§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,733,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI have great hesitation in adding anything to the enormous amount of criticism which my right hon. Friend has had to meet, but the question to which I must call his serious attention is that of granting a few more instructors. There are certain districts, particularly in Scotland, where there is very excellent material for Territorials, and many men are keen and anxious to serve. But they are so placed by their distance from any large centre that they have not been able to get instruction. So much is that the case, that, unless they can get this instruction, it is very likely that a number of capable men will have to disband. The cases I have in mind is that of Strathdon, Corgaff, and Glenbuckatt, which are thirty miles from the nearest centre, Alford. A considerable number of the six battalions of Gordon Highlanders are situated in that district, and anyone who knows that part of the country is aware that there are no more likely men, men of fine physique and accustomed to endurance, to be found. Though it is of my own Constituency I am speaking, I say they are as fine a set of men as you could possibly wish to have. They are all very keen, but being thirty miles from the nearest centre, and there being no railway communication, they find it impossible to get regular instruction, and, unless they obtain it, they will have to disband. A divisional commander, the brigade commander, and the county association have all recommended 1575 an additional sergeant-instructor for that district, and if one were appointed, and there were full opportunities for instruction, it would be folly not to include these men in the Territorials. The hon. Member (Mr. Courthope) said that it was difficult in his constituency and in the country to find rifle ranges. The Secretary for War would have no difficulty in finding ranges in that part of Scotland. There are eight or nine of them, and there would be no risk, apart from the targets, of shooting anything except deer or grouse. It would not be a very great expense. There are few such districts in Scotland and the Highlands which are so removed from the centre that they want a special instructor. If they had that instructor the numbers would grow. I cannot imagine anything more desirable, if my right hon. Friend wants to perfect his Territorial Army, than to embody as many of these men as he can get and give them every encouragement to join. I ask him to give his careful consideration to this suggestion, which is strongly recommended in the district, more especially as the cases are entirely exceptional. There cannot be very many of them, probably half a dozen or perhaps a dozen, throughout Scotland; but the fewer there are, the more urgent is their claim and the less reason for withholding this expenditure. It would not be a very great expense, and I am sure the Territorial Army would benefit over and over again.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERThe question which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman has reference to service and proficiency pay. In the two years from 1904 to 1906 the service pay was from 4d. to 7d. per day, payable to soldiers of all ranks—Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry of the Regular Army, and also the Departmental Corps. In September, 1906, the service pay was abolished and the proficiency pay was substituted for it, but that proficiency pay, in the first place, instead of being from 4d. to 7d. per day, was only from 3d. to 6d. a day—a loss of 1d. to 3d. per day. Secondly, instead of being paid to all ranks of the service, the proficiency pay is only made payable to Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry. No proficiency pay whatever is received by the Departmental Corps. Of course there is certain reservation of rights to the persons who were before September, 1908, in receipt of service pay. They continue to 1576 receive it until either they extend their service or re-engage. When those men in the Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry extend or re-engage they lose from a penny to threepence a day. There is no reason why they should forfeit that amount. The only change in the condition under which they get this pay, as compared with the conditions under which they got service pay, is that it is more difficult to get it. I do put it that it is a grave hardship when those men do, as is most desirable they should do, extend or re-engage, that they should thereby forfeit from a penny to threepence per day. In the case of men who enlisted since September, 1906, they lose from a penny to threepence per day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether that is a loss of pay which is desirable in the interests of the Army as a whole? As regards men in the Departmental Corps, such as the Army Medical and Service Corps, the case is really very much harder, because there is no proficiency pay for men of those corps. Consequently when men in those corps who enlisted before September, 1906, entend or re-engage they forfeit from four-pence to sevenpence per day pay. Is that not a very serious discouragement to men in those corps to extend or re-engage, and serious discouragement in the interests of the Army as a whole? Why should they be told, if they want to continue the Army as a profesion, that they must lose from fourpence to sevenpence per day? I agree there is no absolute right to re-engage.
§ Mr. HALDANEWe do not want old, stiff soldiers.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERI do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says stiff soldiers. A man who joins the Army is, after eight years' service, twenty-six years of age, and surely a man of twenty-six is not to be classified as a stiff soldier. A man of that age is not a stiff Member of this House or of any other place, because he is twenty-six, or even supposing he has completed his twelve years service and is thirty years of age he is not necessarily stiff for the purpose of the performance of his duties, either in the Army or anywhere else. I should be sorry to hear that laid down by the right hon. Gentleman or by this Government, which, of course, we know prides itself on efficiency as being the cardinal justification for its existence. No, I do not think that can be the real reason. I venture to think if you have a good soldier who has been eight years in the Army, or twelve years, and if he 1577 desires to re-engage, that it is most desirable in the interests of the country that you should not penalise him from taking that step by cutting off from four-pence to sevenpence of the pay which he previously had. It is quite true that in certain cases in these Departmental Corps there are certain allowances which make the loss of four-pence to sevenpence less than it otherwise would be. But in the case of certain officers in the Departmental Corps they suffer the entire loss of from fourpence to sevenpence per day on extension or re-engagement. Take, for instance, the warrant officers of the Royal Engineers or Army Medical Corps or Army Ordinance Corps, if they extend or re-engage they suffer the entire loss of from four-pence to sevenpence per day. Take men of all ranks in the clerks' section of the Royal Artillery and in the Army Medical Corps and also the Army Pay Corps, they suffer the entire loss of from fourpence to sevenpence per day if they extend or reengage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that obiter dictum about the stiff soldiers, and see whether it would not be in interests of the Army to continue somewhat the same scale of pay as was formerly given when the service pay was in existence. I think this, as was said by an hon. Member on the opposite side below the Gangway, is felt as a rather serious grievance in the Army, and, of course, neither he nor anyone else who has the interest of the Army at heart likes the existence of a grievance which is by no means, to my mind, an unsubstantial or unreal one.
As regards the pay of the colour sergeant, a colour sergeant in an Infantry battalion receives 3s. 6d. per day and 6d. additional if he keeps accounts. When a colour sergeant of an Infantry regiment is posted to the Special Reserve or the Territorials, although he may not like it, he at once loses 6d. per day and may lose 1s. per day if he has been in receipt of 6d. for keeping accounts. Why should that be so? It is a curious anomaly that although the colour sergeant posted to the Special Reserve or Territorials is doing exactly the same work as the colour sergeant posted to the depot of his own regiment, he receives either sixpence or one shilling less than the other man. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot remedy what is obviously an anomaly, and what, I think, must; have been introduced into the Army Regulations by accident. Then there is the case 1578 of the warrant officer of an Infantry regiment. So long as he is with the Regular Army he gets 5s. per day. He is liable to become a warrant officer on the Special Reserve, and in that case he loses 3d. per day pay and 3d. per day pension. Why? He is doing exactly the same work.
In connection with the Infantry, at present only 10 per cent. are allowed to reengage. I would suggest, if a man is anxious to make soldiering his profession, that, although it is desirable to keep up the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he could not give the opportunity of re-engagement to a greater number than 10 per cent. If he would allow 15 to 20 per cent. of the Infantry to re-engage, it would be very much better.
Then with regard to the question of horses. We all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the efforts he is making to deal with the problem of a sufficient horse supply to the Army. It is a most urgent problem, and one which perhaps has not received sufficient practical attention in the past. I do not think it can be solved from one direction only. We shall have to apply a number of different methods before the question is satisfactorily settled. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the scheme he is working out for the purpose of facilitating the breeding of suitable animals, and the purchase of young horses at the age of three years—a proposal which is entirely beneficial. Might I ask if he would also consider the suggestion of my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh) that, supplementary to that, the War Office should subsidise suitable brood mares in the hands of farmers, and thereby get a call upon their produce at the age of two or three years? I think that would be a cheap way of getting horses, and it would tend to increase the probability of keeping brood mares in the country instead of allowing them to go abroad to serve the purposes of foreign armies. I want also to ask a question about the system of commandeering horses in connection with the county associations. There is to be a police census of horses for the purpose of mobilisation and of supplying drafts, and upon that census a quota for each county is to be worked out. Each county association is to be required to classify all the horses in its area, and to be prepared upon certain occasions to produce its full quota. But upon what is this process of commandeering to be based? In case of an invasion every horse owner would be willing to give his horse, or 1579 anything else for the defence of the country. But supposing a war breaks out and we have to send an expeditionary force to the other end of the world—it is not necessary to specify the place—and for the purpose of mobilising a portion of the Regular Army a certain addition to the horse supply is required. In such a case as that would the county associations be empowered to go to a private owner and commandeer his horses? Would they be entitled to go into any stables they liked and to insist upon having any horse they pleased, whether the owner wished it or not, at a price to be fixed, as I understand, by a county court judge? As I read the Army Act, these powers of the county associations are to be put in force in case of emergency.
§ Mr. HALDANEOn proclamation of an emergency under Sub-section 7.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERIt would appear that in order to justify the commandeering of horses by the county associations a proclamation ordering the Reserve to be called out, or an order for the embodiment of the Militia, which I suppose means the Special Reserve, would be sufficient. I want to know precisely under what circumstances these powers of the county associations would arise. As to the police census, I believe that for the purpose of securing a classification of horses for Army purposes that census is absolutely worthless. No doubt the police census contains the number of animals with four legs answering to the name of a horse; but the police have no power, nor do they take the necessary steps to ascertain the description and capacity of the horse, its age, whether the horse is sound or not, and still less its value. Therefore, when the county associations come to classify the horses for Army purposes they will not get the smallest assistance from the police census. They will have to send round experts to every stable in the county to find out what horses are there, what their capacity is, whether they are riding, heavy draft, or light draft horses. They will have to find out the age and soundness of each horse, and, above all, they will have to ascertain their value. It is quite obvious that when the county associations come to commandeer the horses there must be some limit upon the price which they will be able to pay. It is no use their classifying as fit for the Army a 1580 horse which may be worth £100 or £1,000. It is no use their classifying a Derby or Grand National winner, or a hunter worth £100. It is no use their classifying any horse unless that horse can be purchased at a price within the limit which the Army will pay. I suggest, therefore, that it is important that the county associations should connne their classification to horses of a certain value; in other words, that the horses they classify should not be of such a value that it would be impossible to pay for them if they were commandeered for the use of the Army. I do not see in the memorandum issued any directions upon that point, which I think is one requiring some attention.
Another matter has reference to the cost of making all these exhaustive inquiries which I have indicated would be necessary. The county associations are to get 3d. per horse. That is, if the number were 120,000 for the whole of the country, there would be £1,500 available for all the county associations of the Kingdom for the purpose of making these enormously expensive inquiries. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been any real estimate of the cost which the county associations will be put to in making these inquiries? The last point I would put is: Is this principle of commandeering one which is really suitable for this country—except, I admit, in case of invasion? Up till now we have obtained horses by the ordinary method of purchase, but this is a new principle—although the powers exist in the Statute Book—introduced into our system for making compulsory purchase of horses for the Army. An organ of opinion which my right hon. Friend will certainly attach some weight to has considered this point. I refer to the "Westminster Gazette," which in its issue of Monday last pointed out that there were grave objections to introducing this principle of compulsory purchase of horses in the manner suggested, except in case of a grave emergency such as invasion. They pointed out that this should be the last method to be adopted if there was any other method possible. What they suggest is some adaptation of the Swiss method—a somewhat complicated method—which was described in one of our magazines in December last. This method might be more effective than the method at present suggested. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Swiss method has been 1581 considered by his advisers, and if not whether it might not be worth consideration? The substance of it all is that if you want to get an adequate supply of horses you must have several means of getting it. May I suggest that it might be advisable not to drop the methods already in existence, and which have been found to be effective in getting our supply of horses. It might not be a bad thing if a Departmental Committee was appointed on which were some Members of this House, and possibly some outside persons of experience—that is to say, farmers in horse-breeding districts, secretaries of hunts, and members of horse-breeding societies—to consider what other methods, in addition to those already in existence, might be advantageous to us for the purpose of solving this extremely difficult and urgent problem of getting not only horses, but suitable horses, and trained horses, for the purpose of filling up the ranks on mobilisation, and also for supplying the horses for the drafts in war.
§ Mr. HALDANESeveral very technical questions have been put to me, and perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I answer them at once, and as shortly as I can. My hon. and learned Friend asks me whether the Swiss system could not be adapted to this country. May I point out the Swiss system is suitable for the Swiss Army, which is a Territorial and home defence Army. I am afraid it would break down if tried here. Nor are the German and French systems suitable for this country. Our method may seem somewhat drastic, but salus populi suprema est lex. If the interests of the nation are at stake, inconvenient as it is, we must have horses, and we must get them—provided, of course, the nation makes proper compensation. As regards commandeering, that only arises in a condition of national emergency, and if the Reserves are called out. The hon. and learned Member said that we might go on according to our usual method. That is all very well for peace, but we are preparing for war. We should in those circumstances need an enormous number of horses, and there is no reserve to which we can turn but to the horses of the nation. My hon. and learned Friend referred to what he termed the uselessness of the police census, but as I have already pointed out, the police returns show from twelve to fifteen times as many horses as we require. It is out of that 1582 enormous mass of horses that you pick the horses you want. It is not a very difficult business, nor is the work very great. In Devonshire we found there were 46,000 horses, and there were only 36,000 fit for military use. The cost of making this census by the local association worked out at a penny per horse. I am far from saying that I want to take the Devonshire scale. What was done there was done with all the keenness of a monetary experiment. I am far from saying that 3d. per horse represents what the thing would cost. We put at the end of our circular that we invited the observations of county associations, and I am bound to say that the chief observation we have got is that 3d. is much too little. Matters, however, are in a tentative state at present.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERMay I inquire whether 3d. per horse is 3d. on all the horses in the district or only on the quota?
§ Mr. HALDANEUpon all registered horses. That is how it worked out in Devonshire. Then my hon. and learned Friend asked me whether it was not a good thing to encourage soldiers to serve twelve years with the colours? Why, that is the very thing that Lord Cardwell got rid of with so much difficulty. What we want in this country is short service and a large Reserve. The experience shown by statistics obtained by the Army Medical Department, extending over a number of years both in India and this country, shows that the man you want with the colours is a young active fellow who will pass out of the Army into the Reserve after seven years and make way for a younger man. That is the essence of the short service system. I come now to much more technical matters. We found that the origin of service pay was a desire to make the short service system more popular—we thought that giving extra pay would extend the period of service. The service pay was given in the hope that the three years' man would extend his service, and it was given on the footing of paying for the extension of continued service. The main thing was in regard to the extending of the time. The "service pay" cost the country a million a year, and it failed to induce the men to reengage in the numbers that it was anticipated, and consequently the Committee that investigated the matter recommended that that system should be abolished, as it was found to have seriously militated against the efficiency of the Army. That 1583 was why the very strong Committee which considered the matter recommended a change, subject to the vested right of the individuals in the Service. Every man who enlisted under the service pay system got it and gets it even now. Men enlisting after the date when the change was made do not get the extra pay for the mere length of colour service, but what they do get extra is for efficiency and skill in musketry and other branches of military proficiency in the Regular Army. Engineer Corps and Army Service Corps do not get service pay, but they get what is called corps pay. Engineers get up to 2s. per day in some instances. Let me take a specific case with which the hon. Member for York dealt. I have given him an answer as regards the general question. Prior to 1906 it is no doubt true that certain Army engineers got both service pay and corps pay. Now they do not draw efficiency pay, but they have special privileges. I will not trouble the Committee with the particulars. Coming to the question of the colour-sergeants, they used to receive 3s. regimental pay and 1s. for keeping accounts. Then a great change took place. The Army Accounts Department was brought into being, and therefore the sergeant's extra duty pay for keeping books was reduced from 1s. to 6d., and now he gets 3s. 6d. The total amount of pay without account-keeping was 3s., as compared with colour-sergeants in the line battalion of 4s. Part of the new arrangements of the Territorial Forces is that they will be relieved of such account-keeping as they do now, because we are making a grant to the Territorial associations for having that work done. This question has not lightly been considered. It was before the Committee presided over by the Adjutant-General, and there are various points which are still under consideration, and which will be dealt with later. The other point which my hon. and learned Friend referred to is the pay of the sergeant-major. He used to have 5s. a day under the old system, and that is the same as a sergeant-major serving in the Line would get. Upon reorganisation the former deputy-sergeant-major of the Infantry ceased to exist, and the sergeant-major of the Militia became the sergeant-major of the Special Reserve, and kept the 4s. 9d. rate of pay. The old post was abolished, and the sergeant-major of the Militia battalion had the new 1584 post of sergeant-major in the Special Reserve, and he got his 4s. 9d. His duties were less onerous, and this accounts for the difference between the 4s. 9d. and the 5s. My hon. and learned Friend will see that no change in the pay was made because the 4s. 9d. man was transferred to 4s. 9d. work.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERUnder all the circumstances, is the sergeant-major liable to be sent to the Special Reserve, and, if so, is his pay reduced from 5s. to 4s. 9d.?
§ Mr. HALDANEThe person who went to the Special Reserve was the old sergeant-major. The sergeant-major of the Infantry used to get 5s., and he still gets 5s.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHERDoes he not get reduced to 4s. 9d.?
§ Mr. HALDANEThere is no sergeant-major at 4s. 9d. The sergeant-major at the depot has gone altogether. That is the origin of the confusion.
§ Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAMI must apologise to the Committee for rising again. I think this question of the pay of the soldiers should be stated in simple terms, so that Members of the Committee can understand it without being experts. The point is whether the soldier is getting less than he expected. We ought to look at this question from the point of view of the soldier. I agree that you may change the conditions for the men, but your real object should be to attract the men, and attract men of the right sort. It is also important that the general public, who may or may not join the Army, should know exactly what the pay is. My chief criticism against the changes which have been made is that the public know no more what the pay of the Army is than this Committee knows after hearing the various speeches which have been made. That is the real gravamen of the charge. You may be fair, and you are fair if you give a new offer to new people; but you are not wise, and you are not likely to attract new men into a volunteer army if you do not let them or the House of Commons have a glimmer of an idea what is the pay of the Army. I think I have explained in a popular form what has happened, and why it has led to such confusion. In the old days we used to say it was a shilling; hence the phrase, "The Queen's Shilling," a clear phrase, and almost a part of British literature; but, when a man took the shilling he found he did not get it. He 1585 had to pay for a number of things out of it; so it was not a shilling; it was about 9d. Then, when it was felt you could not feed a British soldier as if he was a lion in the Zoo on one big meal in the middle of the day, he had to pay for something in addition, and the shilling was only 6d.
§ Mr. HALDANEAfter six months.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMPlease do not make it more complicated. I am trying to say, in a popular form, what happened. At first the shilling was not a shilling, but 9d., and then it became 6d., when the standard of living was raised. Then we said it was to be a shilling, but next, rightly or wrongly, we introduced engagements for three years, and people said it might be all very well to pay the soldier who engaged for seven years a shilling, but it would cost a great deal of money if we paid men who only entered for three years a shilling; so then a man was not to get a shilling unless he re-engaged. Now we come to the third change for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. It came to be called Service pay, on the idea that the man was serving some time. Then it was said: How much better to pay for proficiency. By doing that you alter your contract; not with the individual soldier, but with the public at large who might enter your Army. Instead of giving a shilling, you made an alteration that a man was not to get it for three years' service, and then you said he was not to get it unless he hit the bullseye so many times, and did other things. I think that was a change for the worse. Now I come to the fourth change. Regiments, which hitherto had 200 marksmen a year, suddenly only had forty, and, when that stage was reached, the British soldier thought he had been done in the eye. Whether that was true or not, I do not know, but it is really very odd that regiments which consistently had 100 marksmen, suddenly lost their knack of hitting the bullseye directly their pay depended upon their hitting it. These four changes, coming one after the other, have blurred the conception of the mind of the youth who might enter the Army as to what he is to get on entering it. There is a fifth point I have left out. In the process of those changes—I would not dare to say exactly where—the deferred pay you used to give has suddenly disappeared altogether.
§ Mr. HALDANEThere is a sixth. Instead of giving 3d. messing allowance at the end of six months, we give 3d. from enlistment.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMMy point is that at the end of the balancing nobody knows what he has got by entering the Army. Deferred pay has gone, the shilling is not a real shilling, you cannot get the new contract terms unless your shooting is of a certain standard, and the examination whether that standard is reached or not has notably increased in recent years. I think if you offered some amount—1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 3d.—something hard and fast, which a man would know he would get, recruiting would be improved. It certainly has been improved by giving better pay, better accommodation, and better food, and as we want the soldier let us agree on treating him as well as we can.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICEFirst let me congratulate the Secretary for War on the increased number of officers passing into the Army from the universities. It has been a very gratifying change of policy, and I am glad that so much advantage has been taken of it. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has done anything to improve the possibilities of men passing through the ranks who get a commission. A Return was presented to this House two years ago showing the number of men who passed through the ranks and got a commission. It was a surprise to many hon. Members to find how few such men got commissions. When the Return was followed up it was found that many of the men who got commissions were only occupying such posts as quartermaster-sergeant. I think that is scarcely fair. Men passing through the ranks who get a commission should be put in the line of getting promotion in precisely the same manner as the officer who enters from a military college. No man in this House has a greater regard for brains and ability than the Secretary for War. I am satisfied that the number of rankers who get commissions in no sense indicates the brains and ability of the men who pass through the ranks. If you take the law, medicine, and other professions, you will find that men trained in the humblest position rise to the highest posts. That is not exactly the case in the Army, and I think better provision ought to be made than exists at present for men who enter the ranks of the Army with a view to adopting it as a profession to obtain promotion in precisely the same form as those who come from the military colleges. My second point is that when such a man receives his commission he is obviously in a better position than the new subaltern 1587 from the military college, because of his knowledge of drill. But he is at a disadvantage in the matter of tactics, and if something could be done to give him six months' training in a military college it would put him on precisely the same level as the man from Sandhurst. No man on this side of the House could better fill the post of the Secretary for War: he has looked at his office from a non-party point of view and has tried to improve the Army. I was very glad to hear the Home Secretary say that there had been a great improvement in the morale of the Army, which was indicated by the figures he gave to the House. With the short service system that we have and the better provision that has been made for the men while they are in the Service, you will attract a better class of men to the Army than there used to be in days gone by. It is something to have done to have tried to make it possible that any man entering the force has precisely the same chance of rising to any height that the Army can give him, if he likes to exercise his brain and use his energies to improve his position. It is something to have acted with that object in view, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will receive the thanks of the Army upon that. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how matters stand with regard to the new barracks which it is proposed to build in Edinburgh both for the Cavalry and Infantry regiments. We are more than gratified that that site has been chosen, and we think it will add enormously to the position of the East of Scotland. The position is an admirable one, and if the right hon. Gentleman would communicate to us how matters stand, we should be obliged to him. Are the plans to be proceeded with with all possible speed, or will the proposal have to wait? I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to enable men to pass from the ranks to other positions in the Army in the same way as they do in other branches of the Service, will receive the thanks of every man who enters the Army.
§ Colonel A. B. BATHURSTAs to the question whether we are losing efficiency in musketry under the new regulation, for my part I am a very strong supporter of the new system. Although the scores, both in the Territorial Force and in the Regular Army, have not been quite so showy as they have been in the past under the old system, yet we have to recollect 1588 that the new system of musketry was framed after a great deal of study of the modern conditions of warfare to train the men for meeting the conditions that they would meet in active service, and, although there have been great complaints of the bull's-eye, yet I would put in my humble word of approval of the new musketry regulation. I am aware that there are certain details which form some difficulty, especially in the Territorial Force and scattered battalions, in reference to practice being carried on under the supervision of officers from other regiments. The difficulty is, in country ranges, in getting these officers to come, and great difficulty has been raised. For my part my own battalion practices have gone on away from the officers, and I put the blame on the officers who are told to come and let the practice proceed. I think that is the best way under the circumstances. An hon. Gentleman sitting behind me mentioned last night the point of cycles and bicycles being used for the purpose of mounting the Yeomen who had not got horses, and the point I wish to press is this, that we should be allowed in the Territorial Force certain allowances for men to bring their own bicycles to the annual training. Under the present system men who have bicycles, and who know the military system of scouting on bicycles have been hindered by the disallowance of travelling expenses for the bicycles and there being no money to pay for the wear and tear of the bicycles in camp. In the glorious annals of sham warfare the most valiant deeds have been done in the past by bicycle battalions. There is no doubt, speaking in all seriousness, that bicycles are most important adjuncts to our Infantry battalions. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allow each battalion to have a certain amount of money, merely a nominal sum would suffice, for wear and tear and a travelling allowance for the bicycles, I feel certain that the manœuvres would be increased in interest, and the men would be highly delighted. I put forward these points specially, because I have the honour to command one of the Territorial battalions which are going to take part in the manœuvres, I trust, in September, and if the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for bicycles being taken on these manœuvres, I hope he may have the opportunity of seeing the work well carried out.
1589 There can be no better means of instilling patriotism into the youth of this country than by the encouragement of cadet corps. I am not going to ask that everyone who raises a cadet corps should go to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him for a grant, but I think some system might be hammered out—in fact, I think a system is being hammered out—by which cadet corps could be recognised by efficiency under certain tests. If that is well known by those who take an interest in such a thing, I feel sure that the youth of this country will profit, and I believe a great deal of good has been done already in the encouragement of patriotism by such a body as the Boy Scouts. In villages where patrols have been started whereas the standard of greatness of certain boys was calculated on certain things which were most discreditable, such as who could smoke the biggest number of cigarettes and so forth, now that standard is set up according more or less to the principles of the boy scouts. I think there was never a movement on foot which has done so much good, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the formation of cadet corps, and that there will be a standard of efficiency by which they can be judged, and I very much hope that no encouragement will be given unless such satisfactory tests can be imposed.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI should like to press the right hon. Gentleman further in regard to the question of service pay. After the interesting explanation of the transition stages by the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) we all know exactly how service pay came into existence, but what some of us want to know is why in some cases it has ceased to exist where no other concessions or emoluments have been given in place of it. The Secretary for War gave two reasons for the discontinuance of service pay. The first was that it was not the policy of the War Office to encourage stiff and useless soldiers, and, secondly, that engineer or corps pay has been granted in lieu of service pay. I should like to know whether a soldier at thirty-five—a warrant officer or a staff sergeant—ought to be classified as a stiff and useless soldier. I think there must have been some misunderstanding about the substituted pay, and I will try to clear it up. There is a large class of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who formerly had service pay, but who now receive no service pay and no equivalent 1590 of any sort. If the allegation that warrant officers and staff sergeants are stiff and useless is taken away, then the withdrawal of pay has to be defended on the other ground that has been stated. I can show a great many cases where no proficiency pay has been given to staff officers in lieu of service pay. The first answer the right hon. Gentleman gave on this question was that in the cases to which attention was called some other form of pay was given instead of service pay. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of the warrant officers, the Military Police, both mounted and foot, and the non-commissioned officers, both mounted and foot, who have hitherto received service pay, and who now do not receive proficiency pay, corps pay, or engineer pay in compensation for the loss of service pay. The same remark applies to warrant officers and staff sergeants in the Royal Medical Corps, and others. If the right hon. Gentleman wants further details I can give him a considerable list of several arms of the Service who are affected by the withholding of service pay. I can give a list of several ranks where no equivalent for service pay has been given. I do not charge the Government with breaking a contract, because service pay is still given to all those who were entitled to it upon original enlistment, but I say that the soldier expected that his position should not be made worse than when he joined, and that if the scale of the pay was changed he would get some other equivalent allowance if he reengaged and continued his service. No legal contract has been broken—unless it is the contract of expectancy. The withdrawal of service pay involves an absurdity and a hardship. The absurdity is this—that a junior quartermaster-sergeant is actually receiving more—a penny a day more—than his senior to whom he is responsible. The hardship is very real. A man has now the alternative that he can either engage, in which case he loses 7d. a day or 4s. 1d. a week for the rest of his extended service, or he has to throw up it may be two-thirds of the service which he has performed to qualify for a pension. No man could be put in the position of having to face that alternative. He should be allowed to continue his full service upon the same conditions as to pay which obtained when he joined. It is not enough to say that he re-engages upon 1591 new conditions, and that there is no breach of contract as he knows the conditions when he re-engages. He should be at least allowed to re-engage upon as good terms as when he engaged, or some compensation should be given him for the time he is losing in working for the full pension to which he would be entitled if he continued his service on the old conditions. It is surely desirable to retain the experienced non-commissioned officer and not drive him out of the service. The class affected is not a very large one, but that is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in flouting them. Moreover, no large increase in the Vote is necessary to do what is required. But whether the amount be large or small it is desirable that men engaged upon certain conditions after a certain time shall not be forced to forfeit the service that they have already made towards a pension, or in the alternative a sum per day which represents a large decrease in their rate of pay.
§ Mr. BAIRDThe right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department congratulated himself upon the increased efficiency of the Army, improved health, decreasing drunkenness, and various other things that are very proper matters of congratulation. Then he went on to raise the question of the adequacy of the Territorial Army for the defence of the country. I am bound to say that when the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is read in the country to-morrow it will arouse very mixed feelings. More important still, when read on the Continent, it will equally arouse very mixed feelings. It will arouse among our friends feelings of grave disappointment, and among those nations who are less friendly feelings of another kind. I am bound to say that nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said justifies the contention that our Territorial Force is adequate to the discharge of the duties which will fall upon it. I share that conviction with a great many people who belong to the Territorial Force, not because we believe it to be adequate, but because we think it is the best we have got, and I share the hope expressed by the Secretary for War that, as great progress has been made in the past, so there may be great progress in the future. If we did not think there would be very great progress we 1592 should not be going on with this at all. That was left out of the calculation of the Home Secretary, who based his theory on the view that invasion was unlikely, not to say impossible, and he adduced all the various views which we have heard so frequently If there is one way to deal with this matter worse than another it is to point out to our possible foes the direction from which we might expect attack, and to point out the direction in which we should defend ourselves. A great many people in this country do not share the optimistic view of the right hon. Gentleman—a great many people abroad do not share it either, and that is much more important. I have no doubt the occasion will arise for the discussion of this topic when the Navy Estimates are brought forward. I certainly should prefer to raise the point on that occasion because I think matters of national defence ought to be treated as a whole from the point of view of the Army and the Navy. I am perfectly certain that to alter whatever else may prevent our being invaded it is not the Territorial Force, in its present condition, that will prevent it. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite raised the point that we might escape invasion by fraternising with those who share their views abroad. We do not share that opinion for the very good reason that the fraternisation between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and their friends at home has not led to a very great increase in the amenities which control their feelings, and you have only got to read "Justice" on the one hand and "The Labour Leader" on the other to see that there are wide differences of opinion. Nor has the fraternisation of the gentlemen of these political views abroad made any reduction in the armaments of their own countries.
Question agreed to; Resolutions to be reported to the House to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.