We had troops that could now be used for work of the second order which were extremely cheap, and he could not believe that it was right to abolish them and put nothing in their place. He hoped, oven now, that the right hon. Gentleman would modify his scheme—he did not ask him to destroy or revolutionise it — so that our existing system might be maintained to carry out such parts of the scheme as would conduce to the general efficiency of the forces, whether Regular or Volunteer. He regarded this as the most crucial part of the Bill, and earnestly hoped the Committee would most carefully consider 1512 their policy before they finally assented to the destruction of an historic force.
*CAPTAIN FABER (Hampshire, Andover)said he was sure that the Secretary of State for War regretted the absence through ill health of his predecessor, who had devoted so much time to Army questions. If he might be permitted to say so, he thought that very feWmen could within the time at his disposal have done so much as the present Secretary of State in investigating the problems connected with Army organisation. The two most important points in the Bill were the special contingent and the Territorial Army. As to the Territorial Army it seemed to him to depend upon whether one believed or did not believe in the possibility of invasion, and if one believed in that possibility he did not think the Territorial Army would be large enough to resist the attack. If, however, one did not believe in the possibility of invasion, that question need not enter into the debate, and therefore the special contingent and the manner in which it was to be formed seemed to be the whole crux of the matter. The special contingent seemed to consist of 75,000 men, but how they were to get that number was quite another matter. The President of the Board of Trade thought that in the present depressed state of the building trade it would not be difficult to get the required number of men, but having in view what the Committee on Physical Deterioration had reported there might be more difficulty than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. Besides, the same condition of things as now existed in the building trade would not always prevail, and he did not think that it had entered into the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and of hon. Members what wastage would be involved in connection with that force. If that wastage was taken at 15 per cent. it would mean in two years the loss of about 25,000 men, which would reduce the contingent to 50,000, and if there was a war during the next two years there would be no special contingent of the strength which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated to be brought out. Of course we might be lucky enough to avoid war as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, but still they ought to make provision for it in case it should break out. Referring to his own 1513 branch of the Service, the Artillery, he quoted the statement of the hon. Member for South Salford that drivers and gunners could not be taught their duties, in six months. He knew the right hon. Gentleman did not agree, and relied on the experience of the Japanese. But in the Japanese war the drivers, as a rule, went along hard roads and only at a walk. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated that in the next European war our own drivers would never go off the main roads or move at any greater speed than a walk. He hoped a year's training would be substituted for six months, and urged the desirability of special short-service battalions.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that any change in the condition of the Militia was an important consideration to the country, and the abolition of the force would be not only a matter of regret to the members of the force, but a permanent loss to the armed forces of the country. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech had said that he was not abolishing the Militia bat reforming it, but that was a mere figure of speech, because a part of the officers and men were to go to the Volunteers and part to the Regulars, and it was impossible to contend that the Militia was saved when that was the case. The right hon. Gentleman was abolishing a force which could not be replaced and which was more capable of expansion than any other in time of war. It was often said that the Militia was a decadent force, and yet during the South African War it was found possible to send not only drafts from it but units to the front. He did not wish to condemn one branch of the Service at the expense of another, but he would point out that the Militia was the only branch of the Auxiliary Forces which went to the seat of war in units and not merely in individual companies or as volunteers. As he had pointed out, the force had not only sent out units, but drafts of officers and men to the Regular Army. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would remember that some fifteen or twenty years ago the magazines were full of discussions as to whether the Yeomanry Force had become moribund and ought to be abolished. They all remembered those articles and what a narrow escape the Yeomanry 1514 had of being discontinued as one of the Auxiliary Forces. Fortunately it had been saved, as he thought with good results, and if the Militia could he saved and it was properly handled and treated, in twenty years time they would look back to its preservation with equal satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman, although he told them that he must abolish the Militia Force, had done it in the most urbane and kindliest manner, but his supporters in the Press had not been equally courteous. They accused colonels of Militia regiments of stupidity and even of want of patriotism because they had refused to allow drafts from their regiments. He wondered whether it had ever occurred to those critics that it was moribund because it was called on to produce drafts. There were certain distinguished Army officers who had taken no interest in the Militia except as the producer of drafts, and as soon as the Militia ceased to perform that office it was handed over to the Secretary of State for War and marked down for destruction. The sole interest in the force in the mind of that particular kind of officer was that it should be able to supply drafts to the Regular Army. He knew that the Regular Army was the chief consideration that the Secretary of State for War had before his eyes, and no doubt he was bound to fill up the Regular Army at all costs, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, and this was quite another matter, that the Militia must be abolished because it was unwilling or unable to continue to supply drafts. In a significant part of his speech about recruiting the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the difficulties of voluntary enlistment, and had said they must go to the root of it, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made very little attempt to do so. All he had done was to abolish the Militia, and to put in its place as a draft-producing body the third battalion, but he had not faced the necessity of supplying a large body of men during a great war when an army had to be sent abroad. During the great Napoleonic wars, to which the right hon. Gentleman had made allusion, the Militia was not only enabled to embody as units, but to provide drafts to the Army. Instead of a force which could do that, the right hon. Gentleman proposed a 1515 problematical force which was not now and might never be in existence. He doubted whether any of the inducements that led men to enter the Militia or the Auxiliary Forces would carry them into the proposed third battalions. In his opinion the Militia ought to be preserved, because the force would be able to provide the necessary units to free the Regular Army in time of war. As Lord Salisbury had written in a letter to The Times recently, there was no excuse for abolishing a force which had been of great use, and had endeared itself to the British people. There were two blots on the Bill which he believed would be largely removed if the Militia were saved. In the estimation of almost every one who had spoken upon the matter, the chief blot was that the troops of the future upon whom we were to rely for home defence would be trained after war had begun, and no one knew whether we should have either the opportunity or the time to give that training when once war had been declared. If the Militia was saved, it would receive its training upon enlistment and from year to year, and though that training might not be adequate the bulk of it would be given before war broke out. On that ground alone it was worth while to save the Militia. The other blot was that there was no force which could be sent out to support the troops at the front, except in the shape of drafts. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Territorial Force should be asked to volunteer in battalions, brigades, or divisions. But no more cruel farce could take place than to ask a battalion to volunteer for active service. There were many men in the Territorial Force who, not from any want of patriotism, but from force of circumstances in their domestic or civil life, were unable to volunteer, and it required a great amount of courage for those men to step out of the ranks when the battalion was paraded and called upon to volunteer for foreign service. It would be far fairer honestly to enlist those battalions which it was proposed to send to the front deliberately from the first to undertake foreign service instead of trying to entrap men into the Territorial Force presumably for the defence of this country alone, and having got them, to parade the battalion and call upon them to volunteer for foreign service. If the 1516 right hon. Gentleman would only preserve the Militia instead of abolishing it, he would have a certain number of battalions specially enlisted with an obligation for foreign service. There would be no difficulty then, and the Militia could be easily filled up with that obligation. His experience had been that that would be no bar to filling up the Militia. Everyone was forced to recognise that under the Bill as drafted the Territorial Force was neither more nor leas than the Volunteers as they existed at the present time. The Militia was either to be swamped in the Volunteer Force, or drafted in small parcels into the Regular Army. It was very well known that the Volunteer battalions, with all their excellence, partly from want of time and from lack of opportunity to train together, and largely from want of adequate rifle practice, were nothing like such good shooting or such well-trained battalions as the Militia battalions. It would therefore be a very unwise policy to put an end to a force partly, if not highly, trained, and more efficient than the force which, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, was going to form the Territorial Army. He had spoken not from any particular love of the Militia force as at present constituted. He recognised that they were not what they should be, and they might be said to be of little value as they stood. But they were the force most easily under the hand of the right hon. Gentleman in any crisis such as the outbreak of a great war. They were the one force outside the Regular Army which was partially trained at any rate; the one force which could be sent abroad without injustice to the force and without that dislocation of the great industries of the country which would necessarily follow if the artisans and others engaged in those industries were to be sent abroad as Volunteers. For these reasons he earnestly pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the urgency of reconsidering the question of the Militia. If he preserved them he would find that, provided they were handled with sympathy and the necessary reforms were introduced, he would have a cheap force behind him in times of emergency.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,) Bristol, E.said the mover 1517 of the Amendment and nearly everyone who had spoken from the Opposition side of the House had referred to the historical associations of the Militia. But he had noticed that not a single speaker had in any way referred to the present fighting value and efficiency of that force. It seemed to him that those who were responsible for spending the money of the nation on the fighting forces of the Crown were bound to look, not to the historic traditions of the force or its fighting value in the past, but to the value of that force to-day. It was a striking fact that during the last twenty years the strength of the Militia had diminished by something like 20,000 men, whilst during the same period the cost had gone up by half-a-million of money. There was something radically wrong with an organisation which spent an increasing amount on a decreasing number of men and secured decreased efficiency. The Government were, therefore, bound to ask themselves, did the Militia fulfil its duty in our system of national defence? He believed that from the moment a former Secretary of State did away with the Militia Reserve came the death-blow of the Militia. He did not recall a single person who had been responsible to the House for the administration of the Army who thought that the Militia had any other duty than to feed the Army in time of war. We could not at the present time send the Militia abroad. Even under the greatest stress of emergency we could not make use of the organisation of the Militia. Then of what use was the Militia as it stood at the present moment in the emergency of war? There were, he believed, forty-six Militia battalions about 5,000 men under strength: what would be the use of sending such a body to the seat of war? Every Secretary of State who had preceded his right hon. friend had agreed that the Militia was in a most unsatisfactory state. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment quoted almost vebatim, although he did not give the Committee the source of his inspiration, from a long letter from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon in The Times of yesterday. But if he quoted the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman, why did he not complete his argument by a further quotation from the letter? But as the hon. Gentleman omitted to do so he himself might be allowed to fill up the gap. The 1518 right hon. Member for Croydon in the lengthy and reasoned letter addressed to The Times said—
The destruction of the Militia is an immense mistake; not because the Militia as at present constituted is of value as a lighting force. As a matter of fact, it has almost ceased to have any military value at all.That was a strong admission coming from a right hon. Gentleman who had had the conduct of the War Office of this country for two or three years. And if hon. Members were to quote a description of the Militia as it would be when it became a part of the Territorial Force, he was entitled to point out what, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, was the real value, at the present moment, of the Militia as a fighting force. It had none in that right hon. Gentleman's judgment. If that were so, the Militia was a superfluity, and we could not at the present time afford to pay for superfluities of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had said with perfect truth that various schemes had been put before the House, had been withdrawn, and had never been thoroughly discussed by the House, as to the way in which a reform of the Militia might take place; but it was well for them to recollect that though the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for those schemes, yet they must have come before the Cabinet of which he was chief member before they could have been presented to the House as the plans of the Government. He did not recollect any single alternative scheme to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, which proposed to destroy practically thirty-two battalions of Militia. He did not remember any other alternative scheme to that put forward by the late Government for the reorganisation of a force which they believed to be of no fighting value whatever. His right hon. friend on his side at all events had proposed a clear and definite plan to the House, to enable those men who now enlisted in the Militia force, while ceasing to serve in a force which had no military value whatever, to transfer their services to a part of the defensive forces of the country which, they were sure, had a real, permanent fighting power behind them. That plan practically was to throw the whole burden of a campaign, or a succession of campaigns, upon the Regular 1519 Forces in regular units. It was to be observed in that connection that the colonial establishments of Regular troops were to-day on a very considerably higher standard than formerly. He thought that there were 100 more per battalion than there were before, and to that extent the strength of the Regular Force ready for a campaign in any way touching or directed against the Colonies was far stronger than it had been in previous years. Added to those Regular battalions there would be certain what he might almost call non-combatant units, composed of non-Regulars, for the ammunition columns and the medical and transport services—men who were not required by the necessities of war to have gone through a purely military training. A great deal had been made of the fact that if they abolished the present organisation of the Militia they would do away with the units which, at a later stage of a campaign, they would be obliged to place in the field. In the Russo-Japanese War Japan placed in the field comparatively few units, and fed those units with constant drafts from their forces at home. His right hon. friend proposed to adopt a similar plan, and there was no necessity for the great number of units which hon. Gentlemen opposite had insisted upon. They must have full units facing the enemy abroad, and they must have draft-producing units at home to feed the units abroad. But they did not want a large number of units which were expected eventually to go abroad, which appeared to hon. Gentlemen opposite to be the rôle of the Militia at the present time. The Leader of the Opposition had said that there was not much advantage from territorial battalions, and that they only offered a system of depots. But in the case of the third battalions each contained special contingents for special service, Those special contingents could be organised into battalions—it was part of the plan that that should be so—and they would be serviceable as mobile battalions at home or abroad in case of emergency. Great stress was laid by the Leader of the Opposition upon the point that the third battalions would never be able to take the place of the thirty-five battalions taken out of the Militia and sent out to South Africa. The answer to that was complete. At the outbreak of the youth African War they were only able to 1520 move one or two isolated battalions, in addition to one organised infantry force, which came from Aldershot. That was the whole provision at the outbreak of the war to meet the needs in South Africa. If his right hon friend's scheme were adopted the moment they mobilised the Army Reserve they would be able to send to the front 160,000 Regular troops, organised in divisions, as organised units, with a complete staff for all arms, and they would not require the services of the thirty-five battalions of Militia which were sent out at the outbreak of the South African War. That was a complete and unanswerable reply to the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. It depended on the success not only of the special contingents, but on the success of ordinary recruiting from year to year. Ordinary recruiting did not fail them at present, and need not be expected to fail them. The plan of his right hon. friend was that, when the whole of the forces were mobilised into a striking force, there would be something like 30,000 men, out of the 160,000 men who would form that striking force, as a special reserve. With regard to what was called the Irish Militia, it had been said, "Why retain the Irish Militia and drop the English Militia?" The answer was very simple. At this moment, there was no Volunteer force in Ireland to represent the territioral force as in England. There, for the moment, the Irish battalions were to remain. There were sixteen battalions, and he thought that gradually they would have to be formed into a force of auxiliary troops, and, as he understood, every attempt would be made to form them into a territorial force. He ventured to say that they could not afford to take superfluities; they could not afford to accept the proposal which was now put before them any more than they could accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, who asked the Government to except the Volunteers from their proposals.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKENo.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEWell, to retain the name of the Volunteers. The hon. Member for the Walton Division asked them to except the Militia; and another hon. Member asked them to 1521 except the Yeomanry, and the Government were being asked to break every link in the chain which made their proposals a complete scheme. If those various suggestions were adopted they would be fatal to the whole plan of the Government, and therefore they could not be accepted.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)said he had listened with great sympathy to the Secretary of State for War, because he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had put his finger on the one vital point by which the whole of his scheme should be judged. The right hon. Gentleman had said that what he had chiefly in view, in regard to the creation of the Territorial Force, was to find adequate reinforcements for the fighting line when engaged outside of this country. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and he would suggest to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that they should treat that as one of the most essential elements, he had been going to say the most essential element, in considering the question. If the right hon. Gentleman could show how, under his scheme, he could adequately and certainly reinforce the fighting line outside this country, he would be very much inclined to drop his prejudices and fancies, and to support him in dealing with the real crux of the question. What they wanted was a reinforcement by adequately trained drafts to make good the losses. He wished to approach the question without prejudice or bias, and simply from the point of view of one who wished to see the fighting force really efficient. By the abolition of the Militia did the right hon. Gentleman achieve what he desired? Did he substitute for the Militia some other arrangement by which he could get the required reinforcements in a better and more certain way? The Under-Secretary for India had stated that the Government could not afford to pay for any superfluity. In his opinion the whole scheme of the Territorial Army was a silly superfluity unless it was available for reinforcing the fighting line. As far as he could see, it did not provide any such reinforcements. War might be declared, and not until then were they going to ask the proposed force to take any part in supporting the fighting line. There was a great deal of unreality in the scheme, but if the Terri- 1522 torial Army was enlisted in the certain knowledge that it was to reinforce the fighting line, they would have something valuable. If it was only to exist for playing at soldiers at home he did not attach much value to it, and it would be one of those superfluities for which the country had better not be called upon to pay. It was true that the Secretary for War had made the reinforcement of the fighting line somewhat easier by reducing the number of battalions. Could the right hon. Gentleman make good his proposition that by getting rid of the Militia as they existed and might exist, and substituting for them his new Territorial Force, he was providing an adequate power of reinforcement for the fighting line? He did not think he could. The chief objection to the Milita appeared to be the idea that they could not undertake the duty of reinforcement by drafts. If it was true that the Militia authorities declined to reinforce by drafts and only by expansion, he did not think there was any room for the Militia; but he did not gather that that was the case. By enlisting the men on a proper footing he did not think they would have any difficulty in getting a force that would undertake to go abroad in time of war in any capacity which might be thought necessary to meet the emergency. The substitute for the Militia provided by the right hon. Gentleman failed to stand the test of examination. His third battalions would take in a less valuable stamp of men than would come into the Militia if that force were retained and reorganised in the way in which it might be. The wastrel street-corner lad of seventeen years of age was not going to be a very reliable class to reinforce the fighting line. In the first place, they did not keep him sufficiently long to make him efficient. It was the experience of nearly all soldiers that the man who was thoroughly imbued with the regimental esprit de corps was three times as valuable as the casual man whom they sent to reinforce an army, who had no particular traditions or what he would call regimental prejudices. The third battalion man would be destitute of any esprit de corps, and would possess none of that reliance upon his comrades which went so far to make a soldier efficient in the field. They could not create such feelings as those by the proposed third battalion 1523 system. They could not rely upon it that soldiers so supplied would prove any real efficient reinforcement for the men facing the enemy in the field. The Militiamen were to be abolished because they did not supply the necessities of reinforcement, and they were to be replaced by the third battalions which the right hon. Gentleman claimed would supply those necessities. As far as he could forecast the value of the two types of reinforcements, the one supplied from a reorganised Militia and the other supplied from the third battalions, he had no hesitation in saying that it was the reinforcements from the Militia that the fighting soldier would like to have by his side. The point he insisted upon was that in the matter of the Territorial Army the feeling of any branch of the Auxiliary Forces must be absolutely subordinated to the one necessity of making them available to support the fighting line in order to bring victory within their reach. It was because he felt so strongly on this point that he declined to support the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)said he agreed with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole endeavour of the House should be to establish a system by which they could secure adequate reinforcements for the Regular Army in time of national emergency. He thought the scheme propounded by the Secretary of State for War would go a long way towards achieving that object, and that was why he rose to comment upon the series of speeches which had been made in this and the previous debate by Members of the Opposition. Apparently they opposed this branch of the scheme because they imagined that the Militia was to be abolished. That appeared to him to be an entirely misapprehension of the real proposals of his right hon. friend. If it was true that the Militia were to be abolished it would only suffer that result at its own discretion, because there was to be given to every Militia battalion the opportunity of transferring itself to the Territorial Army. The course to be taken would be that the commanding officer, the non-commissioned officers, and the staff would be asked whether or not they desired their battalion as a unit 1524 to be transferred to the Territorial Army. He understood that every Militia battalion would have the opportunity of transferring itself as a cadre and unit to the Territorial Army, and it would be able to serve under conditions far more favourable to the civilian element than had been the case in the past. Under the present system the Militia had to go under training for a month, but if they were transferred under this scheme they would only be asked to train in the course of the year for a period ranging from seven to fourteen days. One of the chief reasons why the Militia had in recent years become a diminishing quantity was the fact that the stipulation for a month's training very seriously limited the area of recruiting, and they were only able to get recruits from those who were following a precarious and irregular life, it being impossible for men in regular employment to spare the time to go in for a month's training. Under the new system there would consequently be open to the Militia a much larger field for recruiting, because, instead of the Volunteers being a formidable rival, they would now be able to recruit upon an equality. He thought they might reasonably take exception to the statement made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the scheme embodied a proposal to abolish the Militia, because it would only mean the extinguishing of a unit where the officers in charge themselves came to that decision. The special battalions must, of course, be of a somewhat experimental character, but at the same time it was distinctly understood that they had to supplement the Regular Army. If it was found that the advantages offered to the men were insufficient it might be necessary in the future to increase the offers and opportunities, but at any rate the proposal would be a distinct gain to the Reserve of the Regular Army. The transfer of the Militia to the Territorial Army would enable them in time of national emergency to volunteer in the same way as hitherto, the only difference being that under the new system the Volunteers and the Yeomanry would be placed under the same conditions. In the case of the special battalions, they would only be asked for drafts for the Regular Army. All modern scientific military opinion agreed that it 1525 was better to send incompletely-trained drafts to the seat of war than incompletely-trained units. The history of war bore out that contention. In the American War they found that the federal Army were begging the Government at Washington to send drafts instead of ill-trained units, and unwisely the Government of the day sent them ill-trained units with the result that the war was prolonged. In the war between Russia and Japan the Russian Army was in most cases reinforced by incompletely-trained units, while it was invariably the case that the Japanese reinforced their Army by drafts who, placed alongside of well-seasoned men and under competent officers, were very soon as good a fighting force as before the wastage had taken place. In the late war in South Africa he saw battalions which had been depleted—the Highland Brigade—within a very feWmonths after drafts had been sent out to them. With those men fighting alongside of seasoned men and under competent officers, the brigade was just as useful a fighting force as before. Therefore, the argument that these battalions would be weak because the men were not trained under their own officers as units was one which would not bear close investigation. The scheme would largely increase the capacity for reinforcing the Army by drafts in time of war. The experiment was well worth making. It in no way suggested the abolition of the Militia. He appealed to all persons connected with the Militia to sink any prejudices and any feeling that they were going to be abolished, and to do their utmost to induce their officers to make the force a second line, which, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, in time of emergency would undoubtedly come forward and help the first line. Let them make it what the right hon. Gentleman desired it should be, a force for home defence, and which, being a force properly organised, would be ready in time of emergency to go to the seat of war.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the Secretary of State for War had sometimes ironically suggested that no two Members agreed in their criticisms. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to admit that no two Members agreed in their defence 1526 of his scheme. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Chippenham Division both thought that they interpreted the mind of the Secretary of State for War, but they had made speeches which were entirely contradictory. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had said that the Militia was to be wiped out because the special contingent was going to absorb the men. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assent to that statement, and then the hon. and gallant Member said that the Militia was not to be destroyed. He himself thought it was to die. If the men were going into the special contingent how could they go into the Territorial Army? He thought the two things were absolutely irreconcilable. Did anyone suggest that the Militia was going into the special contingent as a unit? Surely that was impossible. If the unit of the Militia went into the Territorial Army as the special contingent were they going to recruit it from the same class of people as in the past? The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said they were going to recruit from the same class of people as the Volunteers. He did not think that was possible, but if it was, it would mean that the special contingent and the Volunteers would be competing for recruits from the same class. The fact was that they placed the Militia in an impossible position if they attempted to reconcile those two propositions. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman intended to do that. He hoped it would be made clear, because those who were anxious to understand the proposals were not able to follow the conflicting defences made by supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. He had believed from the beginning that the county association had in it the germ of exceedingly good work, but not as applied to the Territorial Force which the right hon. Gentleman had projected. If that scheme, which had its proper foundation in county sympathy and support, had been applied to the Militia instead of to the newly-formed Territorial Force, a very successful result would probably have been obtained. The right hon. Gentleman's idea seemed to be thoroughly sound, because it was based on the fact that the county would take an interest in a force which was wedded to the traditions, history, and life of the county. The 1527 right hon. Gentleman had thought to make it applicable to the Volunteers as well. Therein he had made a fundamental error. If he had tested the scheme by applying it to the Militia, and then, as a later development, applied it to the Volunteers as well, it was just possible that it might have met with success. He believed the scheme would break down because it was politically and socially unsound. The scheme itself was brilliant, but the highly-trained professional men who had prepared it had failed to grasp the political and social side of the question. The Under-Secretary of State for India had professed his utter disbelief in the future of the Militia, and thought the force ought to go. He did not understand the Secretary of State for War to say that the Militia ought to go. What he had said was that in its present form it ought to go, which was quite a different thing. The late Secretary of State for War had said that the Militia ought to be reconstructed. If the same support and attention had been given to the Militia as was now invited to be given to the Territorial Force, he believed that it could have been reconstructed and rejuvenated in such a manner as to provide the required drafts in a better way than was proposed in connection with the special contingent. As it was, the Secretary of State was speculating on getting the men from the special contingent. The right hon. Gentleman had to face the fact that he was not at the present time receiving throughout the country the support of the officers of the Militia and Yeomanry, and, largely, of the Volunteers. He did not think there was any Member on that side of the House who did not deeply regret that that was so, because it had been the unhappy fate of successive War Ministers to face this hitherto insoluble problem. The mover of the Amendment had reminded them that 120,000 of the Militia were used in connection with the recent war in South Africa. Surely hon. Gentlemen would not suggest that we were not getting full value for our money expended on those 120,000 men. He supported his hon. friend's Amendment, because he believed that this new scheme would fail, and because it was an attempt to do the impossible, viz., to democratise the Army, which was not possible at the present time. It could not satisfy hon. Members on either side of 1528 the House, because they variously interpreted the real intention of the right hon. Gentleman. He would like to ask if it was the case, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had stated, that the Militia were to be obliterated, and to become part of the special service contingent, or whether they were to be absorbed in the Territorial Army.
§ *SIR C. DILKEsaid that although he agreed with some of the arguments used in support of it by the Leader of the Opposition, he would oppose the Amendment. It we were to have the county associations, the Militia and the Yeomanry as county forces were peculiarly forces which must come under those associations. So far as debate went this was a most useful Amendment for the purpose of eliciting the views of the Government, which at present on this question were a little nebulous. What he wanted was an explanation of the split which was made in the present argument of the Government between the Militia recruits who were to be sent into the nucleus Regular battalions and were to be called Regulars, and the Militia battalions as such which continued to exist in Ireland, and were intended to exist in England under Clause 12. There was a course of double dealing on this question. It was dealt with under Clause 32, in Part III. of the Bill, and partly by Clause 12. By Clause 32 special reservists might be formed into regiments, battalions, and other military bodies. That was held in some degree to constitute a resurrection of the Militia. Clause 12 said it should be lawful to accept the otter of any part of the Territorial Force to serve outside the United Kingdom. In his view the solution of the question lay in clearing up the difficulties under Clause 12 and making the future of the Militia as a portion of the Territorial Army quite plain. In his opinion the Bill would never become law in its present form.
§ *MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)agreed that it was very difficult to grasp what was the exact attitude of the Government on this question. The Under-Secretary for India held that the Militia was a useless fighting force, and ought to be done away with, while other Ministerialists held that it would still remain under the new scheme.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he was only quoting the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that the Under-Secretary for India seemed highly to approve of those views. But he would remind the Committee that the Militia had never failed in a crisis since its reorganisation; and no campaign had been carried to a successful termination without their aid. During the South Afrcian War 46,562 Militiamen served in the United Kingdom, 45,566 in South Africa, and 5,922 in the garrisons in the Mediterranean and Egypt. Those all relieved the fighting line, and it was not correct to assume that the services of the Militia in South Africa were unworthy of praise. He reminded the Committee that of the 45,566 men of the Militia who served in South Africa, 226 officers and 345 non-commissioned officers and men were mentioned in despatches. That was a fair proportion of the total number employed. They had been told that though the Militia would not retain their present unit they would still remain in their individual capacity part of the Territorial Army. But it should not be forgotten that one of the chief reasons why men joined the Militia force was that they got 1s. per day and rations, and at the end of the training a bounty of 30s., two shirts, two pairs of socks, and a pair of boots, while after serving a year in the force they got bounties of £1 in October, December, and February. Those were the inducements which attracted the present class of men to the Militia, but under the inducements held out in regard to the special contingent and the Territorial Army they would not get the same kind of man who now joined the Militia Force. But even supposing they did, would the special contingent be of as much value as a fighting force as the present body? He could not see how the special contingent were to be made a much more efficient fighting force than the Militia if they were only to have twenty-one days annual training instead of twenty-eight. HoWmany of the special contingent would be effective to serve abroad in case of war? They would join at seventeen and be eligible to serve abroad after they had done their first six months training when their age would be seventeen and a half 1530 years, but under the King's Regulations no one could serve abroad under the age of twenty. He did not see how the War Office could get 30,000 men out of the special contingent to take the place of those they removed by abolishing the Militia as a fighting force. It was said by hon. Gentlemen that they did not want to destroy the Militia, but everybody knew that it was in a bad state, and therefore they would have nothing more to do with it. He objected to that statement, because he held that if certain moderate reforms were carried out the Militia could be made a much more efficient force than it was to-day. At present the recruiting system was most objectionable. The recruiting sergeant received 1s. 6d. for a recruit for the Militia and 2s. 6d. for a recruit for the Line. It was therefore the interest of every recruiting sergeant to make every recruit go at first through the Militia and then to pass from the Militia into the Army. In that way he got both the 1s. 6d. and the 2s. 6d. The present was a very fallacious system because a great many recruits went into the Militia who never had the smallest intention of remaining in it. It also had a very serious result in that it prevented a large number of young men from joining the Militia because they thought that when they got to the depot they would be driven into the Line by the pressure of the non-commissioned officers. If they did away with the bounty, for so it might be called, given to the recruiting sergeant, and if they could compel every man who enlisted in the Militia to go through at least one training before joining the Regular Army, they would get a large number of troops both in the Militia and in the Line which they did not get now. They would get those recruits who were now afraid to join the Militia because they did not wish to be forced into the Army, and they would also get those who, having done one month's soldiering in the Militia, and finding it to their liking, would of their own accord join the Regular Army. In other words they would get the men who wanted to pass into the Army and also the men who did not wish to be bullied into the line, while the Regular Army would benefit by men who were determined to enter the force coming forward directly instead of passing through the Militia as a preliminary step. The Secretary of State for War last year 1531 adopted a very useful reform in regard to the preliminary drill of Militiamen. In the year 1905–6 the battalion with which he was acquainted raised 105 recruits. Out of those 105, twenty-nine went into the Army, seventeen were discharged by purchase, and owing to various other casualties a total of fifty-seven had disappeared from the Militia and only forty-eight remained. In the last year (1906–7) under the system of enabling recruits to be trained at battalion headquarters instead of at the regimental depot, although the method had only been in existence six months, they raised 150 recruits. Forty-one purchased their discharges or went into the Line, and that left them with 109 recruits. That showed what had been done in consequence of the initiation of that useful reform. It had been said that though they might not wish to destroy the Militia it was no use tinkering with them any more. He maintained, however, that if that reform could be extended, and if the still greater reform of introducing six months preliminary training in the winter were carried out, the number of recruits would be still farther increased and the Militia made a much more efficient force than it was at the present time, and a force of much more value than the special contingent was ever likely to be.
§ MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton), speaking on his own behalf only, said that he proposed to vote for the Amendment. He agreed that the War Secretary's scheme was a very brilliant one, but he was strongly of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman knew very little about the material which composed the Militia. It was a well-known fact among those who knew anything about the working class that the force was drawn largely, if not entirely, from the rollicking, happy-go-lucky unskilled workers, who entered it for various reasons. Some went into it to have a holiday, and others because of slack times. So far as the skilled workers were concerned, if they had any military ambition they joined the Volunteers or, if that did not satisfy their ambition, the Regular Forces. Very seldom did they join the ranks of the Militia. As at present constituted the Militia was a valuable addition or ally to the Army. Many of the men who 1532 joined it—and the best men, because it was admitted that the harum scarum man made the best fighter—after serving some little time with the force developed a desire to become soldiers, and entered the Regular Army. The present Militia acted in that way as a weeding out force. If some of the men who entered it went straight into the Army they would be more costly than valuable—they would spend more time in the guard-room than anywhere else. For these reasons, knowing something of the class from which the Militia were drawn, he supported the Amendment.
§ *MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)said the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in his concluding words had suggested that instead of raising the question at this point they should put down Amendments to Clause 12. That was a very important clause, no doubt, because it dealt with the terms on which the men of the Territorial Force should enlist. It was to the effect that they should be enlisted for service in the United Kingdom, but at the same time everybody knew that they would be sent abroad when war broke out, because the clause authorised His Majesty to accept their services under certain conditions. Owing, however, to the beneficent provisions of the automatic closure Resolution, that clause would be taken at the end of the fourth day in Committee and would never be discussed at all. Moreover, from the provisions of that Resolution it would not be discussed on Report. Such were the disadvantages of closuring an important Bill like that under discussion in regard to which there was no intention to obstruct. The Amendments put down were genuine Amendments, and they all hoped to assist His Majesty's Government to increase the efficiency of the forces of the Crown. It appeared to him that the point to which the argument of the right hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire was addressed was the real point in the discussion. The Government proposal was to abolish the Militia, and the question was whether their proposals would give the country a better force than that which they proposed to do away with. If he could prove that the new force would be better than the old Militia he would be glad to vote with the right hon. 1533 Gentleman, but if he could not prove that he thought the Amendment ought to stand. It was perfectly clear that the Militia were quite ready to serve abroad and the commanding officers had said so, but what they objected to was drafting. If the Militia were willing to serve abroad, and he thought it would be admitted that the military operations in which we were likely to be engaged would occur abroad, the force could supplement the Regular Army in time of war. The Militia Force consisted of men who were willing to serve abroad as units. But what was the force to be transformed into? As he understood it they were to be transformed into two separate bodies. They were to be transformed into the third battalion or as units to form a portion of the new Territorial Army. As a force he thought the third battalion was hardly worth criticising, because it could not be seriously contended that they could take boys of seventeen, put them under discipline for six months, train them for twenty-one days a year, and then say that they were fit for first class reservists and substitute them for the veteran men of seven or three years service who were now our first line of attack or defence in any war. He thought the proposal of the Government showed that they were not dealing with the matter seriously. He had endeavoured to point out that the men who joined the Territorial Army were engaged specifically by the State on the understanding that they were only to serve in the United Kingdom. The State laid that down, and ordinary men would naturally imagine that the State would keep faith with them. Everyone knew what happened in the past to the Militia. When war broke out the Militia had been obliged to volunteer for foreign service whether they wanted to or not. The new Territorial Army they were going to treat in exactly the same way as the old Militia. If Clause 12 was carried in the shape the right hon. Gentleman wished it seemed to him there would not be any force to go abroad to support the Regular Army in times of emergency. Under that clause the right hon. Gentleman did not say, as he might, that in time of peace the War Office should arrange that certain battalions 1534 or regiments of the new Force should go abroad on foreign service, but in all probability war would break out and we should then have to organise these units of the Territorial Force, a proceeding which seemed to him very unbusinesslike. The suggestion he desired to make would be shut out on Clause 2, but he hoped the Government would entertain the proposal that a proportion of the new Territorial Force should from the beginning be composed exclusively of men who on enlistment undertook the obligation to serve abroad. He trusted the Government would see their way on Report to modify Clause 12 and give the country some force, if this Amendment was not carried, that would take the place of the old Militia. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Regular Force was sadly deficient in men, and that therefore we must have some system to supply drafts, and upon that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present was an opportune moment to reduce that force by 400 officers and 40,000 men.
§ MR. GUY BARING (Winchester)urged the Secretary of State that he should give the Committee some further justification for the hope he had expressed that under his scheme he would have as many battalions as possible for drafts, for garrisoning our home stations, and for guarding lines of communication as he had had in the past. He did not believe he would He did not believe in the theory of provisional battalions. There was no precedent for it. During the whole of the South African War, when the war fever was at its height and recruiting at its best, only six provisional battalions were formed. All the recruits that came forward were absorbed by the Home battalions or at the seat of war. He would like to point out also how poetic justice had overtaken the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman was now asking for drafts and battalions when he had already, by tampering with the Guards, destroyed the best reserve we had ever had and the only battalion which in the history of the British Army had been at such a strength that they could keep two 1535 battalions abroad and one at home at war strength.
§ MR. HALDANEDoes the hon. Gentleman say that those battalions could find drafts?
§ MR. GUY BARINGThey could form new battalions.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 260. (Division List No. 183).
1537| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gavan | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, George Denison (York) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fell, Arthur | Percy, Earl |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcrares, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Forster, Henry William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. | Haddock, George R. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Seddon, J. |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Starkey, John R. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hills, J. W. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Houston, Robert Paterson | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hunt, Rowland | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Thorne, William |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walsh, Stephen |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor. | Macpherson, J. T. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gh'm | Moore, William | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)] | |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | F. E. Smith and Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Castlereagh. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brigg, John | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Brooke, Stopford | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. |
| Agnew, George William | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Armitage, R. | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Astbury, John Meir | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Duckworth, James |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Byles, William Pollard | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cairns, Thomas | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Elibank, Master of |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Chance, Frederick William | Erskine, David C. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Essex, R. W. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Cheetham, John Frederick | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Bell, Richard | Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Fenwick, Charles |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Clough, William | Ferens, T. R. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't | Clynes, J. R. | Findlay, Alexander |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S. |
| Billson, Alfred | Corv, Clifford John | Gill, A. H. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Black, Arthur W. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Glover, Thomas |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Cremer, William Randal | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Crombie, John William | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Branch, James | Crooks, William | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Sears, J. E. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Hall, Frederick | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Shackleton, David James |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Massie, J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mond, A. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Morse, L. L. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Henry, Charles S. | Murray, James | Steadman, W. C. |
| Herbert, Coloner Ivor (Mon., S.) | Myer, Horatio | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Napier, T. B. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Nicholls, George | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Norman, Sir Henry | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hudson, Walter | Partington, Oswald | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Paul, Herbert | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Tillett, Louis John |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Toulmin, George |
| Jones, Lief (Appleby) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Pollard, Dr. | Verney, F. W. |
| Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Walters, John Tudor |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Radford, G. H. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Lamb, Edmund G (Leominster | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wardle, George J. |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Waring, Walter |
| Lambert, George | Rees, J. D. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Lamont, Norman | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Richardson, A. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Rickett, J. Compton | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Levy, Maurice | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David] | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Lough, Thomas | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Lupton, Arnold | Robinson, S. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Macdonald, M. (FalkirkB'ghs | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rose, Charles Day | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Maclean, Donald | Rowlands, J. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Russell, T. W. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| M'Crae, George | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Pease. |
§ VISCOUNT VALENTIA (Oxford)moved to insert after the word "Regulars" the words "and Yeomanry" with the object of excluding the Yeomanry from the operation of the clause. He said that, in doing so, he did not wish to urge the smallest objection to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman's proposal were to start a second Army de novo, the principle of the Bill was an ideal one. The object of 1538 his Amendment was to preserve a force which was just now allowed to be efficient, and to protest against the scheme which, in so far as it concerned that force, could not make it better, and which, if it did not commend itself to the men now serving in the Yeomanry, would lead to the substitution of a force inferior in strength and efficiency to that which they already possessed. He had served for many years in the Yeomanry, and he understood its constitution and the feeling 1539 of those who served in its ranks; he also knew the methods by which the Yeomanry had arrived at its present strength and the secret of its enlistment to that strength. The Yeomanry, he thought he was safe in saving, never was so strong, so efficient, and so well officered as at present. He did not say they were perfect; he did not think that could be said of any auxiliary force; but he did say with confidence that they were still improving. Many of the Yeomanry regiments were now up to their full establishment, and many of them could still further recruit under the existing conditions of service if they were allowed to do so. The actual strength of the Yeomanry force now stood at 92.2 per cent. of its establishment, which compared very favourably with the state of any other branch of the Regular or Auxiliary Forces. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that he would secure greater efficiency in the cavalry of the Territorial Force from the same men trained annually for a less number of days than at present? He said in his Memorandum on the Military Forces that "the Militia and Yeomanry, as they at present exist, are quite unfit to take the field against European troops." Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the Territorial cavalry would be quite fit to undergo that trial when drilled for a shorter time than the Yeomanry now were, with the assistance of possibly a Solicitor-Adjutant instead of a Regular officer? Did the right hon. Gentleman and his military advisers think that they could keep up the strength of the Territorial Cavalry Force to the same level as that at which the Yeomanry now stood, when they reduced their pay by 2s. l0d. a day, with the loss of such characteristics as the regimental title and uniform to which they attached an important, though perhaps a sentimental, value? He was quite sure that if the Bill passed, and it was decided to include the Yeomanry in the general scheme, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might count upon the loyal co-operation of the officers, and that they would combine with die county associations to do their best to make it work, and use every exertion to fill the ranks of the Territorial cavalry; but he could not but see the difficulty that they would have to face, and he was extremely doubtful of their success. 1540 He had within the last few days seen many Yeomanry officers, both those belonging to the regiment in which he had so long served and others, and he had found that the majority of them shared his apprehensions. He was unable to see what advantage was expected from the inclusion of the Yeomanry in the scheme contemplated in the Bill. If there was any prospect of improvement, he would not dream of such an Amendment as he proposed. All that he could see to be said for it was that it would tend to uniformity in the Territorial Army, and might produce a reduction in cost; but of that he was by no means assured. For the sake of uniformity he did not think any convulsion of the present Yeomanry system was worth while. Uniformity was conspicuously absent from any present military system, as the many and varied conditions under which the men now served amply showed, and the economy which would be achieved was, he could not but think, visionary. It was proposed to reduce the Yeoman's pay by 2s. 10d. a day, but it had to be remembered that when he joined the Territorial Force he would be entitled to a far more complete and expensive kit than that now supplied to him by the public. At present nothing was found for him beyond his cloth clothes, but when enlisted on a Militia basis, he concluded that a free full kit would be supplied to him, which would much discount the saving made from the 2s. 10d. by which his pay was to be cut. If that were so, he did not think the advantages to be desired from uniformity and economy were worth considering, and he did not know that any other could be urged. The disadvantages appeared to him both many and great. There was every probability that many of the present Yeomen would not accept the terms offered to the territorial cavalry, so that the numbers of the new force would fall short of the present Yeomanry strength. It might be said, that if those men would not serve at the new rate of pay, there were plenty of others that would. That might be so, but he thought it reasonable to suppose that they would probably be men of inferior social status to the present Yeomen, and, if so, they would detract from the number who might be expected to enlist in the territorial infantry, being the class now serving in the Militia. 1541 Then he had gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said in the House that men enlisted previous to the date when the Bill came into force would serve their time under their then contract. The effect of that would be that in the event of present Yeomen re-engaging they would be serving at 2s. 8d. a day for one, two, or it might be nearly three years alongside of comrades drawing 5s. 6d., the former being the old soldiers, and naturally appraising themselves higher than recruits. The odious comparison thus obtained would not lead to the number of re-engagements which were so much to be desired, if not essential to the effective working of the scheme. To avoid that anomalous state of things it seemed to him that the only course open to the right hon. Gentleman was to allow the old conditions to go on till the latest contracts, made before the enforcement of the Act, expired, and then to start his territorial cavalry under the new terms of enlistment. That he regarded as inevitable, as it seemed to him of the highest importance to encourage re-engagement of present Yeomen as much as possible if the new force was to be a success. If that were so the Yeomen would go on under their present engagement for three years after the passing of that Bill. In that time much might happen. It was possible that by then His Majesty might be advised by other statesmen than those who now adorned the Ministerial Benches, with views on Army matters which did not coincide with those of the present Government. But even if the territorial scheme of the right hon. Gentleman held the field, there seemed to him no reason why the Yeomanry, as at present constituted, should not still, as he proposed in his Memorandum, "form the cavalry of the Territorial Force," be under the administrative control of the county associations, maintaining their present strength and efficiency, and, to use his own words, "assist in the realisation of the scheme which is that the Territorial Force shall be in itself an army complete in the various arms and organisations as nearly as possible upon the same pattern as the Regular troops." The case of the Yeomanry was wholly distinct from that of the Militia and the Volunteers. He knew little or nothing of the Auxiliary Forces beyond what was known to every hon. Member of the Committee. 1542 He believed that in the Militia there was a lamentable shortage of men, and the Volunteers experienced a corresponding lack of officers. No doubt the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would to some extent make good the deficiencies in the forces which he proposed to create by the Bill, but the Yeomanry were entirely differently situated. The Yeomanry for many years, thanks to the energy of the officers who served in it and the generous encouragement given to it by the War Office, since the South African War had been steadily increasing in strength and efficiency. It was well officered, and the force all round was a credit to the counties in which it was raised upon a genuine territorial basis. They knew the capabilities of that force, which he did not think could be exceeded by any territorial cavalry created under the proposed scheme, which would be trained less and paid worse. He had listened most carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and the reasons he had given for rejecting the last Amendment in regard to the Militia, but he did not think any one of the powerful arguments used could possibly be urged against the Amendment which he now proposed. Such conditions as the Secretary of State for War had described in the Militia did not exist in the case of the Yeomanry. They were short of men in the Militia, but there were plenty of men in the Yeomanry. They were short of officers in the Volunteers, but there were plenty in the Yeomanry. They were a cavalry force ready to his hand, and it seemed a very unwise thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not make full use of it and let well alone. In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would recognise the danger of sacrificing a bird in the hand while there was hardly one and certainly not two in the bush, and the folly of throwing away the bone for the shadow, he begged to move his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Regulars' to insert the words 'and Yeomanry.'"—(Viscount Valentia.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that if anybody could induce the Committee to give 1543 different treatment to the Yeomanry than was proposed for the Militia it would be the noble Lord, who had one of the best of records as a Yeomanry officer, and he knew from personal experience that a high sense of duty was associated with the officers and men of the noble Lord's regiment. But the question was not one merely of uniformity and economy; it was a question of introducing system where confusion now reigned and of organising efficiency where, through no fault of individuals, it did not now exist. The functions of cavalry were noWmore precise than they were in old days, and it was clear that there was necessity for training in combination with other branches of the military services, and for the first time the Yeomanry would be given that training. The training would not be quite so long, but it would be much more systematic under the eyes of the general staff. In no part of the work of organisation carried out by the general staff had the result been more striking than in relation to the cavalry, and the functions it would have to perform in the Territorial Force, differing in some respects from those of the Regulars, but of the same pattern. The cavalry would be organised in three sections. One class would be called the strategical cavalry, which would operate ahead of the main force, probably upon the flank of the enemy, and must be extremely mobile and accustomed to work with artillery. The second class would be the screen cavalry interposed between the advancing force and the enemy's force; and then there would be the cavalry to work with the main force. Those were distinctly new functions which were not defined until the general staff worked them out, and they were instances of the actual advance which had been made within the last three months. He invited the Committee to look at the bearing of that upon the position of the Yeomanry. The Yeomanry force could no longer be regarded as being "in the air," for they must be trained to fulfil their function with the divisions of the Home Army. He wished this second line force as nearly as possible to be moulded upon the same principles as the first line, and to correspond to its organisation so that it would be a real support should the emergency arise. That was why they could not keep up the Yeomanry as they were at the present 1544 time. It was true the pay would be cut down; but how could a state of things be justified in which men engaged in the same service received pay largely in excess of that of their comrades? Unless they were in earnest in carrying out their intentions they could not make the organisation work. The rate of pay must be the same throughout the service. In the event of war the difference in pay would operate badly, and had so operated; it would introduce discontent and unrest and mar the good effect intended. With proper equipment there was no reason to doubt that the Yeomanry would become more efficient. He also saw the possibility of giving the Yeomanry a more thorough training. Their present training, he was advised, rendered it impossible for them to be quite an efficient force. There would tinder the new arrangement be a possibility of giving a far better training than at the present time. One of the deficiencies of the Yeomanry and which rendered it impossible for it to be an effective force would disappear when it was combined with other arms according to a system which had been carefully thought out. To his mind it would be fatal to accept the Amendment. They would create unrest between the two lines by the differential treatment, and they would be doing the Yeomanry themselves the worst service. There would be a transition period from the old to the new, and he had no doubt that, actuated in the high spirit in which the noble Lord had spoken, the force would observe the new conditions. Notwithstanding the gloomy views of the noble Lord, he had no fear but that the Territorial Force would do their duty.
§ LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)said the argument that the Yeomanry could not go into combined training did not hold good. There was nothing to prevent it. Several Yeomanry regiments, he believed, had already undergone a certain amount of instruction in work with artillery and infantry. Apparently the real argument which had decided the right hon. Gentleman was that of pay. He could not see his way to paying 5s. a day. Personally, he was one of those who felt sure that in a few years under the new treatment the Yeomanry would disappear. An enormous improvement had taken place in 1545 the force since he first knew it, and it seemed a great pity that an efficient force, or at any rate a force which had attained to a very considerable standard of efficiency, should be sacrificed. The argument that the Militia were not efficient could not be applied to the Yeomanry. The Yeomanry cost 14s. per head less than the Militia, and numbered, according to the latest Returns, 25,000 effectives. They would not object to serving with the Territorial Army under the county associations, but they should be left as a distinct force. It was quite true that some Yeomen at the end of a training went away with £7 in their pockets, but those were exceptional cases. It was admitted that if a man was to do the work incidental to cavalry training he must be given more pay than the infantry man. It should be remembered that he had to groom and water his horse and clean his saddlery as well as his own kit. If they were to pay a cavalry soldier only 2d. or 3d. a day more than the infantry man in the Territorial Army they were not likely to get many to join the mounted corps. One of the most astonishing things nowadays was the small number of people, even among farmers' sons, who could ride, and on account of his inevitable physical discomfort, he pitied the Yeoman who could not ride after his first day's training. Let the Committee imagine a man in that condition having to set to work on the numerous duties which would fall to his lot. At the end of the training it was pretty certain he would strongly advise his friends to stick to walking. The Yeomanry officers would be downhearted at the results year by year getting worse, and the end would be the sacrifice of a force of which most of their officers were proud.
§ MR. GUEST (Cardiff District)said he had heard the speech of the Secretary of State for War with great regret. He had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was reconsidering the attitude which he took up when he first introduced his scheme. He did not understand the present attitude of the Secretary of State. He had set his heart on the creation of a Territorial Army, and the first thing he did was to jeopardise the part most difficult to create. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would say that the Yeomanry was not an 1546 efficient arm. If that was his opinion, he hoped he would have the candour to say so, and they would understand that he did not view with much regret its possible disappearance; but if the right hon. Gentleman regarded the Yeomanry as an efficient body, surely there was nothing which he could put in its place which would be as good for the purpose he had in hand. He assumed from what had been said that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Yeomanry was a satisfactory force as at present constituted. What was the opinion of the Yeomanry officers in the House? He did not believe there was a dingle officer who would not say that in his judgment, if the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was carried out, the Yeomanry would disappear altogether. The right hon. Gentleman would smash the Yeomanry as one would smash an egg with a hammer. If the right hon. Gentleman did not think so, could he produce anybody who had served in the Yeomanry who was of a different opinion?
§ MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N,)I have served in the Yeomanry, and I am of a different opinion.
§ MR. GUESTsaid the right hon. Gentleman was fortunate in having one supporter. There were always two opinions. He ventured to say that 99 per cent. of the Yeomanry officers were of opinion that the force would be destroyed. He was at a loss to understand why the pay of the Yeomanry should be reduced. What on earth did the right hon. Gentleman think he would gain by introducing uniformity into his Territorial Army which would be comparable with the loss sustained by the destruction of the Yeomanry? The idea of combined training and having all arms represented in the Territorial Army was invaluable, but those advantages would wholly disappear if, in the result, one of the arms—cavalry—was wholly wanting. If the pay of the Yeomanry was reduced, as was now proposed, in case of emergency they would have to pay them 10s. a day instead of 5s. That was proved to be the case during the South African War. The right hon. Gentleman could not have had experience of the difficulty of recruiting for the Yeomanry, and if the pay of the men was reduced the force would dwindle and ultimately disappear as an effective 1547 unit. He had spoken feelingly and perhaps too strongly; but he had a very keen interest in this branch of the service, and it was because he had at heart the success of the Territorial Army that he did not want to see the cavalry part of it destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman had been introducing economies into Army administration, and he hoped that he would further reduce the Regular forces so that he would have more money to assist the Territorial Army. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman generally, but he hoped that he would yet relent in regard to his economies on the Yeomanry, which, if insisted on, would be absolutely fatal to his own scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his position, he (Mr. Guest) would vote for the Amendment.
§ *SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)said he hoped and trusted that the Territorial Army would be a success, and he would do everything he could to support it. When he first joined the Yeomanry ten years ago, when they went into training the men were billeted; but now they were encamped, and their horses were picketed in the open. The conditions of training were, therefore, entirely different, consequently the remark of the hon. Member for North Buckinghamshire was hardly relevant, as he had no experience of existing conditions. The Secretary for War had asked how they could put two men side by side, the Cavalry soldier paid at the rate of 1s.2d. per day, and a Yeomanry soldier paid at the rate of 5s. per day? But the right hon. Gentleman had entirely forgotten that the first contingent of Yeomanry who were sent out to South Africa were paid at Cavalry rates; and it was only when they went to street corners and picked up all the rag-tag and bob-tail for the second contingent that they had to pay 5s. a day to induce the men to join. In case of war the men did not care for pay; patriotism was their first consideration. But in peace training the men came out, not so much from a patriotic point of view, as for the purpose of an outing. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had really considered the different classes of Yeomanry. For instance, Lord Lovat's Scouts in Scotland could not be compared with the West Kent Yeomanry to which he belonged; they were an 1548 entirely different class of men. The former were made up of gillies and keepers who rode on rough ponies, and no doubt made excellent scouts and mounted Infantry. On the other hand, the Southern regiments of Yeomanry were made up of men of the very best class. With all due respect to the Volunteers, he ventured to think that there was no force in the country of so good a class as the Yeomanry. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to make those men pay out of their own pockets for their training, which they regarded as a cheap and pleasant; holiday, the present men would not come out. He might be able to recruit a certain number of men called Yeomanry under his territorial scheme, but if the conditions were made harder and less comfortable, he would not obtain the same class of men. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yet reconsider his decision. In regard to combined training, at present the training lasted eighteen days, but during that period they were entitled to so much leave in order to look after their business either on their farms or in town. Under the new scheme the period of training was to be reduced to fourteen days, and he would like to know what was proposed in regard to leave during that period. Again, in regard to combined training there were all sorts of conditions which a commanding officer of a Yeomanry regiment had to take into consideration in calling the men out, such as the hay harvest and other agricultural exigencies. He was sure that there was no officer who would not welcome any scheme for combined training, but the special conditions under which Yeomanry regiments had to come out must be taken into consideration. At the present time the Yeomanry were under the General Staff of the Army, and his experience was that they were inspected by one or two generals who came down for that purpose during each training. Surely, therefore, they came under the General Staff, and he did not see how they could be more under that staff under a Territorial scheme. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise that he could not class and deal with the Yeomanry in one lump. He must consider the differences which existed in regiments and one might even say the differences which existed 1549 in squadrons. In his own regiment, for example, they had squadrons drawn from agricultural districts and others drawn from London districts. He thought no one would disagree with him when he said that if they obtained young men from London—telegraph clerks and others engaged in similar occupations in London or the suburbs—and made them able to use the rifle, and carry out the functions of a cavalry soldier, they were conferring a great benefit not only upon them but upon the community at large. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision so as not to discourage that particular class.
MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E. R. Holderness)also urged the Government to reconsider this question. Every Yeomanry officer though out the country would agree with the speech made by the hon. Member for Cardiff. They believed that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme if it included the Yeomanry would mean the ruin of that force. He did not speak in any Party spirit, as he was not opposed to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He believed there was a great deal of good in it, but on this particular point he was in utter disagreement with the Government. The Yeomanry, as at present constituted, had worked extremely well. As the Member for Horncastle had pointed, out, it was the one great success of Mr. Brodrick's Army scheme. When that scheme was brought in the Yeomanry numbered some 9,000 men, and at the present time they were somewhere about 24,000. He had the honour of holding a commission in one of the regiments formed under Mr. Brodrick's scheme, and that regiment had proved a great success. On Friday next they would be going out for their fifth annual training, and he wished the Secretary for War could go and see for himself the work done by the regiment. He entirely disagreed with the assertion that the Yeomanry did not undergo an effective training. If the War Secretary would take an excursion to Scarborough next week they would show him something which would open his eyes considerably as to what a Yeoman did on his annual training. He would see a regiment which was unquestionably as efficient as any in the country. The right hon. Gentleman had 1550 said that his main objection to the Yeomanry regiments was that they did not go in for combined training: that showed how little he had studied the subject. If he had looked into it ha would have found out that there were three regiments in the north of England, including his (the hon. Member's) own, which had trained together, and with artillery. He did not, however, claim for his regiment that it was the only efficient one, as he asserted that all the Yeomanry regiments were efficient. But the Government would not improve those regiments if they reduced their pay, because such a step would damp the enthusiasm of the men. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of a man who took away £7 from his annual training, but £5 of that would be for his horse, that being the almost universal charge for a horse for the period. Therefore, while he might receive £7, only 30s. or £2 would go into his own pocket. Up to the present the Yeomanry had been enabled to appeal to a different class of men from those who were attracted by the Militia and the Volunteers. If all these forces were placed upon the same basis, however, they would all have to appeal to the same class of men. If the right hon. Gentleman would go north as he had suggested he could show him the different classes of men they appealed to. He had one squadron, a town squadron, which appealed to a totally different class of men from the Volunteers. The commanding officer of the district when they started the squadron expressed the fear that it might seriously affect the recruiting for the Volunteers, but that gallant officer had told him since that it had not had the slightest effect upon Volunteer recruiting as they attracted a different class of men altogether. The men in the Yeomanry force up to the present time had shown the greatest keenness, and had done good work, and he earnestly appealed to the Secretary of State for War not to interfere with the force as it stood at the present moment. There had been an appeal, in which every commanding officer of Yeomanry had joined, to the right hon. Gentleman not to include that force in his scheme, and he thought that some consideration should be given to an appeal of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman had listened so far as to allow them to go on recruiting on the old terms for 1551 three years, and a good deal might happen in that period; they might even be deprived of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury beach, and have someone there who would treat the Yeomanry with greater fairness.
§ MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)said he had had the honour to serve in the Yeomanry in past years although he regretted that he was not a member of the force at present. He did not think that ruin and reorganisation were the same thing, and this Bill was intended not to ruin, but to reorganise the Yeomanry. He did not think that the Government intended to do anything to interfere with the success of the Yeomanry. He believed that the change which would, under the Government scheme, come about in a very few years would give the Yeomanry an opportunity to do even better work than it was now doing for the country. There was one thing about which every Yeoman was very keen, and that was that serious and responsible work should be given them to do, and that class of work was going to be given to them in the new Territorial Force. He could not read in the Bill anything approaching to the ruin of the Yeomanry. If he rightly read the second clause, it would be the duty of the County Associations to ascertain the military resources of the county, and they all knew how necessary that was because the military resources of each county differed widely according to the nature of the county and the habits of those who lived there. In some counties there was always hunting going on, and in counties like Buckinghamshire there were a number of skilled men who understood horses and other matters which would be useful in the service. He, however, also wanted to appeal to the Government on the question of pay. In the Yeoman they had a man ready at any time of the year to serve his country with a horse. It was true than the man with his horse only went out for training for a few days in the year, but still they were always ready. What he wished to urge was that the Government should not attempt to buy retail at wholesale prices. The cavalry soldier had his pay all the year round and had a pension to look forward to, and in order to be a soldier he did not give up a remunerative occupation as the Yeoman 1552 did. They all knew that the Yeoman, while he was serving his country, would have been, during that time, remuneratively employed, and, in order to go through their training many of them gave up what to them was a considerable sum of money. He did not appeal for high pay, but he asked that the Yeoman should not be paid at the rate of the cavalry soldier in the Regulars, but have higher pay when he came out in time of peace. When on active service together no soldier would wish to have anything better than his comrade. He asked his right hon. friend seriously to consider whether he was not trying to get at a wholesale price a retail article when he asked the Yeomanry to come out for his training on the pay that a trooper in the dragoon regiments got. He would like to point out that a Yeomanry regiment depended for its efficiency largely on the capacity of its adjutant, and he doubted very much whether it was advisable to have any change in the adjutants of those regiments which might tend to make them less efficient. The increased efficiency of the Yeomanry had in recent years been proved by the fact that they did such excellent work in South Africa. He claimed to be as keen an old Yeoman, as any one in the country, and he had the greatest possible desire for the maintenance of the success and efficiency of that force.
§ *COLONEL WARDE (Kent, Medway)said he would like to add a word to the appeal that had been made to the Secretary of State for War in this matter. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments and had failed to find one to show that if the Yeomanry was reorganised in the way proposed it would become more efficient than it was to-day. He had had some experience of the matter, having served as the adjutant of his regiment a quarter of a century ago and having served for the last seven years in command of the same regiment. He well remembered in the dark days of the South African War the appeals made to the country. The War Office had only to place a sum of money in the hands of the Yeomanry officers and in six weeks they produced a force of 10,000 men as fine and as well equipped as any that had 1553 been sent to the front. Although they all believed the right hon. Gentleman's only desire was to improve their efficiency, he must have already heard that the very thought of their being placed under this different system had stopped recruiting altogether, and especially the recruiting of that part of the force from which they obtained the best non-commissioned officers. It took years to make a non-commissioned officer in the Army, but in the Yeomanry they were obliged to make them quickly, and they took them from the farmers and master tradesmen of the towns—men who were used to some, responsibility. Those were the men who would volunteer when the time came, but who could not be expected to bind themselves down year in and year out to leave their business or occupation at any moment. No doubt training with other forces was a most valuable experience, but they could not be taught to run before they could walk, and when regard was had to the short time the regiment was called together to train, it would be seen that it was impossible to combine in that period more than the training necessary to make a good soldier. He reminded the Committee with regard to the rate of pay that a good deal more had to come out of the Yeoman's pay than out of the pay of the ordinary cavalry man. One thing that had to be remembered was that the soldier served all the year, the Yeoman received pay only for a fortnight, and the same rate of pay as was given to the cavalry man could not be considered sufficient, although in time of war the pay was not a matter of consideration to anybody. In his quota of the 10,000 men sent to South Africa he had a captain in the Militia, a naval officer, and a young country squire, and not any of the men he provided went to South Africa for the sake of the pay. It was true that the men sent out afterwards did, and the result was that they had all the scallywags in the country coming to learn to ride and shoot for the sake of 5s. a day. But they were found to be a very different class of men from those who were first sent out. Experience showed that if men were treated with consideration and common sense there was no difficulty in getting the right class of men in the Yeomanry. Many were men of independent means, who gave up their holiday in order to come out to train, and they 1554 ought to be treated differently from the rank and file of the cavalry regiments. Having regard to the wonderful improvements which had taken place in the last ten years, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised in accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)said that under this scheme they would practically destroy the Yeomanry, a force about which he knew something, because he had served in the north of Scotland, where the gillies, keepers, and shepherds wont up for training, and where the money that they got was very useful to them. He had also served with the Shropshire Yeomanry, where they had exactly the reverse conditions—the kind of Yeomanry force in which the noble Lord the Member for Oxford had served for so many years. He would point out that in both those cases this scheme would destroy the two sorts of Yeomanry. In the case of the Lovat's Scouts, to which he belonged, in the north of Scotland, they were practically taking away from the men 3s. per day—money which they used to take home to help them through the winter. A good many of the men took home with them from £8 to £12. They could not expect men in that position to go on when they reduced their pay to the extent proposed. In reducing the pay of the Shropshire Yeomanry to that extent the result would be that, instead of being able to live on their pay, the men would have to live like the ordinary British Tommy, which he was quite sure they would decline to do, or they would have to spend a considerable sum out of their own pockets. Although no people were more patriotic than the Shropshire farmers, yet he did not believe that they would stand that for one moment. The Government were going to destroy both those classes of Yeomen, and he did not see how they were going to get out of it if they reduced the pay to the extent proposed. The Secretary of State for War had said that the Yeomanry did not get an efficient training. He thought that the Secretary for War ought to know what the Yeomanry went through in the way of training. At the present moment the regiment to which he belonged were preparing in Inverness-shire to invade 1555 Perthshire, and he really did not think they could have any more effective training than that. Before they did away with what were practically the best of the Yeomen, they should remember that mounted infantry, which the Yeomen practically were at the present time, were an extremely useful arm. They could perform the duties of the advanced guard of an army, and those were the most difficult that they could ask any men to discharge. He had seen mounted infantry do advanced guard work and do it well after about four months of training. If they were going to do away with the Yeomanry to a great extent, they would have to increase their cavalry, which would cost them a great deal more. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman should consider very carefully before he did away with the Yeomanry. Even if they could get the infantry from the Territorial Army, what were they going to do without any form of cavalry? Of all the Auxiliary Forces it was generally allowed by the military experts, and even by the man in the street, that, on the whole, the Yeomanry were the most efficient. If the Secretary of State for War insisted on treating the Yeomanry in this way the result would be that he would have practically no mounted troops for his Territorial Army.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)said he had hoped that the Secretary for War would be able to fall in with the suggestion of his noble friend instead of taking up such a decided non possumus attitude on the subject. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather misunderstood one portion of the speech of his hon. friend, when he said that the Yeomanry had to be trained before they could fulfil their functions. Nothing which had been said that night, or by any Yeomanry officer, justified anybody in suggesting that the force was anything but willing and anxious to fulfil its functions. The Amendment had been moved on behalf of the Yeomanry force, because those who supported it believed that their exclusion from the Bill was the best way to ensure that they might be able to fulfil their functions. It dealt primarily with the question of control. Were the county associations the best organisations to deal with the Yeomanry force? He thought that there would be a great deal of techni- 1556 cal difficulty connected with that point. There were certain counties which had Yeomanry, and there were counties which had a great many more Yeomanry than other counties; as the Bill was at present drafted, there was bound to be overlapping, and difficulties from that point of view. A man now serving in a particular cavalry regiment might be disqualified from doing so in future because he did not belong to a particular area of a particular county association.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEThat is provided for in the Bill.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not think it was, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman in his reply would make that clear. It was a rather significant fact that not one Member who had spoken, except the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, had had one good word to say for this scheme from the point of view of the Yeomanry. The hon. Member for North Buckinghamshire had announced that he was going to support the Government, but his speech was a most damaging criticism of their proposal. As a Yeomanry officer the hon. Member professed, goodwill towards the Bill, but there were plenty of other officers also who were naturally anxious that the scheme should be a success, because if it was not they all knew what, in two or three years time, the result might be. Practically the whole Yeomanry force were arrayed against the Government on the Bill as applied to themselves. It was common knowledge that the colonels commanding the Yeomanry regiments bad unanimously informed the War Office that the scheme under which they would have to work in future, in their opinion, was extremely bad and dangerous for the Yeomanry. How could the War Office, in face of that, refuse to consider their opinion? After all, those officers were practical men; they were the men who commanded the regiments; they were the men who in many instances had led them with success during the war; was it right that their view should be entirely disregarded? They had been met on one point with regard to the question of emolument. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Medway Division of Kent, who had also experience as a commanding officer, had told the House of 1557 Commons, as a fact, that the effect of the Bill had already been to discourage enlistment in the Yeomanry of precisely the class of men who rendered the force efficient, and were capable of careful and valuable service. He believed himself that the attitude of the Government was fundamentally connected with finance more than anything else. The original scheme applied to the yeomen saved a good deal of money, and that was sufficient for the immediate purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was impossible to pay to the yeoman more than was paid to the ordinary dragoon, because differentiation of pay was out of the question. The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff had blown that argument to pieces. He had shown that there was already differentiation of pay in all classes, both of the Auxiliary and of Regular Services. And the hon. Member who supported the scheme had put the matter in a nutshell when he said that the rates proposed by the Government for the Yeomanry meant asking to buy retail at wholesale prices. He thought that was a just and pithy criticism on the part of the hon. Member. But so far from its being the case that differentiation was impossible, the whole scheme of the Government was based on differentiation of pay, and in a very objectionable form. It was a differentiation not merely between the Yeomanry on the one hand and the artillery on the other, but between the ordinary soldiers in a particular grade. The scheme proposed differentiation in a most objectionable and dangerous form, because it produced jealousy between one officer and another in the same regiment. Even from a theoretical point of view he did not think the scheme would hold water. The idea that they could not differentiate between the Yeomanry and the other forces was wholly untenable. That idea was the main basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but he had been obliged to support it upon other grounds. He had stated that it was impossible, under present conditions, to make the Yeomanry effective. The hon. Member for Cardiff had made a direct challenge to the Government on that point and had asked the right hon. Gentleman if he meant that the present condition of the Yeomanry was unsatisfactory. Was that the view of the Government? When the right hon. Gentleman said it was 1558 impossible to make them effective, did he mean that the Yeomanry were ineffective and inefficient at the present moment? Considering the manifold difficulties which they had to face he thought they were a very efficient force, and they now numbered 92 per cent. of their establishment. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to improve them? Owing to the mania for uniformity on the part of the War Office all these forces had to be brought under the same governing authority, and in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that was an improvement. As a matter of fact it was nothing of the kind, because it was merely a nominal alteration. What was going to be done to increase the efficiency of the Yeomanry? The Secretary of State for War had said the change was necessary in order to have combined training. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how the putting of the Yeomanry under county associations would make it more easy for them to have combined training. Combined training was possible now, and in many cases it was being carried out. There were, however, a large number of cases in which combined training was impossible now, and in regard to which it would remain impossible after the county associations had been established. In agricultural districts where the yeomen had to go to their occupations during a particular season of the year, they would continue under that disability, although perhaps the bulk of them could take their training later in the year. He thought there was a great danger of diminishing both the strength and the effectiveness of the Yeomanry under the new conditions. It was not a question of the payment of 1s. 3d. as against 4s. 6d. He thought the case made out for continuing the pay of the Yeomanry as at present was unanswerable, but there were other questions apart from pay which were very serious, and he knew that it was the unanimous opinion of the officers commanding these regiments that unless the Government consented to extend the concession they had already made the future position of the Yeomanry force would be very precarious indeed.
§ MAJOR SEELYdid not think the Amendment well conceived, because if any force was to be under the county associations the Yeomanry ought to be part of that organisation. At the same 1559 time, he sympathised with many of the arguments that had been used with regard to the pay of the Yeomanry force. Having served himself in the Yeomanry for more than eighteen years he had some knowledge of how the proposal was likely to affect that force. The Secretary of State had confused two things; he had confused the services of the Yeomanry in time of war and the services of the Yeomanry in time of peace. The Yeomanry were prepared to serve at cavalry rates of pay in time of war. But in time of peace the yeoman served for fifteen or eighteen days and received, including allowances, anything from £7 to £8 for his services, while the cavalryman served for the whole year and received anything from £20 to £30 for his services. There was no analogy between the two. In many cases, even at the present rate of pay, a yeoman, after paying a man to do his job and getting a horse, returned from his training £2 or £4 out of pocket. Would it not be better in the case of the Yeomanry to say, "We will make up this man's pay by allowance for his horse, his food, and his camp; a consolidated grant shall be given to him to make up the total to as much as he received before"? He sympathised with the view of the Secretary of State that in time of war the payment should be the same to all branches of the force, and he would suggest a way out of the difficulty. The Government ought to pay these men a higher rate in time of peace, otherwise they would not get them to serve at all. Many yeomen he know were actually out of pocket by serving the State at the present rate of pay. His right hon. friend need have no fear that the Yeomanry would ask for a higher rate of pay in time of war. If they went to war—as many of them did along with himself a few years ago— they would not require a higher rate of pay. During the South African War, owing to some miscalculation as to the strength of the Boer Army, it was announced that the war was practically over, and many members of the Yeomanry, the Militia, and the Volunteer Forces wished to return home, because they were suffering great loss in connection with their businesses and professions. In the case of his own regiment the men were quite willing to serve as long as there was a real war, but they did not 1560 want to be kept doing garrison duty. They were offered 5s. a day, but all the men in his squadron signed a document stating that they did not wish to receive a higher rate of pay than their comrades in the field. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite realised how grave a step he was taking in proposing to reduce the pay of these men in time of peace. He had heard many Army debates, and whenever there had been any proposal to reduce the expenditure or decrease the pay of the soldier hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and more especially those sitting on the Front Benches, had said, "Remember that one thing you can never do is to reduce the pay of any single man in His Majesty's Forces." He had heard it stated that for the last 200 years there had never been any reduction in the pay of the soldier. That was probably the reason why the cost of the Army kept on increasing. By proposing to reduce the pay of the Yeomanry they were suggesting a thing which had never been done before, and it was being proposed in regard to a force which had admittedly served the country well in the past and had been a success. The Yeomanry did not mind the loss of the money so much, but what they did resent was the idea that having been singled out to suffer a diminution of pay they were open to the suspicion that they were less efficient than the rest of the force. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to state the reasons why he was asking the members of the Territorial Force to accept the same rate of pay as their comrades in the Regular Army. Would it not be better to lay down a daily rate of pay, and to say in the case of the Yeomanry, as had already been said in the case of the Volunteers, that those men's pay would be made up to as much as they received before by allowances for providing a horse and for camp expenses? That was not too much to ask at a time when they were making a great effort to create a Territorial Army. He need hardly say how much he sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to create this national Army, but he thought the Government should not reduce the pay of the men who were asked to undertake higher obligations. The Secretary of State for War made a great mistake if he thought the Yeomanry 1561 consisted of feather-bed soldiers. They would do anything they were asked to do provided the Government did not put on them the ignominy of being singled out for a reduction of pay. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest this reduction on the ground of economy. The noble Lord had said that many of the proposals were dictated by considerations of economy. That was not a bad thing to be governed by, but he found, from calculations which he had made that in this matter the cost would be the paltry sum of £12,000 a year. He wished well to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, and would give it all the support he could. He belonged to a Yeomanry regiment, and he wished to see it thrive and prosper in the service of the State.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid no one could accuse him of want of sympathy with any of His Majesty's Forces. If it were correct to say that no reduction of pay had ever before been made in the House, then his right hon. friend the Secretary for War had a courage which apparently no other responsible Minister had had, because he was making, not only one, but two reductions of pay. If hon. Members would look at the pay which it was proposed to give the Volunteer—the Territorial infantryman—they would see he was to receive during his fifteen days in camp the pay of a private of the Regulars. It was notorious that hitherto a Volunteer private who went into camp for fifteen days got half-a crown a day.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)I have been in camp often, but have never had anything like that.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there were other corps than that to which 1562 the hon. and gallant Member belonged. In this matter the Secretary for War had, at all events, the courage of his opinion. The Member for Shropshire had said that 3s. a day was going to be deducted from the Yeoman's pay under the present proposals. The cost of messing in various Yeomanry regiments differed enormously—from 1s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. a day. If they retained the Yeoman at 1s. 6d., and he had not 4 s. 6d. to pay out of the messing allowance, he practically lost nothing by the present arrangement. There was undoubtedly some reduction, but the cost of the Yeomanry to the country at the present moment was based on the most extravagant regiment scale. A great deal of that cost was unnecessary and undesirable. What his right hon. friend proposed to do was to arrange that the Yeoman in the ordinary economical regiment should not lose anything. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley seemed to suggest that the management of the County Associations would be of no practical assistance and might be some hindrance. In every county there would be a County Association, so that where a regiment was recruited from two counties, each Association, having full power to cooperate with the neighbouring Association, would do all that was required within the county area to promote the benefit of the regiment. There would not merely be no overlapping but there would be brought in a fresh power of assistance for raising recruiting, and maintaining a regiment. In future the commanding officer of a Yeomanry regiment would be able to bring the units together, and there would not merely be no overlapping, but there would be brought in under the County Association, a fresh power of assistance for raising, recruiting, and maintaining a regiment. There was one other point. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite had said 1563 that if the pay of the Yeomanry was reduced, it would damage recruiting, and extinguish the force. He did not for a moment believe that. Again, it had been said that the Yeomanry came out for a cheap holiday; if that were so, he did not think the House ought to pay an unnecessarily high rate in order to provide the men with a cheap holiday.
§ *MR. HUNTsaid he denied that the Yeomanry came out for a cheap holiday. They came out to do their duty to their country; but they did not want to pay a lot of money out of their own pocket in order to serve their country. The present pay was only sufficient to feed them decently, and enable them to live comfortably; but they were not likely to come out and live like ordinary "Tommies." [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because they were of a different class. One class of Yeomanry was composed of big farmers, and he did not think it was fair to say that they went out for a cheap holiday.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he did not allege that they did so. He had only quoted the words used by the hon. Member for West Marylebone. He did not know whether the holiday was cheap, but an hon. Member opposite had said that many of the men took away after training from £8 to £10. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."]
§ *MR. HUNTsaid the hon. Gentleman did not understand the matter at all. There were two sorts of Yeomanry, one composed of people such as gillies, keepers, and small crofters, whom it paid to come out, and the other composed of big farmers, yeomen, and others, such as were found in the Midlands, Yorkshire and elsewhere, who were quite willing to 1564 come out and do their duty if it was not going to cost them a lot of money.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)said that the Yeomanry were looking forward to the time when they would take their place alongside the cavalry of the Line in the event of war. They were prepared to go side by side with the Regular cavalry no matter to what part of the world. If the Yeomanry were to be trained only to assist in defending these shores from invasion, the debate was not worth the time spent upon it. If they were to be controlled by the County Associations he was sure that they would not be prepared to go abroad in time of war. They had heard from the Front Bench that the pay of the Yeomanry was to be reduced, and that he considered unwise. The Yeomanry had been built up with some difficulty by those who understood the requirements of the class who joined it, not only in England but in Scotland and Ireland. By the step proposed they would strike a weighty blow at a very valuable branch of the service. It had been argued that the Yeoman would not suffer, but he could not conceive how that could be so if his pay and allowances were reduced. It was a bad sign if such a revolutionary step was taken and an attempt made to tamper with the pay of the men. Another change to which he objected was that the Yeomanry would be given a field day only with Auxiliaries instead of with high-class Regulars. A large number of the Yeomanry under the proposed scheme would not be able to go to the front in time of war; the proposal would take away from that force, its recruiting ground, and it would be found difficult in time of national crisis to gather these hardy countrymen together to carry out the class of work they now did. The 1565 existing basis of the force was an excellent one and capable of extension. The present scheme had been founded upon the false assumption that a force was needed for guarding our shores. He thought that was an unfortunate expression, because if our shores were attacked there was not a man in the House, old or young, who would not go down straight away to defend them. All they needed if the foe landed would be for each of them to take a rifle and go out and do his duty to his country. What should be in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was the idea of getting hold of the most capable men who in the event of war could be sent abroad; it was no use looking at the scheme from the Home defence point of view. They had therefore to ask themselves whether they would do better with the new scheme than by leaving the Yeomanry as it was. He had the honour of raising a Yeomanry squadron once and he knew something about recruiting in time of war, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to allow the yeomanry to go on on the plan which had been laid down with great skill, and perfect themselves. A great blow would be struck at the force if this scheme went through, and although every one of them would do their best to make it a success they could not help deploring the right hon. Gentleman's proposals as to the Yeomanry.
§ MR. GUESTwished to know whether the position which the Government took up was that the Yeoman would be no loser by the proposed financial rearrangement.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid the pay of the Yeomanry would not be more than that of the Cavalry, but the comfort, the 1566 maintenance, the upkeep of the Yeomanry would be substantially up to their present standard. Month by month improvements were being made in that respect. They did not expect the Yeomanry to submit to hard conditions; a special allowance would be made to them, but in pay they could not be differently treated from other Cavalry. By the administration of large forces under men of experience and by economy the Yeomanry would be as well off as they were to-day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he wished to press the point a little further. He believed that what the hon. Gentleman desired to convey was that there should be no change in the substantial comfort of the Yeomanry when called out, that they would not be required to make greater sacrifices than at present. He understood that the Yeomanry did not quarrel with the pay if they could be quite certain that their training would be carried out without deprivation of the substantial comforts they had enjoyed hitherto. He understood that, though the right hon. Gentleman could non increase the pay, the conditions of service would be such as would be equivalent to the 5s. 6d. a day.
§ MR. HALDANErepeated what he had said as to the substantial comfort in which the Yeomanry would serve, though he would not undertake that the cost should be equal to 5s. 6d. a day. There would be the extra sum bringing up the amount to 1s. a day, called camp allowance. With regard to administration the Government designed that the yeoman should be substantially as well off as he was to-day.
§ MR. GUESTsaid that, as it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman 1567 that the standard of comfort of the Yeomanry was not to be diminished, that under the new scheme he would have the same class of food and would receive as now the allowance for his horse, £5, he had no difficulty in voting with the Government.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid the horse allowance to which the hon. Gentlemen referred would not necessarily be £5. He had been much struck by the way in which some members of the Yeomanry had three or four horses and hired them out, and he would like to divert some of the £5 allowance to encouraging such a thing as that.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the Government were going to provide a scale of luxury in the Yeomanry quarters
§ which would not be allowed in the Infantry quarters of the same camp.
§ MR. HALDANEI must repudiate that suggestion. The standard of comfort we give to one branch of the service will be the standard of comfort all round.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it followed that the scale of pay for the Infantry must be increased as well as the scale of pay for the Cavalry.
§ *MR. HUNTsaid that under the new conditions the Yeomanry would be short by 3s. a day. Out of that the right hon. Gentleman could not get.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 296. (Division List No. 184.)
1571| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | Moore, William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Dalrymple, Viscount | Nield, Herbert |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Ashley, W. W. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) | Fardel1, Sir T. George | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Seddon, J. |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester | Fletcher, J. S. | Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Forster, Henry William | Starkey, John R. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Talbot. Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Houston, Robert Paterson | Valentia, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Henyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Cavendish. Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Chamberlain Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.; |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, George |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Macpherson, J. T. | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Willoughby de Eresby and |
| Craig, Charles Curtis Antrim, S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Mr. Hunt. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Dickinson. W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Agnew, George William | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lambert, George |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lamont, Norman |
| Armitage, R. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Levy, Maurice |
| Baker. Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Erskine, David C. | Lough, Thomas |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Essex, R. W. | Lupton, Arnold |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Evans, Samuel T. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Barnard, E. B. | Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Fenwick, Charles | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkBg'hs |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ferens, T. R. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Findlay, Alexander | Maclean, Donald |
| Bell, Richard | Foster Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | M'Callum, John M. |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Crae, George |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Fullerton, Hugh | M Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Laren, H. D (Stafford, W.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Gill, A. H. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Bertram, Julius | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Glover, Thomas | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Manfield, Harry (Northants, |
| Billson, Alfred | Gooch, George Peabody | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Brace, William | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Branch, James | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Massie, J. |
| Brigg, John | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hall, Frederick | Mond, A. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh | Morrell, Philip |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hart-Davies, T. | Morse, L. L. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Murray, James |
| Byles, William Pollard | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Myer, Horatio |
| Cairns, Thomas | Haworth, Arthur A. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hedges, A. Paget | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight | Helme, Norval Watson | Nicholls, George |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Chance, Frederick William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Henry, Charles, S. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon, S.) | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Nuttall, Harry |
| Clarke, C. Goddard(Peckham) | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Clough, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Clynes. J. R. | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Partington, Oswald |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Paul, Herbert |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cory, Clifford John | Hudson, Walter | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hyde, Clarendon | Pollard, Dr. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Crombie, John William | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Crooks, William | Jardine, Sir J. | Radford, G. H. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Jowett, F. W. | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Simon, John Allsebrook | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Richardson, A. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wardle, George J. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Waring, Walter |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Stanger, H. Y. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Steadman, W. C. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Robinson, S. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Watt, Henry A. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Sutherland, J. E. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Rose, Charles Day | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rowlands, J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Russell, T. W. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Wiles, Thomas |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Thomasson, Franklin | Williams, Llewellyn (Carmart'n) |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Thorne, William | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Sears, J. E. | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull. W.) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Toulmin, George | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Shackleton, David James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Ure, Alexander | |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Verney, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Walters, John Tudor | Pease. |
§ And, it being half-past ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th May, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and on the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded.
1572
§
Another Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 1, after the word 'county,' to insert the words 'or such other person as the Army Council may think fit.'"—(Mr. Haldane.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 185.)
1575| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Byles, William Pollard |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Cairns, Thomas |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Agnew, George William | Berridge, T. H. D. | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bertram, Julius | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Armitage, R. | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Chance, Frederick William |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Billson, Alfred | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Astbury, John Meir | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Black, Arthur W. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bowerman, C. W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Cleland, J. W. |
| Barker, John | Branch, James | Clough, William |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Brigg, John | Clynes, J. R. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brodie, H. C. | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brooke, Stopford | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Bryce, J. Annan | Cooper, G. J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Bell, Richard | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Cory, Clifford John |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hyde, Clarendon | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pollard, Dt. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Crombie, John William | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E. |
| Crooks, William | Jardine, Sir J. | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Radford, G. H. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton |
| Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh. | Laidlaw, Robert | Richardson, A. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lambert, George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lamont, Norman | Roberts John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lehmann, R. C. | Robinson, S. |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Levy, Maurice | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Erskine, David C. | Lough, Thomas | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Essex, R. W. | Lupton, Arnold | Rose, Charles Day |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rowlands, J. |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lyell, Charles Henry | Russell, T. W. |
| Everett, R, Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Maclean, Donald | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macpherson, J. T. | Sears, J. E. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Callum, John M. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Crae, George | Seddon, J. |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Shackleton, David James |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Micking, Major G. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Maddison, Frederick | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Mallet, Charles E. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Markham, Arthur Basil | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Marnham, F. J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Hall, Frederick | Massie, J. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caitlm'ss-sh | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Harvey. W. E. (Derbyshire. N. E. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morse, L. L. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Murray, James | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Myer, Horatio | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Nicholls, George | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Hobart. Sir Robert | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Thorne, William |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Tomkinson, James |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Parker, James (Halifax) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Partington, Oswald | Toulmin, George |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Paul, Herbert | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hooper, A. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Ure, Alexander |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Verney, F. W. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke | Walsh, Stephen |
| Hudson, Walter | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Whitbread, Howard | Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull, W.) |
| Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent | White, George (Norfolk) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Wardle, George J. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Waring, Walter | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Whitehead, Rowland | Winfrey, R. |
| Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer | |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Wiles, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Watt, Henry A. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Weir, James Galloway | Wills, Arthur Walters | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Faber, George Denison (York) | Nield, Herbert |
| Ashley, W. W. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Percy, Earl |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fell, Arthur | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Haddock, George R. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hervey, F. W.F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hunt, Rowland | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset W.) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, Lord |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Mr. Stanley Wilson and |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Major Anstruther-Gray. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Moore, William |
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2:—
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word 'Establishing,' to end of line 10, and insert the words 'or assisting cadet battalions and corps and also rifle clubs, provided that no financial assistance shall be given by an association in respect of any person in a
§ battalion or corps in a school in receipt of a Parliamentary grant until such person has attained the age of sixteen.'"—(Mr. Haldane.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 291; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 186.)
1579| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Barran, Rowland Hirst |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Beauchamp, E. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bell, Richard |
| Agnew, George William | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bellairs, Carlyon |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barker, John | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt |
| Armitage, R | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Barnard, E. B. | Berridge, T. H. D. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Barnes, G. N. | Bertram, Julius |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Glover, Thomas | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Massie, J. |
| Billson, Alfred | Gooch, George Peabody | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Black, Arthur W. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Morrell, Philip |
| Brace, William | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morse, L. L. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Murray, James |
| Branch, James | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Myer, Horatio |
| Brigg, John | Hall, Frederick | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Nicholls, George |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hart-Davies, T. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Haworth, Arthur A. | Partington, Oswald |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Helme, Norval Watson | Paul, Herbert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Henry, Charles S. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke |
| Chance, Frederick William | Higham, John Sharp | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hobart, Sir Robert | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Holt, Richard Durning | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hooper, A. G. | Radford, G. H. |
| Clough, William | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hudson, Walter | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Rees, J. D. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Hyde, Clarendon | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cooper, G. J. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Richardson, A. |
| Cory, Clifford John | Jardine, Sir J. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Kearley, Hudson E. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Crombie, John William | Kekewich, Sir George | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crooks, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robinson, S. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Laidlaw, Robert | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Lambert, George | Rose, Charles Day |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lamont, Norman | Rowlands, J. |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Russell, T. W. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras, E. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Lehmann, R. C. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lough, Thomas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sears, J. E. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seddon, J. |
| Elibank, Master of | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Erskine, David C. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Shackleton, David James |
| Essex, R. W. | Maclean, Donald | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Macpherson, J. T. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Crae, George | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Findlay, Alexander | M'Micking, Major G. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Maddison, Frederick | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mallet, Charles E. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Ure, Alexander | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Verney, F. W. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Walsh, Stephen | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Walters, John Tudor | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wardle, George J. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | Waring, Walter | Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.) |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton |
| Thomasson, Franklin | Watt, Henry A. | Winfrey, R. |
| Thorne, William | Weir, James Galloway | |
| Tomkinson, James | Whitbread, Howard | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Torrance, Sir A. M. | White, George (Norfolk) | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Toulmin, George | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dalrymple, Viscount | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Nield, Herbert |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers- | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Ashley, W. W. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Percy, Earl |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Fardell, Sir T. George | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r | Fletcher, J. S. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Forster, Henry William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Starkey, John R. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxdf Univ. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hills, J. W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (worc. | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, George |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Henry Craik and Captain Hervey. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Moore, William |
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.