ADJOURNMEN—THE TERRITORIAL FORCE. (Hansard, 14 May 1908)

§ *MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
said he desired on the Motion for the adjournment of the House to raise a question which he thought was of some public importance, namely, the treatment which had been lately meted out to some of the permanent stall of the Territorial Force and the old Volunteer Force. These notices of reduction of salary had been given out in a few cases last year, but in the great majority of instances they were given out only two months ago, and it had, he thought, causes very great dissatisfaction among the Regular soldiers who were employed as instructors of the new Territorial Army, that their pay had been 1425 cut down not by 10 or 15 per cent., but by 50 per cent. On Monday he asked the Secretary for War whether the colour sergeants of the Regular Forces who took up the appointments of sergeant-major and sergeant-instructor of the Infantry battalions of the old Volunteer Forces were now on being transferred to the new Territorial Force to receive only about 50 per cent. of their former pay, and the answer he received did not traverse his main contention that the pay had been arbitrarily cut down. He wished the House to be in possession of the exact situation in respect of this matter. What were the facts? These men continued to receive their Army pay. They received it just as if they were serving with their battalions. They received neither more nor less for their Army service, but the House must remember that on taking up their position as sergeant-instructors of the Territorial and Volunteer Forces—a position which he thought the House would agree was a very important one—they lost 6d. a day for acting as colour-sergeants, and 6d. a day for paying a company. They lost, therefore, is a day or 7s. a week. What did they receive in return for this loss of 7s. when they took on under the old Volunteer Force? The amounts varied according to localities, but in nearly all cases rates higher than were permitted under the new Regulations, invariably so in London. Take a typical case in the Metropolis of a well known corps, for the very important post of sergeant-major, 22s. a week, and as sergeant-instructor 12s. a week. That was not an excessive amount of remuneration for these men to receive in view of the very important and hard duties they had to perform. He understood that in some cases the change was made last year, but in the cases which had come under his notice, that was in the London district, it was only in March that the order came from the 1426 War Office that the sergeant-majors, instead of receiving 22s., were to receive only 10s. a week—a reduction of more than 50 par cent.; and sergeant-instructors, instead of 12s. were to receive 6s. 8d. a week. These unfortunate men were in this position, that the sergeant-majors for all their extra work got 3s. a week extra, and the sergeant-instructors not only did not get anything extra but lost 4d. a week. He would like to read to the House the answer he received to his Question. It began by saying that undoubtedly the Army pay was the same in the Regular Army as in the Volunteers. That he did not complain of. It went on to say— Extra remuneration was permitted to be given by their corps for extra work performed in addition to military duties. He traversed that statement entirely. The extra remuneration was not permitted; it was ordered to be given by the War Office Order of May, 1903, and had nothing to do with the corps itself. The reply went on to say— and is permitted to be given by the County Associations at the present moment. He again traversed that statement. That was not so. This reduced pay was owing to the direct order received in London last March from the War Office, and the County Association had nothing to do with fixing the scales of pay. It was plainly stated so at the recent meeting of the London County Association by Lord Esher. When the question was brought up at the meeting, and many of the commanding officers pointed out what a great injustice this order was, and how detrimental to efficiency, Lord Esher said, "I am very sorry indeed, but this has nothing to do with us; we have simply to carry out the orders of the War Office in this respect." Then the answer of the Secretary for War went on— The Army Council, however, cannot approve of payments made simply for the 1427 purpose of increasing the remuneration paid to the permanent staff without any reference to the extra work which they are required to do. That statement added insult to injury. The County Association could not approve any increase of pay when the pay was reduced by 50 per cent. It was said there was less work to do than in the past. He could not agree to that when they knew that the permanent staff of the Territorial Army had been reduced as compared with the Volunteer battalions, in some cases from four to three. He would press on the Government these two points. First, he thought it was not keeping faith with these men to allow them to take up their appointments on the faith of the War Office Order of 1903 in which the scale of payment was laid down, to make them leave their regular battalions and take their wives and children far away, and now suddenly to leave them in the lurch, perhaps within a year or two of getting their pensions, putting them in the dilemma of serving on at a very reduced income, and possibly—he did not know what view the Army Council took of it—of being obliged to serve on, because after all they were soldiers under military orders, and might not be allowed to go back to the colours. He took even a wider view than this, and thought it stupidity on the part of the Government at this time when the success of the Territorial Army hung in the balance—they knew that only about 30 per cent. of the Territorial Force had been recruited—to cut down the pay of the men who, even more than the officers, had it in their power to make the new force a success or not. Surely if it was to be a success it was not good policy to reduce by 50 per cent. the emoluments of the men who had the power to make or mar the force.

§ MR. HOBHOUSE
said the gravamen of the charge which he understood the hon. Member brought was that faith 1428 was not kept with the officers of what was now the new Territorial Force in accordance with the terms of the agreement of 1893.

§ MR. ASHLEY
And that you will not get the right class of men for the most important work.

§ MR. HOBHOUSE
assured the hon. Member that he was appealing to one who was very largely in sympathy with him, but, of course, he had no warrant to speak on behalf of the War Office on this point. But standing there in quite another capacity and as one interested in the success of the Territorial Force, he felt there was great weight in what the hon. Member had said. It was unquestionably a fact that if they did not offer a sufficient consideration they would not get a satisfactory class of non-commissioned officers to come into the Territorial Force from the Regular Force. That was no new difficulty, for it had existed as long as the hon. Member had had any connection with the Auxiliary Forces, and certainly as long as he had had any connection with that force himself. He would take care to represent it to the responsible authorities at the War Office. Of course, he could make no pledge on behalf of the representative of the War Office, but he would represent the hon. Member's views, and, so far as he could, reinforce them.

§ *MR. GRETTON (Rutland)
hoped the hon. Gentleman would also point out how very important it was to country corps that the sergeant instructors for the Territorial Force should be very carefully selected, and sufficient inducements offered to obtain the services of the most suitable non-commissioned officers from the Line battalions.