§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)For the fourth time in this great War the opportunity has come to make a statement on Army Estimates. These are, as usual, submitted in token form, for reasons which have, on more than one occasion, been given to the House. Since their introduction last year many changes have taken place. I will not refer to the great change which was dealt with yesterday. The great question of man-power has been entrusted to another Department of the State, and the ever-fascinating Air Service has burst its narrow limitations, and has now, justly, claimed for itself a Ministry of its own. Consequently it will not be necessary for 768 me to deal with these two great questions, one of which has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, and the other of which will be dealt with to-morrow by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Air. I can, I think, best divide the statement I am about to make into two definite parts—first, the business part—and that is the most intricate part—and if I have to consult my notes more often than I or the House could wish, I hope hon. Members will forgive me—and the second, the part dealing with personnel.
I have had occasion to compare the War Estimates of the strenuous century that has gone with the War Estimates of to-day. I am appalled at the contrast. Speaking on the business side of the Estimates, I feel as if I were standing here to-day making the annual statement to the directors, trustees and shareholders of the greatest industrial concern in the world. I need hardly tell the Committee that the importance and magnitude of the task involved in the Supply of the British Armies both at home and abroad has by no means diminished in the past year. The first two years of the War may be said to have been devoted to the country's organisation for facilitating production. No sooner had this work been satisfactorily accomplished than now and great difficulties began to be caused by the ever-increasing shortage of materials and of labour, and—what is of much more importance—by the ever-increasing limitations of the means of transport. During the last year or eighteen months the problem before us, as the greatest spending Department of the State, has gradually ceased to be that of converting the peace-time production of the country into warlike issues. It has become in an ever-growing degree a problem of combating the various phases of war stringency, which would, if they remained unrestricted, seriously impair the country's productive capacity for both civilian and military needs. The irresistible train of circumstances has even obliged us to extend our control over civilian supplies in certain industries in whose products we are, perforce, deeply interested.
Since my right hon. Friend and colleague introduced those Estimates last year important changes in our organisation affecting the Contracts and Supply Departments have taken 769 place, resulting in probably the most colossal organisation in industrial history, A new member of the Army Council, designated the Surveyor-General of Supply, was appointed as an administrator charged with the whole business of contracts and supply. The country was fortunate in securing the whole time and honorary services of my friend and colleague, Mr. Andrew Weir. His loyal devotion to this work, his magnificent ability and world-wide experience, have enabled him to render. services which his country can never repay. It was part of his plan and system on his appointment to divide up his great Department and to distribute its duties among new directorates instituted for specific purposes. In addition to that he instituted a far-reaching system of Control Boards and Committees. These Boards meet regularly, and keep closely in. touch with all questions affecting the particular industry concerned. There is also a series of Supply and Demand Committees dealing with questions arising out of the ordinary routine of purchase, composed of men skilled in their own particular branches of industry. It is difficult, as the Committee will realise, in a few words, to convey any idea of the scope of the work of this Department.
Mere figures are at best an unreliable guide to the work of any Department, but I think that the Committee will be interested to hear that the value of the purchases made by this Department during the year 1917 amounted approximately to a total of £270,000,000 of manufactured goods, including £26,000,000 for the Allies and £113,000,000 for raw materials. One of the largest items is preserved meat, upon which £12,000,000 was spent, representing 270,000,000rations. In the year before the War, the total imports into this country of preserved meat amounted only to about 100,000,000lbs., so that the Army is now consuming about three times as much as the whole population of this country consumed before the War. It has also purchased 34,000 000 lbs. of tea, 177,000,000 lbs. of sugar, and 115,000.000 tins of milk; while under the heading of tobacco now, I think, rightly regarded as part of the solder's ration, 8.500,000 lbs. of pipe and chewing tobacco and nearly 11:000,000 lbs. of cigarettes, in all their varying degrees of popularity, were purchased. The cigarette is. as the House knows, the soldier's favourite from of smoke.
770 The War Office is now the biggest wool textile concern in the world Its production is, in many cases, considerably in excess of the total pre-war output. Its purchases arc made at the rate of over 250,000,000 yards of material a year. For every 100 blankets produced for all purposes in a normal year before the War, 250 are now produced for direct Government purposes. Its expenditure on wool alone was £88,000,000, and in the striking way in which my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Financial Secretary, in his splendid speech introducing these Estimates last year, put it, we have made such miles of cloth and flannel that would extend six or seven times round the earth at the Equator. As before, and this was the first occasion when my right hon. Friend, with consummate skill and success, had to deal with the great problem of the wool industry of this country, the entire British wool clip has been purchased direct from the farmers, and arrangements have been made with the Australian and New Zealand Governments to take over their crops, and even the crops of Iceland and the Falkland Islands, have been purchased. It is interesting to note that 67,000,000 bandages, 2,000,000 ozs. of quinine, 1,500,000 doses of tetanus anti-toxin, and 4,700,000 lbs. of cotton wool were purchased.
The question of tonnage is now the most vital for the conduct of the War, and I think it is due to the Department which I represent to say that we have attempted so to adjust our demands as to lessen the burden of our requirements on the available freight of the country. We have made every effort, both to induce the requisitioning Department to reduce their estimated requirements, and to purchase in the countries which are most convenient from the point of view of shipping such articles as must inevitably be obtained in the interest of the Service. In spite of all our efforts and adjustments, however, the stringency of freight inevitably results in decreased supply. The strain occasioned by this shortage has been unfortunately thrown to a great extent on the civilian trade, and our interference in the trades which we have been compelled to control has necessarily incurred great responsibility, not only for the continuance and preservation from ruin of large sections of the controlled trades, but also to the reasonable satisfaction of the civilian population and certain other demands 771 which do not usually fall within the province of the War Office to supply. The control which we have instituted is of a sympathetic nature. We brought together the various sections of the trade concerned, and the manufacturers, I am glad to say, have been most loyal in their co-operation and in their work.
Under one of our schemes arrangements have already been made for the production of 2,000,000 suits of men's clothing, 500,000 men's overcoats, and 250,000 boys' suits. The general result of this is that we ensure by our control and co-operation that production shall not be diverted to that class of goods which will return the greatest profit, but to that which satisfies the more reasonable needs of the general community. While a fair profit is ensured, manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are prevented from making the undue profits which would be obtained if normal operations of supply and demand were relied on in a market rendered abnormal by the scarcity conditions of the War. The shortage of material and tonnage forced us not only to be careful in the distribution of what is available, but also in the substitution of other articles for what is not available.
4.0 P.M.
Perhaps it will interest the House to know that we have endeavoured by an experiment to find a substitute for tin plate for the packing of food supplies for the Armies. To manufacture 20 tons of tin plate we require about 28 tons of steel, and to pack the jam rations alone entailed the consumption every month of as much steel as would be required to build a 300-ton ship. We experimented successfully in the substitution of wood-pulp board for this tin plate, and in all 6,000.000 lbs. of foodstuffs are. being packed every week, by which a saving of 60,000 tons of steel every year will be effected. The economies in prices paid which have been effected are, of course, literally incalculable. It is obviously impossible to say what would have been the eventual cost to the State if there had been no control. The same remark applies in a very large degree to the savings effected by our method of investigating manufacturers' costs.
We have established at the War Office a new section under a Director of Costings. Mr. Waterhouse. who has consented to give his services free. The Costings 772 Section is not only charged with the investigation of the costs of the contracts submitted to it, but it also has power to review the prices of all contracts, and to suggest investigation in any cases where investigation may seem desirable. In all 6,500 contracts were satisfactorily submitted for this wholesome form of investigation, and the House will be interested to know that the expenses of this section cannot exceed ½ per cent. of the estimated savings effected. This spirit of rigorous control over articles and material acquired by us has been exercised by us in the supply of these articles to the troops. We have taken action by reducing the quantity of foodstuffs issued as rations, by the better cooking and serving of the rations— 49,000 men have passed through the Command Schools of Cookery—by the proceeds of by-products not required for messing purposes, especially of fat, from which glycerine is recovered for conversion into propellant explosives. Edible fats are largely consumed by the troops in lieu of margarine. We recovered from by-products alone crude glycerine at the approximate annual rate of 1,800 tons. This glycerine is sold to the Ministry of Munitions at £59 10s. per ton, as against the current market quotation of £300 per ton for imported glycerine, and the 1,800 tons of crude glycerine provide the nitroglycerine necessary for the propellant charges of 18,000,000 shells.
Such results in economy may be attributed largely to the inspections of the Chief Inspector of the Quartermaster-General's Services and his assistants, and also to the work of inspectors, a great many of whom are Members of this House—inspectors in catering and messing auditors in various commands, and to the hearty co-operation of the General Offices Commanding and Officers Commanding the various units. This work now will be carried on by a Salvage Board, presided over by the Quartermaster-General. A complete organisation has been established under a Director of Salvage, who is charged with the duties of recovering in any form, for the remanufacture of supplies, any kind of material that may be available. Of course, salvage is no new thing in the Army. It has always been part of the recognised duties of units in the field to recover everything which. through usage, accident, carelessness, or the incidence of war operations, might have become the 773 proper subject of salvage to be collected, sorted, and restored to units for further use. The chief difficulty, however, in the way of getting the best advantage from such salvage operations in the past arose in connection with the disposal of material which was beyond repair, for further use in the field. The new organisation has endeavoured with success to provide, and will continue to provide, uses and destinations for all such discarded material, arranging for its transport and shipment to such destinations and for its final disposal, either as utilisable material, or for conversion into recoverable products, all of which can be again utilised for the manufacture of fresh supplies, thus saving not only the raw material itself, but also the cost of now raw material and the tonnage required for importing it. It is calculated that this will ensure to the nation in a year the saving of scores of millions of pounds, whilst the release of tonnage for the purpose of importing foodstuffs will be of incalculable value.
Already workshops have been established in all parts of France, where worn-out boots are being repaired, re-made, and re-issued to the troops by hundreds of thousands, the repaired boots being generally preferred by the soldiers to new ones. Damaged clothing, tents, leather work, saddlery, guns, rifles, and ammunition are all being repaired, and re-issued in the same manner. There are, too, completely equipped workshops, where motor wagons, cycles, and cars are repaired, refitted, and returned to service, no matter how badly they may be damaged by shell fire. All kinds of ingenious processes and methods are being developed which are not only of very great utility at the present time, but which will continue to be of considerable value to the nation when the day of industrial reconstruction arrives. Empty ammunition boxes, cartridge cases, food boxes, and boxes of all sorts, empty she cases, empty bottles, jam tins, drums, and sacks, and even the old tin can, are being salved wherever possible, and returned for further service, or disposed of to our Allies where the exigencies of transport make this advisable.
Steps are being taken now to deal with civil waste in the same way as with Army waste, and for this purpose a National Salvage Council is being constituted under the chairmanship of the Quartermaster-General, and consisting of representatives of all the 774 Departments interested, in order to provide a co-ordinated scheme of salvage which will have most far-reaching results in the days of scarcity that lie before us. We cannot sufficiently impress upon our minds that every ton of raw material saved or salved in this country not only saves the cost of a corresponding ton of new material, but releases more and more tonnage for the importation of foodstuffs which, once consumed, cannot be reproduced.
It is in this spirit of saving tonnage that the Department controlled by that distinguished public servant, the Quartermaster-General, Sir John Cowans, has concentrated its thoughts upon the distant theatres of war. In Mesopotamia alone there are approximately 1,000 square miles under cultivation. Egypt is self-supporting in sugar, potatoes, onions, beans, lentils, salt, fresh vegetables, fowls and eggs, and, in addition, it provides 80 per cent. of its hay-stuff requirements. The manufacture of jam, pickles, lime juice, and margarine is also being extended locally. In all, as the result of the organisation of local resources, at least 2,000,000 tons of shipping will be saved in the coming year. While every effort has been made to save tonnage, unexampled endeavour has been made, through distinguished men like Sir Guy Granet and Sir Sam Fay, to make our railway tracks and our inland water transport attain wonderful perfection.
I need not detail the hundreds and thousands of wagons and engines and stock of all sorts in all parts of the world, and the thousands of miles of railway tracks of all gauges, and the thousands of skilled railway workers, officers and men, who have been found for railway and road services in all the theatres of war. But it will interest the House to know that during the year that has just gone nearly 7,000,000 of personnel, 500,000 animals, over 200,000 vehicles, and over 9,500,000 tons of stores were conveyed to the various fronts. These stores are of infinite variety and size, from the big gun —and the guns have increased in their number and range by almost 50 per cent. —to the watch, and the care, skill, and energy which have been displayed in their packing and dispatch redound to the infinite credit of all the officers and men. When these stores arrive, particularly in distant theatres of war, such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. they are in the main manipulated by the Inland Water Transport.
775 In Mesopotamia the river fleet has been increased by 700 craft of all descriptions, and about 1,000 miles of waterways are now operated there. The navigation of the Tigris has been greatly improved by buoying and dredging the channel, reorganising the pilotage service, and lighting the most difficult part of the channel, so that navigation may be conducted by night as well as day; and the district is now a busy collection of docks, wharves, jetties, camps,and workshops. During last year over 1,000,000 personnel and nearly 1,250,000 tons of traffic were conveyed by water in the various theatres of war, and the traffic mileage amounted to over 230,000,000. All these matters are interesting, and all these measures are altering the map of the world.
It may not be without interest to go to another branch of the subject, to know that the geographical section of the General Staff have issued no fewer than 20,000,000 maps of all kinds, and in another branch of the staff over 13,090,000 foreign cablegrams were censored, and information gathered there from distributed to over 100 Government Departments. During last year 4,000 workers in the Postal Censor's Office have examined about 180,000,000 postal packets, have stopped 356,000 of these as giving information useful to the enemy, and have supplied about 40,000 memoranda concerning war trade to the Blockade Department and other authorities concerned.
I will now turn to what I described at the beginning as the personnel side, Members of this House have a fair idea, if not an accurate one, of the numbers of troops which are at present in the various theatres of war. The Army to-day is the nation, and the flower of its youth and manhood come into its ranks with automatic precision. We took steps to train them by a system of graduated instruction. All commands at home were asked to give their particular attention and assistance to the question of technical instruction, and in most districts a general education designed to increase the efficiency of the young soldier against his return to civil life has been instituted. We are now trying to perfect the scheme, in consultation with the Board of Education. Associated with the training and education of the young soldier is the question of discipline.
776 One of the outstanding features in these great campaigns has been the willingness with which the men of our country have submitted themselves to what has been called the "rigours of military discipline." It is remarkable how few have been the cases in which the provisions of the Army Act sanctioned by this House have had to be applied. This splendid spirit of the troops as a whole has saved the. country, and the fine spirit and the fine traditions of the regiments of the Old Army, the love of which kept it strong and brave as nothing else could, are now as strong in, and as sacred to, the last but freshest of the battalions of the New Army.
We have no longer military prisons, with their crude and cruel associations, associations too often drawn from the imaginative pages of history. A new spirit prevails. The detention barracks has none of these associations. The soldier who has been sentenced can be sent there, not to repine in his cell, but to carry out his training in all spheres with the sure prospect that when he has become fit, he will have the opportunity of having most of his sentence commuted, and of regaining in the Army his position and honour. From our detention barracks in this country many thousands of soldiers have gone as willing, disciplined, and highly-trained men to the front line, having served but a short part of their sentence; and it would be of immense interest if any Member of this House were to visit the detention barracks at Aldershot, where Colonel Turton, who is responsible for carrying out the whole system of training and drafting men in detention overseas, would willingly show him the methods of moral suasion and healthy discipline which are now employed. One of the best Acts ever introduced in the history of military affairs is the Suspension of Sentences Act, 1915. However grave the crime, and however severe the sentence, the soldier who has committed the crime, and who is doomed to serve his sentence has, under this Act, the chance to make good, and thousands of cases have occurred in France where soldiers, sentenced for detention have, after a short period of imprisonment, had there cases reviewed, to be then let out on probation and, having done well and rehabilitated themselves, have found their sentences entirely remitted, and their records expunged.
777 One of the greatest difficulties with which an Army at all times has to cope is the provision of suitable officers, particularly if, as in our case, we are suddenly called upon to provide men to officer the manhood of the nation. No member of the Committee will ever forget the invaluable work at the beginning of this War of the Officers Training Corps. It was not then a rule that in officer, before he could get his commission, should serve abroad, but experience has shown, now the supply of likely officers has greatly increased, that we should, except in a few special cases, before an officer obtains a commission, find out whether he has served. abroad, has reached the rank of corporal, and has thereby shown qualities of leadership, We have for the Regular Army also extended the period of training at Woolwich and Sandhurst. It is' not always the case that a boy who is able to pass with flying colours examinations in languages and mathematics will make the best officer. Merit in that respect should always be a test, but it should not be the supreme test. One has often found that a boy who was captain of his "Rugby Fifteen." or who has been captain of the cricketeleven has found it difficult, to put it no higher, to pass such an examination; but the chances are that he has all the qualities of leadership, and he should be encouraged to give scope to those qualities in the Regular Army. A boy of this type, in my view— and this is the policy of the Army Council—should still have the right of being nominated. The authorities at Woolwich consider that the nominated cadets are far and away the best, most capable and hard working, and often produce the best cadets of each batch, both in work, maturity, experience and efficiency of command.
I was asked a question about nominations by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), and I followed the case of the cadets referred to. It is a most remarkable fact—this occurred in May, 1916—that fifty-nine Artillery cadets were commissioned, and twenty of these were nominated. Eleven out of the first twelve places in the order of merit for work done whilst at the Royal Military Academy Course were obtained by these nominated cadets. It is interesting to note that the number of commissions and warrants prepared and published during the last ten months were t commissions for officers 48,432, and warrants for war- 778 rant officers 6,435. As the Committee is always interested in a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Munitions, I may here state that the promotions from the rank of second-lieutenant to first-lieutenant, which have taken place on the recommendation automatically of that Committee, now number over 25,000. During the same period the honours and awards for war services, necessitating the publication of forty-seven Honours Gazettes, were as follows: to officers, 16,813; to other ranks, 49,100. The legitimate inference, if the Committee will follow me, from that is that there have been active and constant operations in all theatres of War during the last year, and their success, as well as the pluck and resource displayed by our troops, may well be judged by the capture of 168 heavy howitzers, 68 heavy guns,.437 field guns, 1,057 trench mortars, and 2,843 machine guns
It follows, too, that these ceaseless operations, whether on a major or on a. minor scale, demand from the authorities concerned the utmost care of the health, well-being, and contentment of the troops This Well-being and contentment can best be controlled by the exercise of caw. in giving good and abundant rations, by giving the utmost carp to the health of the troops, by giving what the soldier and his friends appreciate more than anything else, as much leave as is consistent with the exigencies of the Service, and, above all, by a reasonable increase in his pay. The Committee will agree that the commissariat for the troops in all theatres of War has been a splendid achievement, and it is equally remarkable to realise how greatly the troops themselves appreciate that, whether they be at the base, in the rest camp, in the second line, or even in the first line trenches, every effort has been made and is being made to see that they are well supplied.
As to their health, the devotion of the Royal Army Medical Corps has been magnificent. I have mentioned on more than one occasion in the House the very large number or casualties in the commissioned ranks among this branch of the Service, which show that it docs not shirk its responsibilites or dangers. In the Napoleonic War the percentage of deaths from disease was 97, and from death on the battlefield only 3 per cent. As was pointed out last year, even as late as the 779 South African campaign, there were 60,000 cases of disease admitted to hospital and over 8,000 deaths, that is to say, there were four times as many men who died from disease in South Africa as there were cases in France up to the 1st November of last year. More remarkable still, although the Army has increased considerably, last year in France the contrast is even greater.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir W. Cheyne)—than whom there is no greater authority in his own special line in this House or probably out of it—the other night related his experiences in France, and he made it clear that though we had to deal with a stationary Army in which epidemics of disease are most liable to breakout, and not with an advancing Army, where disease, as one gathers from one's reading of history, is less prevalent, our skill in sanitary science, our care and forethought have made the amount of disease least in the history of any Army in the world. It is well to point out that, while conditions in France are to satisfactory, in other theatres of war, such as Salonika, conditions are not so satisfactory In Macedonia, in summertime the climate is one of the most pestilential in the world, and the malaria is of the most malignant type. When this was found out, energetic sanitary and hygienic propaganda was set going, including such measures as anti-mosquito and anti-fly campaigns, the issue of mosquito nets to every soldier, and the drainage of swampy areas, which form breeding places for the mosquitoes, carrying malaria infection.
The results are remarkable in every way. The amount of sickness in the Salonika Army in 1917 has been reduced to two-thirds of what it was in 1916, while the death-rate in 1917 has been reduced to one-third of the 1916 figures. The success and gallantry of the Army Medical Service have given it a place in the Army which it has never had before, and no one is more glad than the fighting-soldier units that the members of that Service should be recognised as being on a level with himself. It has now been arranged that the term, "Lieutenant-General or Major-General" should be applicable to a Surgeon-General, and in future a General in the Royal Army Medical Corps will be known as a Lieutenant-General or Major-General "A," 780 or "B," Surgeon-General to the Forces No one has been more responsible for the success of this branch of the Service than my hon. friend Sir Alfred Keogh, who, coming forth at the beginning of the War after a brilliant career in the Service, assumed control of the Service which he had so long adorned. He will soon go back to the scientific work which he loves, and I should like to take this opportunity publicity, on behalf of the Army Council— and the Army as a whole—and, indeed on behalf of the whole of the people of this country who have friends in the Army—of acknowledging the magnificent work he has done during these three and a half years of strenuous and patriotic service.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONBut even the most skilled medical officer may fail to counter-attack successfully against the attack of death, and British cemeteries, 700 of them in number, make sacred ground behind the lines, and amid the flowering weeds of No Man's Land. They are all carefully tended, and over 200,000 graves and burials have been registered in our theatres of war. Everything possible is being done, by the care and loving attention bestowed upon these sacred last resting places, to lighten the load of sorrow of those whose cherished gifts to the nation they were.
The question of leave has for long been a difficult one. I have had to remind the House on more than one occasion that the question of leave was not a matter of right, but a matter of privilege. In distant campaigns, in the old days, the question never did and never could arise so acutely as it has in this War. But it was bound to arise in a campaign in which the dull boom of mighty guns can be heard in the homes of the men who fired them. I feel sure that the Committee will recognise that no Commanding Officer or Commander-in-Chief willingly deprives a soldier of his leave, unless that leave is forfeited. It is as important to him to have healthy, strong, well-contented, and satisfied men behind him as it is for a Government to have a united and contented populace behind them. I gave quite recently the figures of leave from France, and I stated then that within the last four months over 600,000 men had got leave. I am glad to say that over 200,000 men have got leave in the last recorded four weeks—leave not of four days, but of fourteen days.
§ Sir J. JARDINEWhat about Mesopotamia?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is leave, not of four days, as was the case when, with a thin line, our men were gallantly facing the German hordes, but leave of fourteen days. While that is eminently satisfactory as far as France is concerned, the position in regard to the distant theatres of War is not, in the nature of things, and cannot be, so satisfactory. Take the case of Salonika. I have been in communication with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Sir George Milne, on more than one occasion. I know how sympathetically he regards this question. His sympathy will be seen from this telegram, which I received the other day:
Have practically finished with all men who have been abroad and have had no leave since 1st January, 1915, and am at present sending those who went abroad that year. Numbers sent monthly depend on questions of transport by sea and land entirely, and this is a question entirely out of my hand. Were transport granted, can spare double the number I. am now sending.I immediately communicated with the Admiralty, and am glad to be assured by them and by the Ministry of Shipping that the hope expressed will be to a large extent carried out. They are most anxious and willing, in the same way as they co-operated in regard to the troops in Franco, to co-operate with us by all possible means, and at every possible time, to bring back to this country as many officers and men as possible from these distant theatres of War.
§ Sir J. JARDINEWill it be the same in Mesopotamia?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe last guarantee of contentment I suggested was the question of reasonable pay. Under the old peace code the soldier of the Departmental arms, such as the Army Service Corps and the Army Ordnance, were better paid than the fighting man because his life was in other ways less attractive. The conditions of prolonged war and compulsory service have entirely changed the position, and accordingly changes have been found necessary in the pay code. In the new war code a minimum of Is. 6d. a day has been established for all arms of the Service, thus bringing the Infantry soldier, who bears the brunt of the fighting, up to the level of the Departmental arms. At the same time the State has taken over the responsibility for that part of the separation allowance paid to the families and dependants of the soldier which formerly was paid compulsorily by himself.
782 The officer's pay has been dealt with on somewhat different lines. The minimum of 10s. 6d. a day for all arms brings the largest benefit to the Infantry subaltern, and allowances have been given for the maintenance of the children of the junior ranks in recognition of the fact that the junior officers of the New Army are not necessarily mere lads fresh from cadet colleges, but are very largely family men. The cost of these improvements in Army pay may not be a feat of economy, but it is, in my judgment, entirely warrantable and will amount to about £65,000,000 a year. Both soldiers and officers are already drawing currently their increased rates of pay, while the arrears from 1st October last are being worked out in each case, and notified to the officer or man concerned as fast as the very large numbers of accounts involved can be made up.
A very well-deserved, tribute was paid the other day in this House to Sir John Garter, the Paymaster-in-Chief, who has had to grapple with the task of unprecedented magnitude. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Walton), who is a severe critic in financial matters, on the same occasion quoted figures to show that in his opinion the expansion in the personnel of the Department was out of all proportion to the increase of work. He took the number of troops in peace time at 250,000 and the number of clerks engaged in keeping accounts at 600, and argued that an expansion to some 26,000 clerks to keep the accounts of the present Army was quite unreasonable. The actual figures are, of course, quite different. The 600 clerks in peace time kept the accounts of about 130,000 men, while now, in addition to the men's accounts, there is an enormous mass of work relating to the payments made to the wives, children and dependants, the numbers of men, women and children on pay being in the neighbourhood of 10,000,000.
There are some men who may never go abroad at all, through no fault of their own, but who are none the less loyal and dutiful citizens of the Crown. I refer to the Volunteer Force. Before I say a few words about them I should like to pay my tribute of appreciation and respect to the gallant officers of the Special Reserve, who have worked day and night at home to provide drafts for overseas. They were in reality the old Militia. What this country would have done without them and the Territorials in 1914, 783 history alone can compute. When our Expeditionary Force was daily and nightly bearing a brunt unequalled in history, when their silent and determined lines were being thinned by devastating death, the Special Reserve, with its young and old officers and men who had served in peace time, and while in civil occupations, had signed an obligation to serve on the first outbreak of war, came to them in France and Flanders to till up the gaps and to stand by them. There are officers, some of them Members of this House, who have trained thousands of these men with a skill and devotion which I trust this country will never forget.
The Volunteers since the beginning of the War have formed a splendid outlet for the patriotism, enthusiasm and ardour of men who, by reason of their age or other infirmity, could not join the active service ranks. They are now, by Statute and by desire, a definite part of the Home defence of this country. Important steps have recently been taken for their better organisation. Their total establishment has now been definitely fixed. They still consist mainly of Infantry battalions, but the formation of units of other Arms has made considerable progress during the past year, and the force now includes certain Artillery and Engineer units, as well as Motor Volunteer and Field Ambulance Corps. It has also been recently decided that the whole of the Field Medical units required for service in the event of invasion shall be provided on a Volunteer Force basis. During the past year every Volunteer Infantry battalion has been given the services of a full-time adjutant. Most of these are Regular or Territorial officers, who have had experience of field service. Large numbers of Volunteer officers have attended courses of instruction, and been able as a result to supplement the instructional work of the adjutants. If the hour of emergency should ever come, I feel sure that these men would give a great account of themselves and would bring credit to Major-General the Earl of Scarborough, the Director-General, who has spared neither time nor trouble in fostering their welfare.
Abroad and at home the process of the substitution of women for men, and the transference of high-category men in non-combatant units to combatant units goes on apace. The Women's Army Auxiliary Corps was started in 1917 784 (absorbing the Women's Legion) to replace soldiers by women in almost a hundred employments, from the domestic services to such trades as electricians and acetylene welders. The corps is organised under its own female officers, with a strict discipline of its own. Over 27,000 have now been enrolled, of whom 6,500 are abroad, 500 are waiting to be drafted overseas, and the remainder are employed at home. This corps has done most useful work, and it is more than a pity that malicious rumours, calculated to besmirch its fair name, should find currency in our social life.
The Labour Corps has now reached the large number of 350,000 men of all colours, castes, and creeds. There is scarcely a man there in category A. It relieves both at home and abroad regiments of fighting men of labour fatigues and employment of all kinds. If we are now the largest employer of labour, we have also become the largest land holder. The Lands Department, so ably and energetically controlled by Sir Howard Frank, who is giving his invaluable services free, has assumed enormous proportions, and its work daily assumes greater magnitude as it extends its assistance to other Government Departments, and thus ensures co-operation and economy.
The Committee will expect me to say a few words about the general military situation. Some two months ago the Prime Minister gave an exhaustive survey of the events of 1917, and of the military situation as it was at the end of last year. Since then no operations of any outstanding importance have taken place in any theatre, and I find myself in a position, therefore, to add little to what was then said by him. In the Western theatre, operations during the past two months have been confined to raids and minor actions, in which our troops have more than held their own. The chief feature in that theatre during this period has been the unremitting activity of our Aircraft, which, in spite of every disadvantage of weather, have, in addition to numerous raids on various points of importance behind the German front, and constant attacks by low-flying machines on the enemy's troops and transports, undertaken a series of extremely successful long-distance raids into Germany. Railway centres, factories, and other military objectives in Lorraine, the Saar Valley, and along the Rhine have been attacked 785 with success, sometimes by daylight. Serious damage has been effected, the results in many cases being photographed, and the German people have been forced to realise that we can, and will, retaliate for the raids which have been made on British territory. Since 1st January bombing squadrons have made eleven raids on German territory, in the proportion of at least two to their one. It is satisfactory to note that recently the number of enemy aeroplanes brought down has shown a tendency to increase, while our own losses have sensibly diminished.
It is a matter of common knowledge now that the unfortunate situation in Russia has allowed the enemy to transfer a large number of troops from that theatre to the West, although one of the conditions of the armistice was that no such transfers of fighting troops should be effected. Since 1st December, the German forces in the West have been increased by more than twenty divisions, and a stream of reinforcements will, in all probability continue to flow from that theatre of war. The strength of the German Army on the Western Front is already far greater than it has been at any previous period of the War, and although the Allies are at present superior both in men and guns, the balance will soon be in favour of the enemy. We must, therefore, be prepared for a determined enemy offensive at an early date, and all the measures necessary to meet the situation have been made.
The strain which our troops and those of our Allies will have to bear may be severe, but they have in the past been by no means inferior to the enemy, both in attack and defence, and the uniform and striking successes of British arms during the past two years have inspired all ranks with complete confidence in their ability to hold their own. The spirit of the French Army is no less firm than our own, and the Allies face the trial that lies before them with the splendid equanimity which arises from confidence in themselves and in their cause, and in the belief that their latest. Ally, the United States, realises their need, and will make every effort to hasten the entry of her Army into the field. In Salonika, General Milne continues his steady Watch. In Mesopotamia, the splendid work of that wonderful and imaginative soldier, Sir Stanley Maude, is being continued by Sir William Marshal. In East Africa General Vander Venter has almost entirely restricted the enemy's 786 freedom of movement, compelling him to find increasing difficulty in supplying his troops, and large numbers of them to desert.
The imagination of the country has been fired by the dashing success of Sir Edmund Allen by in Palestine, and the student of history and of Christianity has thrown open to him again the struggles and mighty endeavours of a remote past. Let me quote part of a letter from a gallant officer, written beneath an olive tree, spreading its fragrance in a place with which civilisation and humanity will ever be associated:
We entered Beersheba on 3rd November, and did 60 miles and went for So hours without food or water for our horses or cur men, fighting hard and under heavy shell fire till Gaza fell, and then it seemed to me one long series of brilliant charges, real Cavalry charges every one of them. whole brigades in line, till our swords dripped red. No quarter asked or given until we galloped into Jaffa. You should have seen the boys ride down the Austrian gunners. The Turks fired with fuses set at zero at 50 yards range, splitting the nearest horses literally in half, but our lads never wavered, and with a' view halloo' cur their way through, in the face of a murderous fire of machine guns. And so to the hill country of Judea— en foot when we could no longer ride— past Beth Huron the lower to the upper, on to Gideon where Joshua slew the five kings of the Amorites, till we saw the church of the. Holy sepulchie gleaming white in the subtropical sun— a real cruade, if you will ! Then back to the plain of Sharon after the Infantry came tip are relieved us exhaus ed as men and horses were after 24 days' continued fighting— boots and clothes on all the time, in tropical son and pouring rain— after lying out in freezing hail storms on rocky mountain tops 3,000 feet, above the sea, without coat or blanket. Our shirts were in rags, our boots existed only in name, soles off and toes protruding, covered with veldt sores, torn, ragged, unkempt and unshaven, but all of us cheerful and happy as schoolboys, in our knowledge of how thoroughly we bad routed the Turk. Now as I write I see Ekron, whence the Ark was sent from Esdud. On my rear and above me a magnificently wild and impressive mountain gorge with olives and fig trees in terraces along its precipitous slopes, leading up to the wilderness of Judea. Below me the rich, red soil of the flourishing town of the plains, all golden with the luscious orange crops bordering the glossy given trees. Ahead of me, Zorah, the birthplace of Samson, and the fields where he let loose the foxes, with tails alight, into the harvests of the Philstines. And bygone are the glories even of the Crusaders— of their strongholds only open yellow ruins remain— now the signal station of a British desert mounted corps. Joshua drove the defeated hosts of the Amorites along the mountain paths around me and it, has been left for us to be the first British Cavalry to traverse them. The men were absolutely magnificent. Hardships, hunger and thirst for men and horses were inevitable, but there was never a grouse.It is by deeds such as these, imperishable in their glory; it is in that spirit, unfaltering and indomitable, that the men of the 787 Empire fight for freedom in the classic fields of the world. They will not fail us, if we at home hold out.
§ Mr. TENNANTI think I shall be expressing more than my own view if I give my hon. Friend our congratulations on the exceedingly interesting and illuminating statement which he has just made. My brain almost reels with the figures he has given us, and I could not help wondering whether two or three years ago I should have been allowed to convey so much information to the House of Commons as he has been good enough to convey to us to-day. Perhaps we have passed through the period of complete secrecy as to these things. Early in his speech my hon. Friend alluded to the contrast between the present-day figures and those of last century, a contrast which, he said, "made him gasp," or words to that effect. My recollection of looking up the Estimates for the year before the Battle of Waterloo is that the whole sum voted and asked for from the Exchequer to support the Army which won the Battle of Waterloo was less than the amount we are now actually spending in one day. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's descriptions of the very large activities of the salvage work which is being done in France to-day, and I thought the figures with reference to the production of glycerine were most remarkable, illustrating as they did how enormously useful these salvage operations are and what immense savings can be effected. I was also very much gratified to know that the effects of the Suspension of Sentences Act, 1915, have been so good. I like to reflect that I was instrumental in passing that legislation through this House.
The occasion of the Army Estimates in this House is one for detailed criticism of Departmental administration rather than for raising vast questions of policy or of peace aims, which are more appropriate to other occasions, and I wish to say a few words on the administration of the War Office as it strikes me to-day. In common with other Members of Parliament, I have received a Circular from the Secretary for War dealing with the matter of decentralisation—it might, indeed, be called a decentralisation Circular. No doubt very valuable work has been done by the process of decentralisation, but it has been carried much further and in larger measure than even inside the walls of the War Office. It was started, of course, by the 788 creation of the Ministry of Munitions when I was at the War Office. It was continued by the creation of the Ministry of Pensions, by the establishment of the Air Board, and by the setting up of the Ministry of National Service. There have been further decentralisations, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the creation of the Department of the Surveyor-General of Supplies and by relieving the War Office of the administration of railways and transport, which I understand is now a separate Department. In my time the great heads of Departments were the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, the Master-General of Ordnance and the Chief of the General Staff. The creation of the Department of the Surveyor-General of Supplies has relieved the Quartermaster-General's Department. I hope a great saving has been effected. Some has been hinted at in the statement of my hon. Friend. I always like to reflect that the Quartermaster-General's Department from the first has been, if not the most economical, at any rate the most successful, perhaps, in the whole War Office, for no Army has ever been better found than our Army in the field to-day. The Adjutant-General's Department is receiving considerable relief by the creation of the Ministry of National Service, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Forster) has also got relief in his Department from the Department of the Surveyor-General of Supplies, which has taken off his hands the duty of contracts. He has further got relief by the creation of the Ministry of Pensions. In my time the subjects on which I had to answer most questions were connected with the Air Service and recruitment, but these two things have now been taken out of the hands of the War Office, and I congratulate my hon. Friend that he has thus been relieved of what might otherwise have proved an almost intolerable situation. The relief is reflected in the somewhat diminished number of questions he has had to answer. In the year 1915 I answered 2,890 questions; last year my hon. Friend answered 2,500, these not including the written answers. But really the greatest contrast is provided by the figures for the first three months of 1916, when I answered 1,691 questions or two-thirds of the total number of questions answered in the whole year. This must be a real relief to my two hon. Friends.
I want to say one word on the general policy of decentralisation. I presume it 789 is agreed in principle that decentralisation, or devolution, is desirable. But let us see how it works out in practice. It is not enough to have decentralisation merely to relieve the parent Department. It should satisfy one of two objects, and those two objects are to provide for large new developments or expansions which could not possibly be undertaken by the parent Department; and for more smooth working and economy in time, labour, or money. I imagine we shall all agree that the Ministry of Munitions was necessary because it was a physical impossibility for the War Office to supply munitions on the vast scale required by this War. It may also be conceded that the Ministry of Pensions was necessary because it was not possible for the War Office to cope with the many intricate questions involved by the grant of pensions on a large scale. If you pass away from the first of my two objects to the second—smoother working, expedition and economy—you have as an illustration the Air Board and the Ministry of National Service. No doubt there were cogent reasons for establishing a new system for supplying to the Army aeroplanes in increasing number, of greater speed and of greater reliability and regularity of type, and to do this outside the War Office. I do not inquire to-day whether that has been effected— that subject may be raised later on.
5.0.P.M.
But what I do wish to draw the attention of the House to are the difficulties which are inherent under this system with regard to dual administration by both the War Office and the Air Board. There are considerable difficulties for the War Office. Take the personnel, the men and women who enter the Royal Flying Corps; they are in the Army and subject to Army discipline; they are subject to the Regulations and restrictions of the Army Council as well as those of the Air Board. The Army Council cannot issue new Orders or new Regulations without consultation with the Air Board, neither can the Air Board issue its Regulations without consulting the Army Council. The result is considerable duplication and friction, and I believe a special staff has had to be created in order to co-ordinate the restrictions and regulations of the two bodies. Nobody for a moment can look on this as a system in which it is possible to secure economy; it cannot be economical either in time or money. Instances must occur to the minds of both the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen 790 opposite in which the body set up to coordinate and overcome the difficulties and friction between the two Departments has not always met with success in its efforts. Let me now turn to another Department which has been created quite recently— the National Service Department. It may be conceded it is desirable for the Army to be supplied with men by a separate Department. The activities of the Army Council should only begin after the supply of men has been received. I do not know whether that is a proposition which will meet with universal favour, but I will concede it on the understanding that the decision as to the number of men requisite for the Army must be left to the Army Council. Can it be shown that the machinery works as smoothly under the new system as under the old? It should not be made more difficult for a man to enter the Army under the new system than it was under the old, but I know of instances where that cannot be said to be the case, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have equal knowledge of such instances. While I may congratulate my hon. and right hon. Friends on, the amount of relief they have received by this decentralisation, my satisfaction is somewhat tempered by the alloy that so far as the general public is concerned there has not been universal improvement. If I turn for a moment to the increase of pay of the soldiers to which my hon. Friend alluded, I would say that while I am reluctant to give an increase of pay to anybody nowadays, I am less reluctant to do so in the case of the soldier than of anybody else. I am thankful to think that the pay goes principally to those who are the fighting men, both officers and other ranks. The Special Reserve has properly come in for a reference in my hon. Friend's speech. I am very glad to take the opportunity to thank the Special Reserve for the admirable work they have done throughout this long-drawn-out struggle. They have hardly ever received properly adequate recognition, and I am sorry they were not given the functions for which they were originally created. However, they have done a great work for which we cannot be too grateful. I should like to ask my hon. Friend, or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) if he is going to reply, if he could give us an assurance that the numbers of horses in France are the right numbers and are not more than are absolutely necessary for the conduct of the campaign?
791 What that number may be of course, I cannot pretend to say, bat when one has regard to the vast amount of food required, to the vital importance of tonnage, to which my hon. Friend properly drew attention, and to how desirable it is to convert vessels from exporters of horse food to importers of human food, I think we shall be glad of an assurance from the Government. One other word on a Departmental matter—namely, forests. I think no need has been shown to be so great in this War as the need for timber, and even when my hon. Friend gave us an illustration of how the War Office had converted the receptacles which hold jam from steel plates—
§ Mr. MACPHERSONTin,
§ Mr. TENNANTFrom tin plates to wood pulp, I could riot help wondering whether wood-pulp was not almost as difficult to get as tin plates. Indeed; we know there is a great shortage of timber, and what I would like to ask is whether it is possible for the Army Council to issue a statement to the Government, and particularly to the two great Departments of Agriculture in Scotland and England, to the effect that some national scheme of afforestation is so highly desirable for the future that every encouragement should be given not only for a State scheme of afforestation—which I do not think would be sufficient in itself but which would be of great value—but that encouragement should also be given to landowners and tenants all over this country to plant trees, and that no discouragement should be given in the way of what sometimes one hears suggested, namely, that because a man has a harvest which he gets at the end of forty years he should be subject to the very heavy taxation under the Excess Profits Duty. I trust nothing of that kind is contemplated.
§ Mr. TENNANTBecause the harvest only comes once in forty years, and it is imperatively necessary to the State that you should encourage afforestation rather than discourage it.
§ Mr. TENNANTIt does not. This is quite a different profit. I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the Medical Services. I can recollect 792 many occasions when. I have had to explain and defend the methods of transport of wounded from the battlefield to the casualty clearing stations, to the base hospitals, and to the hospitals at home; the treatment of disease; and particularly the care and the steps taken for the prevention of disease. I will naturally not repeat any of that now, but I think it is desirable that the House should recollect how in the Napoleonic campaigns, of the dead only 3 per cent, died of wounds and 97 per cent, died of disease. If we reflect upon the extraordinary alteration that has taken place in the present campaign, to which my hon. Friend referred, I think the nation will be really grateful to those who have planned and organised that wonderful organisation by which we have saved so many lives. There is no doubt that the person who is most responsible for that, the master hand and the master mind in that organisation, is Sir Alfred Keogh. I should like to remark that when Sir Alfred Keogh was persuaded to give up that work to which my hon. Friend alluded, and in which he was greatly interested, he came to the War Office to administer the Medical Services, which were then in a somewhat difficult position, as I daresay my hon. Friend remembers. He brought to that task a judgment, a skill, an energy, and prudence for which we are most grateful, and he has laboured with tirelessness, unceasingly and devotedly, for 3½ years to make the scheme as perfect as it is. Having had the honour of conferring with him during the early part of that period, that period which I think was more pregnant perhaps with possibilities of failure or success than any other period of the War, I look upon it as not merely a privilege but as a cogent and pleasing duty to record my warm appreciation of Sir Alfred Keogh's services to the State, as well as my great admiration for him as a man.
In conclusion, we are sometimes asked whether we find that soldiers at the front coming home are full of confidence and the belief that this great struggle is to end in the manner in which we desire. I would say "Yes" to that question. They are confident that they can play their part, and the only anxiety they have is lest we as a nation here at home should find the strain too great. That is a real anxiety, and in order to discharge our duty to our constituents, and that they should feel capable of bearing the great 793 strain upon them, it is essential that we should have confidence in our leaders both at home and abroad. I retain the confidence, which I believe is shared by the nation, a confidence which I have expressed more than once from my place in Parliament, in Sir Douglas Haig. I am not going into the controversy which was debated yesterday, but I cannot but say humbly how great is my admiration for Sir William Robertson, with whom I had the privilege to serve on the Army Council for more than a year, and how abiding is my admiration for his great qualities as a soldier and for his most unusual tact. If I express my confidence in these two great soldiers, let us not deny our confidence to those who are now going to take the place of Sir William Robertson, Sir Henry Wilson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. I would say of Sir Henry Rawlinson, who is one of my dearest friends, that I believe he will be bold, prudent, and strong in council, and in spite of the anxiety to which I have referred, I believe that if we undertake and shoulder our responsibility in a proper spirit, if we can only manage to put away that gloom which breeds discontent and really is only the prelude to failure, and if we can catch a little of the spirit of the trenches, of what we see in soldiers who come home from the front, then I think the period of anxiety and disquietude we are living through now can be successfully over passed.
§ Major WARINGI do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his survey of the situation for the reason that my knowledge is not as extensive as his, but the Under-Secretary for War, in the eloquent address he gave us this afternoon, mentioned that portion of our forces which is at the present time confronting the German-Bulgarian army in Serbia and Macedonia, and as having only recently returned from that force, in which I served for over two years, I not unnaturally listened with considerable interest to what he had to say, and it was a great satisfaction to me that he mentioned that force at all. Our troops out there have many difficulties and hardships to contend with, and not the least of the hardships is the calculated, if not indeed the contemptuous way in which they have been from time to time spoken of in this country, both in the Press and, I regret to say, in this House. As far as I can make out, anyone who has served 794 in Macedonia is looked on as an émbusqué individual who is not doing his bit in these times—
§ Major WARINGThat is the impression we gain in Macedonia. Everyone surely knows by this time that a soldier has to go where he is sent, and having been ordered to a certain place he has no further choice in the matter. One speech I remember reading there was delivered by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and was one in which he described our troops there as men who never fought, and who were in consequence utterly demoralised. That statement was without any shadow of justification whatever. The speech was delivered as a matter of fact; within a very short time after the two battles of Doiran, in which our Infantry behaved with exactly the same zeal, exactly the same courage, as has characterised our operations on every front throughout this War. And, if heroism is to be judged by casualties, then I assure hon. Members that on that occasion they were sufficient. The country which our troops have to fight through is an extremely difficult one. A very steep and deep ravine runs between the lines on large portions of the Doiran front, and our troops have to cross that ravine. Of course, it is ranged by the Bulgarians. All our brigades who took part in that battle did excellent work, but I can speak of one only, because I happened to be next to it at the time, and know what occurred. It was the second attack, and the men had no illusions whatever as to what they had to face. The ravine had to be crossed again, and it was then littered with the bodies of their comrades. The difficulties of a night attack in that country were exceedingly great, and I remember it was still night, and the attack had not been in progress an hour before the whole place was enveloped in smoke, and we could scarcely see anything. All the same, our Infantry went on without a check, the 12th Argylls got to their objective and started rapid firing, the Fusiliers and Rifles were not far behind, all penetrated to the Bulgarian support trenches, and the positions were held until further orders were received. The rest of the story is a matter of official record.
I do not claim that what was done on that occasion, and, indeed, on many other occasions—because this is not an isolated instance—was any more, wonderful than 795 what is being done continually in other theatres of the War, but I do say that troops who behaved as ours did on that occasion were not then, and could never be, demoralised, and that it was grossly unfair on the part of the hon. Member for Mayo to say what he did at such a time and without, apparently, making the slightest inquiry as to whether it was true. As regards training: This is not an isolated opinion which I am about to give. It is one which is shared by many Commanding Officers with whom I continually came into contact and with whom I discussed the matter. They are all agreed that the training of troops out there was fully equal, and, indeed, a great deal better, than in many other theatres of the War. There is not a single junior officer in Macedonia who has not been trained in the use of the Lewis gun, in musketry, bombing, gassing, etc.; and, of course, all the latest phases of trench warfare, attacks, and so on, are continually practised. It is true that the Army in Macedonia is, to a very large extent, an Army of sick men. I was very glad to hear of a reduction in the number of the sick, and especially in the number of deaths. It is the first time I have heard the figures, and they are very satisfactory. At the same time, the Army out there is, to a very large extent, an Army of more or less sick men. It would be quite impossible to campaign out there for months after months in a malarious country without feeling some injurious effects. I do not believe there is one man who has passed two summers in that country who is not going to carry about with him for years to come the germs of malaria. I know that everything humanly possible is being done to remove the cause of disease. There is no doubt that the very greatest credit is due to the untiring efforts of our sanitary staff and our medical officers. Take one instance alone, which was mentioned by the Under-Secretary—the case of flies. In the first year the flies covered everything. Last summer even, in the camp of a mounted unit such as mine, with the horses and the manure dealt with properly, there was scarcely a fly to be seen, and though the wet spring upset the feeding arrangements to a certain extent a large proportion, at least 75 per cent., of the improvement was due to the supervision of our sanitary officers, whose recommendations, 796 of course, the Commanding Officers were only too glad, ready, and willing to carry out.
To spend one's time up in the lines on the front is not to know the extent of our medical and sanitary arrangements, and it was not until I finally went sick in the autumn of last year that I was able to see for the first time the really fine work of organisation which had been carried on behind the lines by General Milne and General Rycroft. I am sure that the Committee will believe that my remarks are in no wise tainted by any question of consideration. I did not see General Rycroft in the course of my duty, and only once did I see General Milne when he inspected the convalescent camp. I owe them no debt of gratitude in another sense, because, unlike so many of my colleagues, civil and military, in this House and elsewhere, I am still undecorated and untitled. I merely give the impression that I received, and they are the impressions of a very humble regimental officer. If I venture to speak at all it is because I sometimes feel that the regimental officer is more in touch with realities, and is more nearly and more immediately affected by good or bad administration, whether things go right or whether things go wrong. When I went to the base at Salonika for the first time and saw the numberless villages of tents and marquees presented by the general hospitals I was full of admiration. Here, again, this is not an isolated opinion. I heard these very words used by officers senior to myself, who were lost in admiration at the organisation which had enabled that great system to be carried out.
In regard to the officers' convalescent camp out there it may be a small thing for me to mention, but. it is small things that count and that matter.to the soldiers in the field. I may be a little prejudiced, because I have seldom, if ever, passed a more pleasant time than I did in that officers' convalescent camp, under the ægis of the Commandant of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who was at that time in charge of the institution, and who had been since its inception. I was told that the convalescent camp had been the special hobby of General Milne. I believe he built it, and he was continually inspecting it. He did so while I was there, and he must have known it pretty well, because he found his way to the kitchens without any guide. If it was the object 797 of General Milne to try to make officers forget that there was a war in existence he very nearly succeeded, because to sit, as you are enabled to do, under a spacious verandah with a most charming garden and commanding views of one of the prettiest valleys in Macedonia was a treat and a luxury which we all appreciated exceedingly. So much so, that it was with great difficulty that officers were persuaded to leave that verandah and take the amount of exercise necessary to ensure complete restoration to health. It was only when some wise student of human nature thought of putting the sisters' convalescent camp a few miles further up the road that a daily walk of eight miles or so was appreciated by subalterns and general officers, in order to have the luxury of afternoon tea. The sisters out there are a very deserving body. Everybody knows how hard is the work of hospital nurses, even under normal circumstances; but hospital work in Macedonia is very hard indeed. These ladies lack many comforts and necessary conveniences, and, like the men, they are not immune from disease. Many of them have been out there two years without leave. Disease is always rife out there, and the hospital is nearly always full, and these good ladies are working incessantly. In my opinion, the women workers in Macedonia have added a very beautiful and noble chapter to our history.
I come to another matter, and it is a very serious one. It was touched upon by the Under-Secretary, and that is the question of leave at home. Twenty-one days out of eighteen months, which is what we are entitled to, is not very much to look forward to, but if that leave was regular, and if it was a certainty, it would not be so bad, but in the British Forces out there it has never been regular and it has never been certain. The French, on the other hand, are apparently capable of sending a continued stream of these leave men home. On my way home I was delayed three weeks in Old Greece. Although I personally thoroughly enjoyed my stay in one of the most historic valleys in that country, the fact is that we were a whole crowd of officers and men all causing needless expense. While waiting there another relief party arrived from Salonika. They stayed there for three days, and it was then found that they could not go, and they were brindled back to rejoin their limits. I characterise a thing like that as almost approaching a scandal. The dis- 798 appointment to those men was intense. All the time we were there, those three weeks in old Greece, we saw French convoys of relief parties passing and re-passing our camp. We were told that our position was due to lack of transport. The Under-Secretary read a telegram this afternoon from General Milne, which confirmed a rumour which we heard at that time. It does seem to me that what the French can do we ought to be able to do. At all events I think that one ship might be saved for the use of the Salonika Force in order that leave might be more regularly and more freely granted than at the present time.
There is one other grievance, and that is that ever since the Macedonia campaign started the French have made it a rule that any man who has been eighteen months in that country should have the right, if he feels so disposed, to claim to return to France to serve on the French front. No such rule has ever applied to the British Force. There was a rumour of something of the kind about the time I left, but I never heard anything official. I do think that in this respect a greater interchange of fronts might quite easily be organised on the same basis as is done in the French Army, and I am perfectly convinced that such a change would be very greatly appreciated. I quite admit that this is a minor matter so far as Salonika is concerned compared with the greater question of leave. The Undersecretary tells us that leave is a privilege and not a right. Surely in a campaign of this magnitude and of this lengthened duration all these War Office shibboleths are out-of-date and ridiculous. Have done with your shibboleths or have done with the men who make use of them. If arrangements arc going to be made to allow the military authorities in Salonika to grant more leave and with greater regularity something of very distinct value will have been secured for our exiles in that country, and I can assure the Under-Secretary that anything that he or the Government can achieve in that direction will earn the gratitude of all ranks in that Army.
§ Captain CARR-GOMMI desire very briefly to endorse the very able appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Waring) who has recently returned from the Salonika Army. I agree with him that the comments of certain speakers in this House and certain writers in the Press about that 799 force have been most unfortunate and most derogatory to the men who have been serving there and doing their best for their country. The hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Member for Blackburn are quite content to make use of the force which is serving in Macedonia for their perorations, but they do not come down hero when the Army Vote is on to hear the facts of the case from hon. and gallant Members who have served in that force and know exactly what it has to suffer. On the question of leave I do earnestly reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. I can speak from some experience of my own, and that of my friends who write me occasionally, and who see me when they return on leave. The officers and men of that force understand that there are great difficulties in the way of transport, and it is possible that the defence may be put up by the Government that the matter of transport may be more difficult for us than for the French. They do not mind that. They are men of sense. But what they object to is the inequality of the distribution of the leave. I have raised this matter for some time past, and I earnestly ask the Government to deal with it very carefully. We are very glad to receive the sympathetic message which has been read from General Milne, but the point as to the leave to the men who have to go for a long period to the front line is the fact that during the latter months of last year the ordinary leave parties of regimental officers and men who had to serve in the front line were not getting away.
My hon. and gallant Friend has given a striking example of what has happened in his own experience. I know of other similar cases. There were very few of these leave parties which were sent down to go back to England, whereas the men serving behind on the lines of communication were able to get away in the special parties in which were the officers on the Staff and on the Staff of Divisional and Army Commands. We therefore ask for some equality. I have experience—a small one I am afraid—of that front as well as in France. The point is that it is more necessary to get the leave for men on regimental duties in places such as Mesopotamia and Salonika than it is in France. In those areas, which are very barren and desolate, owing no doubt to the nature of the force, the battalions on the line have to serve for a very long 800 space of time, a much longer time than they would serve in France. No doubt the nature of the fighting is different. There is not the same enemy bombardment as in France, but the period of time served in the front line is very much longer. I heard the other day of the case of a young officer who had served twenty-eight nights of duty in succession. That sort of thing: does not take place in France, because there is a regular system of rotation of units in the front line. In France a unit returns to a rest village. In these Eastern areas the men do not even get back to such places as Salonika, where they can get some slight relaxation. All they can do for a battalion which comes out of the line is to camp by some fairly safe, but no doubt very distant, place beside a lake, where the men may have sports or concerts. But there is no other life and no change of scene at all. In the case of both officers and men serving in the line, and at regimental duties, who have to go through those long periods of fighting, it is more important to secure them in what the Under-Secretary calls the privilege of leave than it is in Franco, and I would ask him, when next he corresponds with General Headquarters in that area, to emphasise that fact. I think he will find, if he makes inquiries, that there has not been the fair distribution that there ought to have been.
As to the health figures for the Salonika Army, I do not wish to be hard, but I do think that my hon. Friend passed somewhat rapidly in his comment over these figures. We are all glad to hear of the improvement, but I have had some information, and I say with a considerable amount of confidence that the medical officers there are doing all they can to avoid putting men down as primary cases of malaria. I think that it is correct to say that the figures on which the hon. Gentleman based his statement are due to cases of primary malaria and not recurrent. I may mention two cases. One is an officer, a personal friend of mine, who went down with malaria while I was there. When he was in hospital they said, "You have had this before." He said, "No; never before." They said, "Well, you must have been in the East," and he had been in Egypt. The other case was that of a doctor, who, of course, is in a position to know something about his own case. He told me that he had the utmost difficulty in convincing the medical officers that he was a primary case. So keen are 801 the medical authorities to make Salonika into, I will not say a health resort, but still a place that is not unduly dangerous, that they are doing all they can to avoid putting down primary cases. This seems to me rather dangerous. I welcome the great diminution in deaths, and I am sure that it is largely due to the increase of hospital accommodation and in the number of Red Cross ambulances over the few roads that are in existence in that country.
I wish to emphasise the point that has been made with regard to a change of front. My hon. Friend knows quite well that there are continually eases of officers and men who return from the Salonika Front on sick leave or privilege leave and who endeavour to obtain an exchange. Is that surprising or unnatural? The War Office should take advantage of that fact. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, the French do it, and with very good reason, because they find that if they leave a man at the Salonika Front too long he will steadily deteriorate, and he will become far less efficient as a fighting man. Hot weather after hot weather comes, and a man gets malaria every hot weather, and becomes less efficient, and when he comes home on leave I do not blame him for trying to get an exchange to go, perhaps, to a more dangerous front. The War Office should take advantage of that and grant the application of such men, and send other men to take their place. I quite admit that all the difficulty rests largely upon the fact that you have got to distribute your man-power on different fronts, and it is a question of how much you can afford to send to Salonika; but I do think that it would be an economy in man-power if the Government could do more in the way of exchanging men to a different area when they get them home, instead of putting difficulties in the way of such exchange. I do think that it would be worth while for the Government and for the War Office to take up very closely the questions which have been referred to, because there are grievances certainly existing to which it is right that reference should be made by those of us who come back from these areas at various times to this House.
§ Colonel Sir H. JESSELThe hon. Member who has just sat down ought to be congratulated upon the very temperate case which he has made out in reference to the grievances of officers and men in Salonika. This force has not been in the limelight like the force in France, but we know that it has done very useful service. 802 I cannot agree with the general expression of opinion by the hon. Member for Banff-shire (Major Waring) as to the question of leave—that the doctrine that leave was not a right, but a privilege, should be done away with. I cannot see how you could do that in the Army. All that the authorities can do—and they do it to the best of their ability—is to give leave whenever they can. I would remind the Committee of the situation of the troops in India, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. They never come home. I have known friends and relations of my own who have been in India ever since January, 1915, who have been wounded and have not been sent home at all.
§ Major WARINGI naturally spoke from my own experience, and it is for other hon. Members to speak from theirs.
§ Sir H. JESSELI am very glad to have elicited that admission from my hon. Friend. Although I thoroughly sympathise with what he said we must be just to the authorities as a whole, and regard this question on a big scale. The War Office, I am sure, are bound to take notice of the two very excellent speeches of, and the strong arguments advanced by, my hon. Friends opposite; but is there not another way out? Could not the War Office send for a change some of these men to Cyprus, for instance, or even to Egypt for a change? It is very important, in some ways, that they should be sent to various fronts, and not always to the same place. I have been a good deal in France and I have been over the fronts, and I constantly heard the view expressed, in certain units or divisions, that the men were always sent to the same front on coming back from their leave, so that there was absolutely no change for them whatever. I do not need to be told that a good many soldiers have been accustomed to a particular portion of the front for years, but the monotony of their going to the same portion of the front is very great, for they see the same old village, and the same old washerwoman, and the whole thing becomes to them irksome. I am sure if the Army authorities had their attention drawn to this matter some difference would be made. Of course it is monotony that one has to guard against. I see that the Under-Secretary of State has returned to his place, and I beg to take the opportunity of adding my congratulations on his extremely interesting speech to the House of Commons this afternoon. Some have been in the House 803 a good many years, and I have no doubt that the present thin appearance of this Assembly reminds them of the appearance of the House in the old days when the Army Estimates were discussed. In those days the Press used to dismiss the Debates on Army Estimates by recording that a few old colonels were left talking, and never a word they said was reported. It is true that in those days discussion ranged round such topics as to whether a particular sergeant-major of the Militia should be a warrant officer or not. At present, however, the small attendance is proof that there cannot be anything very wrong with the organisation of the Army or there would have been a full attendance of Members to discuss these Estimates on the first occasion of their coming before us this Session. I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War can congratulate himself and the War Office on the fact that there has been so little criticism offered on the administration of the Army this afternoon. The ex-Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant) seemed, in my opinion, a little querulous during his speech, when he compared the task of the present Under-Secretary with what was his, and drew attention to the falling-off in questions to the War Office compared with the number in his time. I think he rather pitied his own lot and envied the fate of his successor. I think that is of great import from two points of view. In the first place, it shows things are now getting into a settled state at the War Office.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo!
§ Sir H. JESSELI beg the hon. Member's pardon, for he must know perfectly well that if a particular Department of the State is criticised the extent of that criticism can be judged by the number of questions asked in regard to it.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo, no!
§ Sir H. JESSELThe hon. Member can follow me; I am not going to give way to him. That is the deduction I wish to draw, and I think it is perfectly just to say that the organisation of the War Office and its administration of the Army form a subject on which they can be congratulated, and that the falling-off in questions shows the attitude of the House of Commons towards this Department of the State. While saying that, however, there are one or two blots on the escutcheon of the War Office, 804 and one or two things that have lately come under my own observation, on which I wish to offer a few observations. At home it seems to me that there is a waste of time and money in transferring men, who are not fit for combatant units, into other branches of the Service. These wretched men, some of them having been wounded two or three times, are kicked about from pillar to post, and we have a lot of men in the Army—I have seen it constantly—who really ought to be out of the Army, and who would serve a much more useful purpose in civil life. I know every effort is made to obtain fitting posts for these men; at the same time, a man who has been wounded presents a difficult case to be dealt with, and there are also cases of neurasthenia which one cannot judge of very easily, and it would be far cheaper to get rid of such men instead of keeping them hanging on. I do not wish to criticise the Commands, for I know they do their best; still, I am not at all sure that some more effective system and machinery could not be instituted, by special officers going round and making investigations, and so helping the Commanding Officers in what is a very difficult task. I venture, from my practical knowledge, to lay this suggestion before the War Office, because I think it means—this is not only my experience but it is that of some hundreds—getting men out of the Army who are not fitted for it but who would be capable and useful in various directions in ordinary civil life.
In regard to Army organisation, I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary pay a well-deserved tribute of admiration for the work of the Quartermaster-General and his Department. He has told us, and everybody knows it, how extremely well fed our soldiers are in every part of the world. We know that, in the far-distant spheres of the War the whole machinery of feeding our soldiers has worked admirably, and everybody has been satisfied with the result that has been achieved. What I wish to impress upon the Undersecretary of State is that it is most important that the War Office should retain control of the feeding of soldiers. Indeed, I want to make myself clearly understood on this matter. It is of the utmost importance that the soldiers should be well fed, and I do hope that the Ministry of Food will not be allowed to control the supplies to the Army. I know that there is a tendency on the part of Departments of the State to grab all they can, but I 805 think it will be a very bad day for the men of the Army if the Ministry of Food were allowed to control the supplies for the Army and the Fleet. I hope that the Army Council will resist to the utmost of their power any attempt on the part of the Ministry of Food to take over the control of the feeding of our troops. There are one or two other small points to which I should like to call attention. Much has been said about the good work which has been performed by officers of the Special Reserve. I agree in every way with what has been said, but I should have liked if something had been added about what the ex-officers of the Army did in 1914, many of them, at great personal sacrifice, having been out of the Reserves and everything else, or they helped in the formation of Lord Kitchener's Army, and rendered valuable assistance in various ways. Though I agree that we should pay every tribute to officers who were bound to serve, under the terms of their obligation in the Special Reserve, at the same time I think that gratitude is equally due to those old officers who were under no obligation to come forward, and who did come forward and do their very best, an essential best, at the beginning of the War.
Another small point has reference to non-commissioned officers who have been serving here at home. I think the time has now come when some recognition should be given to those deserving non-commissioned officers. Their names are never mentioned, and no decoration or medals for any kind of special service has been given to them. In a great many respects these men do a great deal harder work than in the case of men employed at bases in the war areas. The non-commissioned officer at home has to deal with the raw material, and everything that goes abroad has to be the finished article. The monotony is far greater in the case of the non-commissioned officer, though it is perhaps a privilege to be at home than at the front, and, in certain circumstances, the men at the bases of the Epeditionary Forces are far more safe than men quartered, say, in London at the time of an air raid. I think the Army authorities should do something for these very deserving non-commissioned officers, who many of them have served since the commencement of the War. A further point to which I wish to call the attention of the Under-Secretary, has reference to officers who are on consolidated pay. While those officers have been on con- 806 solidated pay new rates of pay have been provided for the Army. It was a matter of convenience in some cases' that officers were put on consolidated pay, but under the new Regulation, by which the pay of the Army as a whole has been generously advanced, those officers who are on consolidated pay will be in the position of receiving less than those who are paid the advanced rate. I trust attention will be given to this point, and that the financial authority will not take a niggardly view by saying that these men had made their bargain, but permit them to benefit along with their more fortunate brother officers.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Brigadier-General M'CALMONTI should like to say a word on the subject of leave. First of all, I distinctly disagree with the claim that it might be possible for the War Office to grant leave as a right. I cannot conceive the position of a general officer who, when he wishes to carry out any particular operation, finds that a large proportion of his force have become entitled to leave. He either has to refuse leave, which would cause difficulties and call attention to the fact, or say that the men were wanted for certain purposes, or else let them go on leave. Leave as a right and not a privilege is an impossibility. My object in rising was to mention one point in this connection. It is well known to the Committee that men on the completion of their full period of service are entitled to a month's leave. Those men are, I think, on a different footing altogether from the man who is waiting for the ordinary fortnight or ten days' leave. It has never been clearly laid down, and I think the point is one to which the War Office should give some attention, as to whether these men who have completed their period of service should come before men who may have been longer in the country, and who are, so to speak, entitled to leave. The question is one which has agitated the minds of general officers in France, and some direction is required from the higher authority. Some general officers say, for instance, "I have men in my division who have been eighteen months or two years in the particular country, and I propose to send them on leave before the man who has been here a year, even though that man is entitled by some Order to a month's leave." I do not wish to suggest which is the right 807 way. It is the business of the War Office to come to some definite decision on the point. I am informed the point has arisen on the Italian Front, and that there are a large number of men there who are entitled to this month's leave. I can quite understand that the Italian Front is a difficult one to get away from, but I think some effort should be made to get the question cleared up. I desire to support any hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last in his suggestion that if it is impossible to bring officers home, something might be done to give them a change of scene. I am quite convinced that by the expenditure of a certain amount of money it would be possible to arrange something better than a rest camp, and to have what you might call a recreation camp. This would apply very much more to the more distant theatres of war than to France, where, all things considered, I do not think people have got very much to complain about on the leave question. I think it could be done in the Mediterranean and Egypt and India, and there could be some recreation place where men could go for a month's change of scene and relaxation.
I would like to support very strongly what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe (Captain CarrGomm) on the subject of the discrimination frequently shown as to Staff officers' leave compared with that of regimental officers. I am afraid this is an old theme of mine, and as I have always been a regimental officer it is one which I feel very keen about. It has become a common saying that because a man sits in an office for some extraordinary reason he gets more time than the man who goes into the trenches, risks his life, and comes back. I am afraid that many general officers get the idea into their heads that Staff officers want a rest more than the officers who are daily risking their lives in the daily work of the trenches. I believe if Commanders-in-Chief were to make a little more careful inquiries into the arrangements under which officers go on leave, they would give more definite instructions which would ensure that no officer would get leave earlier because he happened to be a Staff officer. I would take the view that he should get leave later because he is a Staff officer, and that he ought not to be in front of his regimental brother. I would refer also to the question of warrant officers. I notice that the Under- 808 Secretary mentioned the large number of officers we were called upon to supply. Some months ago a suggestion was put before the Army Council, and I am under the impression that a definite statement was made in this House that it should be considered, to the effect that certain executive powers should be given to warrant officers. That, is to say, instead of going on making an unlimited number of officers, commanders of platoons were to be made of warrant rank instead of commissioned rank. There are a large number of men in the Army who, for family and other reasons, do not want commissions and do not wish to lose the status of sergeant-majors. There are undoubtedly many fine leaders of men in the Army who do not want to be officers. Those men become, possibly, sergeant-majors, company sergeant-majors, or regimental sergeant-majors. They are not fighting, and they feel that they have reached a cul-de-sac with no further prospects. The suggestion put before the Army Council was that you should do what is done in the French Army and the German and many other Armies, and that is that there should be a certain number of men in every regiment of warrant instead of commissioned rank commanding platoons. By that means we would not require so many officers, and would make use of a lot of men who under the present regime do not get beyond being sergeant-majors. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary, or whoever replies, whether anything more has been heard of that scheme. I know it was carefully considered by commands in France and approved, and it was hoped that we were going to hear something more about it. I shall be very glad to hear whether there is to be any provision of warrant officers as substitutes for officers actually in the ranks.
Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLI hope that the Under-Secretary will not think I am merely using a stereotyped phrase when I tell him how desirous I am. of congratulating him upon his plain and lucid speech. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir H. Jessel) reminded us of the Army Debates of some years ago, when we had longwinded, drawn-out speeches, after which, with all deference to those right hon. Gentlemen, many of us knew no more when they had finished their three or four hours' speaking than when they started. There has been a revolution in that respect, and we are glad of it. I take this 809 opportunity, also, of thanking the Under-Secretary for the great courtesy which I am sure is proverbially found by all Members, and the kindly attention that he always gives to letters from Members. We are certain to get replies, and I am sure we are all grateful to him. I wish to mention one or two little points, not by way of criticism, but by way of suggestion for improvements. Mention of the shortage of tonnage has suggested to me that there might be a saving in a particular way. Take, for instance, the movement of troops. When the Commanding Officer gets his instructions to go he naturally desires to take everything he can along with him, as he and his brother officers do not know in the camps to which they are going whether they will find any cover for themselves or their horses. It is only right that those officers should look after the well-being of their men and horses. I suggest that a much better arrangement would be to have standing camps and leave things as they were, so that when troops left one camp those coming in would find accommodation, and those who had left would find it before them in the camp to which they were moved. It may be said that that would be impossible, but I do not believe in the impossibility of organisation in this respect, I suggest the matter for the consideration of the hon. Gentleman. An inventory could be taken of the various camps at a certain time, so that the authorities could ascertain what provision there was, just as is done in going into a house where an inventory is made, and where you are responsible for what is there. Under the present system things may be changed one or two or three times, and in the latter case many of them become, in the language of the soldier, "napoo." I throw out the suggestion with a desire to help and not in any way to cast any aspersion upon what has been done heretofore. It. is only from one's own experience and by making suggestions that we can hope to effect improvements in these matters. The hon. Gentleman will recognise how much is required to convey that material from point to point—the use of the roads, the blocking of the roads, when they are very often wanted for tremendous movements. I hope, therefore, it will be possible for some scheme to be thought out in regard to this.
I should like to pay a tribute, if it has not been paid already this afternoon, to 810 the great organisation of the Army Ser-vice Corps. It is simply wonderful. Never mind where the trenches are, of where the men are distributed, the men's food will be always brought to them it may not, naturally, always be quite as good one day as another, but the care and skill with which it is dealt reflect, I think, the greatest credit on those who have anything to do with it. The men may say, "The food is not so good today; let us hope it will be to-morrow." That is the spirit of the men, and that will help us over the difficulties with which we are faced, and with which we will still be faced for some considerable period. But I am as certain, as I am of standing here, that eventually right is going to obtain its advantage over what was might, and that we shall, at all events, owing to the spirit of the men and the assistance in every way that is given, come to a satisfactory conclusion of this War. There are, however, many little-points where we can do things for the improvement of the men. I remember in the winter of 1916 the travelling between the base and the front was not as comfortable for the men as it might have been. That was improved, but unfortunately it is going back again. It is not looked after quite as well as it ought to be. In the early winter of 1917, instead of travelling as you did in 1916 with doors off and windows out, and being, virtually speaking, frozen to pieces, that was improved, but I venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that a look in that direction would not be inadvisable now, because I think improvements can be made. If, for instance, any system with regard to heating can be carried out, I am sure it would be appreciated very much indeed by the men, when you consider the hours one has to spend coming in from some parts of the front back to the base, and I am sure the authorities are desirous of doing all they can for the convenience and comfort of the men in that direction.
There is one point I asked in a supplementary question the other day with regard to the 20,000 men who are going to be taken for shipbuilding, and a reply was given to me to the effect that it is an absolute necessity that tonnage should be, produced. I entirely agree, but, at the same time, I do not want to feel that the Army is depleted to the extent of these 20,000 men. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, 811 who, presumably, will reply, this question: We are told that there are 470,000 men to be combed out, and we are told probably 100,000 of these will find their way into the Army. I hope, at all events, we shall hear that there will be a larger number than 100,000, because I am sure everybody recognises that it will be necessary, in view of the remark that was made by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, in which he drew attention to the coming offensive, for which we shall have to be prepared. I hope nothing will be done in any way to deplete in number the men on the Western Front, and I hope, instead of having the small number in consequence of this combing out, a very considerable increase in numbers will be found. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir H. Jessel) referred to a question this afternoon which, I think, is of vital importance to our fighting men, and that is with regard to the feeding. I have already referred to the magnificent way in which the men have been fed. We want to see that that feeding is continued in the future as it has been in the past. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras will not mind when I say I do not quite agree with one remark he made this afternoon, and that is that many of the people working here have more difficulties to put up with than the men on the other side. I do not agree. I entirely sympathise with all the difficulties the men on this side have to put up with, but they have the pleasure of knowing they are in this country, that they are not so far from their homes, whereas the men at the from are handicapped sufficiently without having another handicap. Therefore, I hope the Food Controller will not get hold of them, but that the same organisation will be continued with regard to their feeding. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary nods, indicating that, so far as he is concerned, he is in sympathy with that, and I feel confident, by the way he handles things, that so long as we know he is in sympathy, we shall at all events get the advantage.
With regard to organisation at home, it has been brought to my notice that in a great many of the offices here although there are huge staffs—it is not for me to say whether they are over-staffed or under-staffed, for I do not know and I cannot say—but I do happen to know that there 812 is a Regulation that youths from seventeen to eighteen must not be taken, because at eighteen they become necessary under the operation of the Military Service Act. I am informed there is very great difficulty in getting typists for many of the offices, and many of these youths of sixteen and seventeen who have been in the City and got experience there are accomplished shorthand writers and typists, but they cannot be taken. I cannot see any necessity why, because when they arrive at the age of eighteen they have the honour of assuming the duties of a soldier and a man, their services should not be utilised to the best possible advantage before they arrive at that age. I would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the advisability of allowing youths who have passed the age of seventeen to take up duties for which, in many cases, they are adapted, and in which they would be of the greatest possible assistance in many Departments? I particularly refer to shorthand and typewriting, because I know the shortage in many of these Departments, and I suggest that many of these youths who have had business training would be of great advantage. It cannot he answered that this would upset the organisation, because these youths leave at eighteen. That is not the case, for you have a continual stream of them coming along.
There is only one other point, and that is with regard to men going back to France. Many times I have seen men going back who have not the faintest idea where they are going. I have had my own officers going back bring hung up for days because they have been in a certain train and cannot be told when they are to go. There cannot possibly be any harm, I should think, in an officer receiving information from the R.T.O. as to the base where his division actually is. I am sure the great bulk of the officers and men would appreciate that, because they do not want to be hung up, as many are, three or four days, because they have been sent on a stupid sort of errand for the one reason that the R.T.O. says, "I do not know where your unit is, and I am not entitled to know." That information could very well be communicated, and should be communicated, to the R.T.O.'s, and I think it would be of great assistance. I would once more like to say how I appreciate everything that is being done by the War Office, so far as they possibly can, for the 813 convenience and advantage of the men, and I hope, at all events, anything I may have said will only be taken as an earnest desire to see that any of these little weak links in the chain shall be strengthened to the general advantage.
§ General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSI wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of the rank of officers. When this War broke out there were regimental and Army rank, temporary and local rank, and Territorial rank. To the civilian it is very complicated and difficult to follow these technical details. The only point I want to bring to notice is this: The temporary rank, whatever it was, was always junior of that rank. When the New Armies were raised it was decided to give all the officers of the New Armies temporary rank. The result of that was that, however much they were promoted, they were always junior of their rank. The same applied before the War in the case of the Territorial officers. The Territorial captain of ten years' service as a captain was junior to an Army captain of one years' service as a captain. This was soon found to be a great hardship and a great, grievance to our New Armies, and at the end of 1914 there was considerable discussion in the Press, with Lord Kitchener, and in the House of Lords, and elsewhere, on this question of rank of our New Armies, which everyone foresaw then were going to be the great mass of the nation. In November or December, 1914, an Order was issued by the War Office. I. have been unable by questions to my hon. Friend, who has always done his best to answer every question I put to him, to get the details of that Order, but it was published finally as an Army Order in January, 1915. It came out in circular or letter form before that date, and the main portions of that Order were:
Our will and pleasure is that officers holding temporary commissions in our Regular Army should take rank with offices in the Regular Array of the same rank, according to the dates of their appointment to that rank.In the same Order the Territorial officers, instead of being always junior to their rank, were put in the same rank, so that a Territorial officer of eighteen months as captain would rank as equal to a Regular officer of eighteen months. That, of course, was the charter of the New Armies. The whole position is based upon that charter. That, however, was not allowed to stand. It was allowed to stand so far as junior officers was concerned, but it was very soon found 814 that this Order materially affected the position of the old Regular officers—in other words, it trod on the corns of the War Office. What happened?— this also I did not get from my hon. Friend opposite; again, I am sure not from any desire on his part to hide the truth, but because his military adviser has not allowed him to see the documents; if, however, he will send for the files, he will see the documents there. The first thing that happened was some time in 1915. An Order was brought out excepting major-generals. That was inserted into this Order, and circulated to the Army; and that, of course, meant that so far as all officers of the New Army were concerned, who were promoted to major-generals, would always be junior major-generals—they would never take their proper order in their rank. They would always have to rank according to their substantive rank in the Army. I will give the effect that has upon promotion. You have got in the Army, say, a temporary major-general commanding a division. He has got Regular Army brigadiers under him. He recommends one of those brigadiers, as an excellent officer, to be promoted to major-general. Because the latter is a Regular Army man and the other is only a New Army man—owing to the insertion of these two words, except major-generals—from the day that a brigadier is promoted to be a major-general he is the senior officer of his own major-general! I will now leave the major-generals and I will go on to deal with the brigadiers.An interesting account was given to us the other day by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the number of brigadier-generals that had been appointed from the New Army. The hon. and gallant Member—I think for Westmorland—who moved the Address to the Crown talked in this way—here was a man who had been military secretary to Sir Douglas Haig in France, and had everything to do with the promotion of officers; he, therefore, ought to know what he was talking about. He said:
For practical purposes there is only one Army.Yet when it comes to a question of these brigadiers these officers are being turned down. If any day a Regular officer is promoted the New Army brigadier goes down one step further. So the order is! I believe the Army Lists of 1915–16—unfortunately, I have not been 815 able to get them: they are not in the House, and I cannot get copies—but I am certain that in 1915 temporary brigadier-generals and temporary major-generals were ranked in the Army List according to their temporary rank. What I mean is, that a temporary major-general of April, 1915, was ranked above a regular major-general of May, 1915. The effect of this new arrangement is that they are always being put down by the Regular officers. I asked the Under-Secretary what happened in the case of brigadier-generals? He told me they did not take the date of their temporary rank in the Army as laid down in this Royal Warrant—which I say was absolutely wrong according to His Majesty's Order—but according to their substantive rank, and that they had always done so. But they have no substantive rank. That was a bit of a stumbler! The hon. Gentlemen looked round and then said that it depended upon the date they received command of a battalion. That is not a rank. The officer who gave him that information did not know his job, because the commander of a battalion has no rank. There is no such rank. The rank is that of lieutenant-colonel. The officer who drafted that reply to me, if he knew his job, was simply trying to deceive the civil officer in the War Office. It is really a very serious matter. I do hold that you can never get complete unanimity of command when there is that feeling in the New Armies that the War Office is not ruling them in an absolutely fair and straight way; when on every occasion they get promoted they see the Regular officer who is promoted after them, however young he may be, going over their heads in rank.I have gone into this matter in some detail. I have put various questions to the hon. Gentleman opposite to try and elucidate it. If he will only look further into the matter himself—I am sure he will, after what I have said to-day—he will find that it is not a fair position in which to put officers of the New Army. He will, I think, agree with me, if he looks into it that there is a strong feeling on the subject, which was first raised in the autumn of 1914. Lord Kitchener gave this charter to these officers. From the moment it was published every possible step has been taken to whittle it away and to see that under no condition whatsoever any New Army man can ever rise to high rank in the British Army. That is 816 not, I am sure, the spirit of Sir Douglas Haig. It is the spirit of those bureaucrats who say: "We cannot have these men going up over us." Otherwise, why issue these orders? Why not stick to the original form in which it was published by Lord Kitchener, and in which it was acted upon throughout the British Army? This is the only question I wish to raise. I desire to congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the way he handles the very difficult questions which are always being put to him. Somebody suggested to-day that he docs not have as many questions as he used to have. If that is the case, it is simply because ho generally gives us such complete satisfaction, either by private, letters or answers in the House when we do ask him questions.
§ Captain GWYNNI want to raise one point of pure detail. For one thing, I do not often have the opportunity of being here, or otherwise I should not have risen so early in the proceedings. It is not a point relating to the serving soldier in France at the present time, because I cannot speak for the moment of things there; but I want to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary one case which does strike me is showing some lapse from that admirable spirit in which the Army authorities treat the private soldier, and which, I think, has been generally recognised in the course of this Debate. It is a matter of canteen administration. I put the point because it illustrates in the most complete manner possible how necessary it is that administration should be looked into. I do not propose to give names, because it is useless, but here are the facts: There is a unit quartered in the South of Ireland. It is being supplied by one of the regular canteens. I was told by the officer who was in charge that the canteen authorities were regularly making a profit of 69 per cent., and that of that 69 per cent, only 8 per cent, was going back to the unit. I was told the story in reference to one specific transaction. Ten tons of potatoes were bought for this unit at a place only about ten or a dozen miles distant, so that the cost of transport could not be great. Four pounds per ton was paid for the potatoes. The price at which they were issued to the men was £7 per ton. That is not right. What seems to me to make it more unreasonable is that the man who sold the pota- 817 toes at that price was one of the officers who has charge of the inspection of canteens. He knew that these potatoes were being issued within a dozen miles of him at a charge of £7 per ton. The matter was brought to his notice. He replied he could not control it—and this, although he was one of the officers in charge of the inspection of canteens! It so happens that the honorary Colonel of that regiment is Lord Derby. Here, I submit, is an instance which shows that something should be done in order, not merely that there may be proper administration, but that the men may feel that they are getting fair play.
Outside of that, a good many points have been raised in this Debate that I should like to dwell upon, but I only endorse, if I may say so, one thing; that is in relation to the question of the transport of troops, especially men going back from leave. One hon. Member said that a year ago, in January, 1917, matters were better than they had been. I remember perfectly well my own orderly coming back from home-leave in that month. Anyone who remembers the temperature of January, 1917, will appreciate what happened in regard to the train. There were no windows, and the men were in the train from nine o'clock at night until twelve o'clock the next day. They had no means of getting food or warmth. I know perfectly well the enormous difficulties in getting rolling stock up. I fully recognise that. But the result in that particular case was that my man went sick—he was singularly loth to do so, for he was a man of some delicacy—and the result was that he was useless for some time. It is not good management to make men travel under conditions of that sort from the point of view even of cattle management; treating the men as animals. It is a wasteful thing to do, and if it can be stopped, not merely for the comfort of the men, but for their efficiency, it ought to be stopped. I would only add my congratulations to those that have already been heaped upon the Under-Secretary.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTAs a humble officer who has served in the Salonika area—in my case with the Royal Naval Air Service, not with the Army—I should like, in a few sentences, to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Banffshire and Rotherhithe. 818 I am glad to say that we succeeded in getting home the men who were under my immediate command. Nearly all of these men had been out for two years and six months. Without going into controversial questions as to whether leave is a privilege or a right, we shall all agree that the last thing an officer desires to command is sick and tired men. I desire to put one or two subjects before the. House. The long-drawn out agony of the private Member's lucky tub had conferred on me, as I thought, the opportunity of moving a Resolution on going into Committee of Supply on Air Force Estimates. I have been informed that that Motion, which is on the Paper, is not in order on the coining occasion on the ground that the War Office is the Department mainly responsible. Perhaps, therefore, I may be allowed, if I cannot bring up my Resolution, to read it to the House for the purpose of informing hon. Members who may not be acquainted with the subject matter of it. I desired:
On Air Service Estimates, to call attention to the commencement of work for an aviation ground in Ayrshire and their subsequent abandonment; and to move, 'That the works undertaken at great expense for establishing an aerial gunnery school in Ayrshire which has since been abandoned constitute a primâ facia case of misuse of public money and departmental inefficiency which should form the subject of a Committee of this House.'In the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper I hope hon. Members with a knowledge of the subject will agree that I used quite moderate language. I speak of a primâ facie case of inquiry, but I believe you might go a good deal further than that, and I am not sure that there is not room even for a sweeping censure. I am satisfied from what I have been told that there has been both extravagance and indecision which should certainly be the subject of a searching investigation. The general situation is this: The Government have a completely free hand in the expenditure of money for any and every purpose, and they are practically subject to no control Huge sums of money are expended, of which the temporary political heads of the Departments probably have only a superficial knowledge, and as regards those who are not directly responsible to this House they are so constantly changed—one day it is the War Office, then the Admiralty, and then the Air Force—that it seems almost hopeless to expect any long views of policy, and it is impossible for an unhappy private 819 Member to get any single Parliamentary occasion on which he can bring them to book.The Committee on Expenditure, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Herbert Samuel), only touches the fringe of the matter. When it gets at the facts, the mischief has probably been done, and it may be found that the money has been uselessly thrown away. Now and again some flagrant case becomes a matter of public notoriety. Such a case I propose to discuss. I heard of it for the first time when going home to my Constituency in January, from a casual soldier in the train, and I thought at the time that if the information given to me was not grossly exaggerated, there had been an amazing and almost wanton waste of public money. Subsequent conversations with other hon. Members of this House tend to confirm me in that opinion. I shall maintain a certain geographical vagueness, because it is conventional in military matters, although I do not think there is any necessity for it in this particular case. Somewhere in Ayrshire at the end of 1916 a site was selected for an aerial gunnery school. This was not a defence station, where sometimes from the exigencies of the case, at home or abroad, you have to take a particular place and make the best of it. I have lived in an aerodrome where the percentage of fever and dysentery was high because the place was unhealthy, but that cannot be helped on active service, and you must put your aerodrome on the best place you can find, and if you get shelled or bombed out of it you must try somewhere else. Those circumstances of course do not apply in this case, for the whole of the British Isles were available, I presume, and this particular site was selected, presumably after exhaustive inquiry, because it was suitable. I understand that this place possesses considerable natural advantages from the point of view of an aerial gunnery school, and that the hills around form a good background for the running targets. These facts were given to the House yesterday by the Under-Secretary.
Large works were begun. The Royal Engineers started work, but after a time it was found that the works, I suppose, were too extensive, and the military contractors were called in. I understand also that over 2,000 men—I do not know whether they were all labourers in the 820 ordinary sense or prisoners of war—were employed. Aerodromes, roads, and railways were made on an extensive scale, sheds for machines, workshops, motor-boat docks, camps, and hutments were erected, reservoirs and pipe tracks were made, and I am told that they drained a bog and laid forty-one miles of tiles. The targets, I believe, are most elaborate structures, long lines of iron girders embodied in concrete, with electric motive power. Power stations, cables, and telephone wires, were all installed. Bridges, were made over the stream, and a large hill, including iron and lead mines, was bought up from a private landlord, and all the sheep and stock were removed, and compensation was paid up to May, 1918. Even a kinematograph hall was erected, no expense was spared, and the Order of the British Empire was generously bestowed.
Again, if my information is accurate, in the twinkling of an eye the whole thing is over. Before they began to use it for military purposes they have started pulling it down again. No one knows the reason why, and one can only guess. The one certain fact seems to be that a round sum of about half a million of public money has been simply thrown away. Conjecture is not a very profitable undertaking, but one may put a plain and simple question, Is the place suitable or is it not? Apparently great engineering difficulties were encountered—the drainage of bog and the like. These may have been anticipated, but it looks very much as if there had never been adequate professional advice. One can conceive that these difficulties were gradually encountered, that the promoters of the scheme were loth to give in, that they spent more and more money in the hopes of saving the situation. But did they save the situation from a purely military point of view, or have they been forced to abandon the scheme because of reasons connected with civil engineering? Or has this lavish expenditure, even if they were badly advised, even if better sites could have been chosen, if they had thought out their plans, has it at any rate succeeded in making it a possible aerodrome? In this event what explanation is there for its abandonment? There is no substantial doubt that the War Office provided this aerodrome more or less as a going concern, and that recently created body, the Air Force, has in plain vernacular turned it down. Did they turn it down as an aerodrome which 821 was unsuited by natural and insuperable physical difficulties for the purpose for which it was intended when the plans were drawn, or did they turn it down merely because they did not want an aerodrome of this particular kind? If the House will follow my argument, I desire to impale the Government as a whole on the horns of what is more than a dialectical dilemma. Was the site hopeless from the first, in which case somebody ought to be hung for taking a year with this scheme and spending half a million of money to find it out; or, in the ultimate result, if it was made possible for military purposes, in this case, why is there this sharp difference between two professional bodies, the Royal Flying Corps and the Air Force? I apologise to any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman concerned if my information is not accurate. I have already indicated that it is for that reason that I am content to suggest that it should be referred to the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland presides. But whether my facts are fully accurate or not, somebody must be responsible.
§ Mr HARCOURTThat is for the Committee of the House of Commons to decide, but I am entitled to say that the case taken as a whole is an obvious scandal, and I am also bound to say that it leaves me with an uneasy feeling that it may not be the only case.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. J. MASONI wish to elicit some information on three very different points. The first one has to do with a question of supplying the Forces of the Crown, and it has a very serious effect on the matter of shipping. Of the total shipping used for supplying the forces in France a very large proportion is occupied in shipping food for the horses. I am informed that the horses' rations with our forces in France are very much larger than those of either the French or the Italian Armies. I am also informed that since I last made inquiries some reductions have been made in the rations of the horses, and I do not wish to press that point further. I want to ask whether anything has been done, and, if not, whether anything can be done, to produce a larger quantity of this bulky food for the horses in France. You have thousands of Artillery horses, and you have enormous quantities of manure, and I cannot believe that all has been 822 done that can be done to utilise this manure for the production of food. I believe that the matter has been gone into, and I am informed that it has been talked about for the last two years, but nothing very material has been done. I want, if possible, to obtain some information as to how the matter stands now and to exercise what little pressure I can in the direction of getting that very useful work extended, because anything that will save shipping will not only save the resources of this country in food supply, but will be an enormous boon to the shipping question at home. I should like to know whether anything is being done to enlarge the power of the Labour Battalions. The difficulties of the railways and of the ports, which were very serious some little time ago, have been enormously relieved by the existence of a body called the Labour Battalion, amounting to some 10,000 men or soldiers who have been used at various points, where extreme urgency has arisen and where a shortage of labour has existed. These men have been used by a very satisfactory agreement with the trade representatives on the spot, and I am informed that there has been no kind of friction between them and the labour supply in the locality, because as soon as-the pressure of urgency has been over these men have been withdrawn. I should very much like to know whether the number of these Labour Battalions is going to be increased, or whether it is possible to increase them, because I am informed that the relief to the ports and railways might be very enormously increased if the number of men was increased by another 5,000, or so.
The only other point on which I should like to ask for information is as to the pay of officers who at the beginning of the War were on the Indian strength. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, and, as far as I can make out, nobody seems to know what is the position of these officers. At the time that war broke out several hundreds of them were on leave in this country, and they were, of course, in receipt of Indian rates of pay. At one time they were to be sent back to India, but they did not go, and most of them joined other battalions of their regiments in this country or were given some other employment here. Of course, for a time they naturally remained on the Indian strength, but as time has pro- 823 ceeded many of them have been transferred to other units, and have attained to other grades in other ranks. There still seems to be uncertainty as to whether they arc entitled to Indian rates of pay or not. I am told that in some cases these Indian rates of pay have been continued for the whole of the three and a half years. I should like to know whether that is so, or whether any definite rule has been come to dealing with this particular class of officers.
Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWThe points that I wish to urge are mainly points of detailed criticism on the civilian side. I should like, first, to join in the chorus of praise of the Under-Secretary, whose ears must be tingling. If I increase the atmosphere of his organs at the beginning of my speech, I may have to somewhat cool them down towards the end, but I should like to say that those of us who have to question him both by letter and in this House appreciate his continued kindness and the attention which he gives to our questions, and the way in which, by means of the answers with which he is able to provide us, he enables us to deal with many difficult cases, in his case, at any rate, with great promptitude, and personally i appreciate that very much. Having said so much, I want, if I may, to criticise the administration of the War Office, I will not say with undue severity, but certainly with severity, on a point to which I have drawn attention in a number of cases during the last six months, and to which attention has been drawn by other Members of this House. It affects a large number of people in this country, and, indeed, it seems impossible to get any adequate remedy. I refer to the provision of separation allowance in the case of dependants. I know it is a case in which I shall be met with the answer that the apparent brutality, because it amounts to nothing less in a great many of these cases, is not entirely the fault of the War Office. I feel a considerable difficulty, like the last speaker, when he said that, in criticising two Departments, we fall rather between two dialectical stools. We do not quite know where we are, and every use is made of our difficulty in order to burden criticism. These cases are very often cases of widows, whose only son has been taken, and they are cases really of such hardship that I am full of surprise that something desperate is not done in 824 many of them. I have here six or eight cases not by any means the worst, though some of the most recent, of only sons who have allotted to their mothers or other dependants, usually the mother, for twelve, fifteen, or eighteen months or even two years, their regular 3s. 6d. per week. Owing to delays on the part of the inquiry officers—I will not at the moment say whose officers they are—no equivalent allowance has been paid by the State. Surely at this period of the War, and after these cases have been raised over and over again in this House, it does speak very badly for the administration of the Departments concerned, because there is another Department beside the War Office, that no better system has yet been evolved.
Let me give a few of those cases. There is the case of a driver in the Royal Field Artillery named Cordwell. He joined on 25th August, 1914, and because the circumstances of his mother changed he made an allotment in December, 1916. No payment of allowance has yet been received. That is a delay of fifteen months. I wrote several letters to various authorities about it, and at last I got a suggestion that inquiry should be made of the son as to his previous employment. He happens to be in Egypt, so that the matter has to be hung up until the correspondence can go to and from Egypt. There is the case of a man named Gent, who is also in the Royal Field Artillery. He was the only supporter of his mother, and he allotted her 3s. 6d. per week on 4th August 1916. I asked questions in this House about his case in November last and attention was promised, but nothing further has been done. He goes on paying his 3s. 6d., but, the State does not make the equivalent payment. There is the case of a man named Harrison. He has been gone a year, and 3s. 6d. per week has been paid regularly. There, again, there has been a delay of thirteen months, and nothing has been paid by the State. The case of a man named Martin, which I have brought before this House on more than one occasion, is one of the worst. I have always been promised prompt attention. The Under-Secretary, with his usual courtesy, is always willing to promise me that. I also wrote him, and he wrote me an answer to this effect:
The Board of Customs and Excise is responsible for the conduct of pension officers, and a letter has recently been sent to the Chairman of that Hoard on the question of delay. You will 825 doubtless remember the answers recently given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject.Apparently, the War Office find that they cannot bring the Pension Officers to book in the matter. I am told that the Pension Officers are overworked. Personally, I cannot accept that explanation. I have seen something of the work of the Pension Officers in that part of Lancashire with which I am familiar, and, frankly, I do not think it is correct. I heard a rumour that delay in some of these gross eases could be accounted for by the fact that the pension papers had either been lost or possibly even deliberately destroyed. I can conceive of their possibly being lost in the multiplicity of documents and the great difficulty of emergency work of this kind, but I can hardly believe that any papers have been deliberately destroyed. The case of Martin is a particularly bad one, because there are two sons. The eldest joined in October, 1916. The Pension Officer has visited the house several times, and has got information; but, although it is eighteen months ago, not one penny has been paid by the State. The second son joined in the same year, but was temporarily discharged, and rejoined in October, 1917. Again of course, no payment has been made in that case. It is true that the War Office have written me asking for the names and addresses of certain employers, so as to get at the question of dependency, though I take it they arc really undertaking work which ought to be done by the Pension Officer. There was a little delay in furnishing that information, but that was immaterial, because it had all been furnished to the Pension Officer long ago. In fact, when inquiry was made at the Pension Officer's office in Manchester they admitted that they had had the claim in May, 1917, and that it was only sent on to the Paymaster in August, 1917. For some reason the documents were held up in their office or in some other office—Heaven knows for what purpose; I am sure I do not. One of the worst cases, I am sure, will have the sympathy of us all, inasmuch as it relates not so much to English as to Colonial troops. It is a case which has come under the attention of the Parliamentary Pension Bureau in connection with the South African Scottish Force. It is the case of a man named Macpherson; and so serious did the condition of the mother become that the officials of the South African Pay Office wrote to the War Office com- 826 plaining strongly of this case and a great many similar cases where the State allowance had been held up in spite of their protests for long periods. In several cases the delay had been so long that the soldier had been discharged, and in some cases had even died, and still no separation payment had been made. Those cases were brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Pension Bureau, and the Secretary wrote and drew attention to the facts and received this reply from the War Office:With reference to your letter of the 20th instant enclosing a copy of letter addressed to Accounts 3, War Office, regarding the claim of dependant's allowance in respect of No. 3341,. A. G. Macpherson, S.A. Scottish, I am directed to inform you that as long ago as 2nd March and 27th May, 1916, representations were sent to the Board of Customs urging their attention to the delay in the treatment of this claim which was sent by the Regimental Paymaster to the Pension Office, Inverness, for investigation on the 26th November, 1915. No reply to those communications was received, but the claim was subsequently returned to the Pension Officer to the-Regimental Paymaster. It was, however, un-assessed, and was received without any covering letter or explanation.Then the letter goes on to say that there was continued delay on the part of the Board of Customs, andNo reply has been received to that letter in spite of reminders having been sent to the Board, on the 1st September, 3rd October, 23rd December, 1916, and the 21st February, 1917. It will be seen, therefore, that every effort has been made by this Department to secure a settlement of this claim, and it is regretted that further action by this Department would not appear to be of any avail. I am therefore to suggest that you may think it desirable to write direct to the Board of Customs upon the matter.In so far as the Board of Customs, as appears to be the case here, is responsible for the delay I do not wish to add any burden to that already carried by the War Office, but in a large number of these cases I believe the delay is directly traceable to the War Office and not to the pension officers. In so far as it is due to the pension officers, I would urge that the War Office, in the interests of the Army and in the interests of the civilians at home who are supporting the Army, should, by appeals to them or to the Prime Minister, or in some other way, take up a determined attitude and see that a stop is put to this continued defiance of the law of the country—for that is what it really amounts to—on the part of the pension officers and the Customs officers. The annoyance, irritation, and exasperation with regard to these cases is entirely natural, and it is very widespread—in some cases even alarming—and why the 827 thing should be allowed to go on in this heartless and unheeding fashion passes nay understanding altogether. I urge the War Office to take determined steps, first of all, so far as they are responsible, to see that delay of this kind is not repeated; and, secondly, so far as pension officers and Customs officers are responsible, to see that they are brought to book and that proper steps are taken to settle the question of dependency without delay.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI wish to ask one or two questions of the Financial Secretary of the War Office. There have been several cases in regard to the constant and wicked waste of money that goes on in the War Office and in the various other Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt) referred to an aerodrome contract. I have had the honour of serving on the Committee on National Expenditure, and so far as I am concerned, the whole of that matter shall be investigated and the responsible people brought to book. Another case which will form the subject of consideration by that Committee is that of a company which constructed an aerodrome. What makes me all the more anxious about this fearful waste is that they are building another in the North of Scotland with a short railway to it, and it will be a terrible business if that is another waste. These questions may be left to the scrutiny of that Committee. If I have any voice in what is ultimately done, we shall have the men who are responsible brought there and insist upon them giving evidence, until we see to whom the blame is properly attributable. Then there is the question of the waste of petrol. I was speaking last week to a very nice young man who was a chauffeur and had been to the front. I asked him what was all the talk about the waste of petrol, and he said, "All I know is this, that when an aeroplane goes up it gets a supply of the very best petrol, but when it comes down after its voyage whatever is left of the petrol is turned out."
§ Mr. BUTCHERIs that at home as well as in France?
§ Mr. HENDERSONThis was in France. The petrol is turned out and fresh petrol is put in. I asked him what became of the old petrol, and he said it was used for all kinds of purposes, including washing the machine. If that is true it is a terrible 828 thing, because it means the waste of an awful lot of money. Another question which is exercising my mind is that I am told by officers who come from the front that the French peasants and all sorts of French people are penalising our men and our Government in this way: An officer told me that if they are marching along with a convoy and it is necessary to go into a field to rest there for a night, the next morning comes along a claim for damages. I am told that if a shell knocks a hole in a field belonging to a peasant there is a claim. An hon. and gallant Friend of mine told me of an incident in which he was on duty with a convoy. They had to bivouac at night in a field. It appears that some ricks of hay were in the next field and the men took some of that hay. He immediately had a claim for it, and he had to place his signature to the requisition next morning before he could go on with his job. Are we allowing the French to mulct as in that way when we are fighting there for them I It seems an extraordinary thing. At all events, it is one of those questions I should like my right hon. Friend to answer, and to set our minds at rest with regard to it. One hon. and gallant Member referred to something, which I did not quite understand, which he called consolidated pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Colonel Sir F. Hall) put a question the other day in regard to officers whose time was expiring and who would shortly be entitled to retiring pay. We know that there is a very large number of officers who are not only drawing their pension, but who are also drawing the full pay of their rank. Let me give an instance. An officer who retired some twelve years ago on a pension of £200 is resuscitated and goes to the War Office. Now he gets not only the £200, but the pay of his rank, £800, besides; so that he is drawing £l,000 a year. Is that fair— particularly as that officer has not the slightest chance of going to the front, in addition to which he is only doing work which any commercial clerk would be glad to do for £250 a year?
I have raised this question before with the War Office, and am told that some Royal Warrant entitles this officer to double pay. I do not care if it does. A Royal Warrant can be recalled. You have a colonel at the front who is fighting, taking all the risks, enduring all the hardships and facing death, and he receives, say, £800 a year. A man of the same rank here who is not fit for that 829 work, who is incapable of performing it, is comfortable at home and is drawing not only the pay of the colonel on active service, but another £250 or £300, as the case may be. Is that right? It does not seem to be; indeed, it is most unfair. The worst of it is that I know, as a matter of fact, that the bulk of the work being done by these men is not worth more than £300 or £400 a year. What justification is there for that? You have conscripted every man who is of military age. You go to a man with a single business, and in certain circumstances tell him that he must sell up the business or make some sort of arrangement. You say, "Out you go!" and he gets 1s. 6d. a day and so much for his dependants. You do not ask what he will take. Why should you not do the same with the men who are fit and necessary and available for service, and say to them, "There is the appointment for you. We want you to do so and-so; we are going to mobilise you." When we were debating National Service, the Prime Minister said that we were going to mobilise the whole country. We have not done so. You ought to have gone to such men and said, "It is quite true you are not fit for military service, but you are drawing a pension, and we will give you your old pension and another £100 a year if you go and do the work." That is what you do with the ordinary man. Are you not entitled to go to any man and say, "We can find work for you; there is a small emolument for you." You have done it to the ordinary man whom you have caused to throw up his livelihood. Many thousands of men have lost their all and have gone for the small pittance which is paid to the soldier or the non-commissioned officer.
Another waste is that incurred by calling up men who are totally unfit for service. We had a long discussion on medical examinations some time ago. I have come across a lot of cases in my own Constituency. Here is one of them. A man was called up who was blind in one eye and could not see very well with the other. He protested against it, but they put him into training. When he came to do musketry he could not see the target, and pointed his rifle nowhere near it, and had to get a non-commissioned officer to hold his arm until he got something like honours. The case went before a medical board, which at once said that the man's sight was so defective that he was useless for the Army. Yet that man had gone through three or four months' training, 830 and, I suppose, was drawing money all the time. The extraordinary thing is that there axe actually conscientious objectors who have become entitled to pensions. I have the case of a young fellow, eighteen years of age, whose own doctor had given a certificate that the organs of his heart were very much diseased. He got a civilian board to confirm that, but he was sent up for an Army medical examination, and he was told, "All that is the matter with you is growing pains. Off you go to the training ground." Of course this young lad suffered a great deal, and demanded a medical board. The medical board confirmed what his own doctor said, and, of course, he was discharged. But it still goes on, and it all means loss of money to the country. The Committee of National Expenditure has done a good many things, but its work is not yet done, and we hope that by and by a great many of these things will come under their purview and be thoroughly sifted.
Another matter I wish to refer to relates to the Sugar Order. Last year the confectioners were cut down 25 per cent, of their allowance. I am not here to say anything for the large wholesale confectioner—that is another affair—but there are throughout the country a very large number of old women and poor people who have taken to this trade of selling sweets, and it is the source to which they look to pay their rent and get some sort of living. If they had been reduced 25 per cent, and it had been left at that, they could have managed in some way. But, on the top of it, the demand of the Army for sweets has grown enormously. A regimental officer was asked whether he could not do away with a good deal of the extravagance in sweets, and his answer was: "No; my men will not go over the top unless they have their pockets full of peppermints and bull's-eyes." This is a new development. I do net grudge these gallant men anything, but one cannot help thinking there is a great deal of waste going on, and it involves taking away unnecessarily the livelihood of poor people in this country. Once more I beg my right hon. Friend to use the pruning knife. We shall want every penny we can save before we have done with this War. You are heaping up debt. Do not heap up a pennyworth of unnecessary debt. I will quote what a Noble Lord wrote to me the other day:
Is there any control at all in this matter? When will economy be made to apply to the Government?831 We all wish to see that. These are small matters in individual cases, but they are multiplied by thousands, and they mean a grave loss to the community.
§ Colonel YATEI have listened with interest to what the hon. Member has said about retired officers drawing their pension and pay as well. A pension which has been earned by long service is deferred pay and should on no account be touched in any way whatsoever. Nothing disturbs men so much as the idea that they may be called on to forfeit their pensions. It rests with the Government to offer a man as little or as much extra as it thinks fit, but the pension is sacred and should not be touched. The point I should like to raise with my right hon. Friend is the question of the officers and men who are retained in the Service after they have become entitled to their pensions. I think the time has come when the Army should be looked upon as a whole and there should be one rule for men and for officers. A man who has completed twenty-one years' service is allowed to draw his pension and is entitled to go on serving. That is not allowed to officers. Amongst officers there are many who have been promoted from the ranks and who have during the War come to the time when they are entitled to their pensions, but they are retained in the Service compulsorily and are not allowed to draw pensions. The same applies, of course, to officers who have not risen from the ranks. The same principle that applies to men should be applied to officers. I hope the matter will be reconsidered and that when officers have earned their pensions they will be allowed to draw them however much extra they may be allowed to draw.
Another question I should like to mention is the very unsatisfactory reply given me to-day by the Under-Secretary for War regarding the publication of dispatches relating to the campaign in East Africa. All the dispatches by General Smuts and General Northey, who succeeded him, have been published, but there is no record whatsoever of the operations during 1914 and 1915. I think the late Undersecretary for War said the time would come sometime or another when these dispatches should be published, but I can get no promise that they ever will be published. It is most unfair to the officers and men who are concerned in that campaign. Three separate dispatches during 832 fifteen months were submitted by General Tighe, the Commander-in-Chief, one of them concerning a battle of such importance that I think the King personally telegraphed his congratulations to the General Officer Commanding. But despite all that, these dispatches have not been published, and there is no record of the services of the men, especially those of the Indian Army, who were mostly concerned. Why should they be concealed? East Africa has been taken. Lord Kitchener may have been averse to the publication of these dispatches at the time, but that reason has long since gone and no reason that I know of can be advanced now, and in justice to the regiments which were concerned in these operations during 1914 and 1915 I hope the Army Council will reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI should like, as strongly as I can, to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend (Sir M. Barlow) to shorten the very regrettable delays which sometimes occur in the allocation of dependants' allowances. These delays are very cruel, the suffering they inflict upon the persons concerned is very great and I know my right hon. Friend is very anxious to do all in his power to remove the causes of that suffering. But if he wants to do it, he will have to adopt some stringent measures. So far as those persons who are responsible for these delays are under his control he will, I trust, take active steps to see that those who are responsible are made amenable for their negligence; and so far as the delays arise from persons who are not under his control—perhaps the pensions committees, who are subject to the Board of Excise he will, I feel sure, make as strong a representation as he can to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that he may control the persons under his jurisdiction and avoid what has undoubtedly become in some cases a real scandal.
The Under-Secretary for War had occasion to express the great satisfaction which we all feel with the divers branches of the Service to whom we are so much indebted, but no tribute that he paid was better deserved or more acceptable to the House than that to the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps, not only for the immense skill which they have shown in the prevention and treatment of disease, which has been so largely diminished in this War as compared with 833 other wars, but for their extraordinary heroism in attending to the wounded under fire and removing them to places of safety. For these services no gratitude and no expression of admiration can be too great. Another class of the Army to which he referred in terms of high praise was the officers of the Special Reserve, who have done such incalculably good service in the training of men for drafts for the front. I have urged upon him before now that these men should have their services rewarded in a more substantial way than they have been up to now by way of promotion, and I trust my right hon. Friend will bring before the proper authorities the exceedingly strong claim which the officers of the Special Reserve have to promotion, or some other form of recognition, for the great services which they have unceasingly rendered from the beginning of the War.
There are two questions I want to refer to which are in the nature of interrogations as to what can be done. The first is with regard to the, transport of military stores at home. We have been assured continually that the railways are greatly congested, and I can well believe it. i should like my right hon. Friend to inquire from the proper authorities whether more use could not be made of the canals in the country. It may be that there is a shortage of men for working them—I do not know—but it has been suggested to me that greater use should be made of the canals than is made at present, and in that way some of the congestion on the railways might be diminished. The other question is that of rations for non-combatants. I believe that up till quite recently the same rations were given in this country to men in absolutely sedentary occupations, probably not as hard as those of many civilians, as to the men in our Army at home who were to be sent out in drafts. At a time when food is extremely scarce and when there is a necessity for food economy and a fairer distribution of the available supply of food between the different classes of the population, it is desirable that some attention should be paid in order to differentiate between the necessities of the men doing purely non-combatant work and those who are preparing for active service abroad. Some statement was made in the House a little while ago on this subject. It may be there will be some difficulty in allocating the smaller rations to non-combatants 834 than to the men engaged in very heavy work, but I do urge my right hon. Friend to do his best to effect this differentiation, and I think it would be only fair to the civilian at home, many of whom may have to go somewhat short in days to come. I wish to join in the general expression of satisfaction emanating from all quarters with the very admirable and comprehensive statement of the Undersecretary for War, to whom we are much indebted, not merely for his answers in this House, but for his prompt and satisfactory replies to questions privately addressed to him.
§ Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSONI rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can accelerate the discharge of men from the Army who are quite unfit to go on service, but who frequently are kept for a very long time before they can go before a board and get their release? At this time of the year when mares are foaling, cows are calving, and sheep are in need of a shepherd, a man who has met with a bad accident in the Army, and may be crippled in consequence, might still be extremely useful for these occupations—far more useful, indeed, than sound men who have had no experience. I know of instances of men who will probably be invalided out of the Service altogether, but who are unable to get before a medical board in order to secure their discharge. Too much time is lost in bringing these men before the board. I say they should be examined as quickly as possible and released, so that they may come home and do work so necessary for food production in the country. This is a point of considerable importance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his earnest attention.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI rise to call attention to the scales of separation allowances, and to invite the notice of the right hon. Gentleman to representations which have been made by various responsible public bodies on this subject. The scales have been raised on more than one occasion since the beginning of the War. The present scale, compared with the scale which obtained before the War, and compared with the economic conditions of the country at that time, is no doubt a generous one. But, unfortunately, we are not living under the same economic conditions as prevailed before the War, and under the conditions which prevail now, as well as the cost of 835 the necessaries of life and the amount of income required to maintain life, I cannot say in comfort, but in decency and sufficiency, the scale cannot be regarded as either satisfactory or adequate. It is a scale which has to be supplemented from other sources either by the mother of the family neglecting her children and going out to work or by charity, or by rate-aided expenditure. If the mother or other responsible person is unable to supplement the scale by work, the deficiency too often is not made good, and the result is bad, because it diminishes health and efficiency and increases suffering. Those bread-winners who have not been called to the front have a certain protection against the continual increase in the cost of necessaries of life. They can sell their labour in the highest market, they can hold out for increases of wages— they have done so, and they have received large increases in many causes. But the soldiers who are serving at the front and their dependants have not been able to protect themselves in a similar manner or to a similar degree against this constant and alarming increase in the price of necessaries of life. Their income has remained more or less stationary.
I have here two representations from public bodies in Glasgow, representations not by agitators or irresponsible persons, not emanating from people who fish in troubled waters and seek to secure prominence by pandering to greed and to the acquisitive instincts of people. My first is from the School Board of Glasgow, and I want to call particular attention to the report which has been made by the committee of that board which deals with the question of poor and necessitous children in the Glasgow area. It is one of the duties of this board to make special provision for poor and necessitous children. There have been in Glasgow 3,883 families, involving 7,495 children, which are certified, after due inspection, as being necessitous, and which have been supplied with boots or clothing, or both, since the beginning of September last. These cases have been examined into, and it has been found that 67 per cent, of the parents or guardians and 70 per cent, of the children are receiving allowances from the Army or Navy. Could there be any more direct evidence that there are people in receipt of the full and proper allowances under the existing scale whose cases have been examined 836 into by the school board through its recognised officers, and who have been certified as being necessitous and as being unable, on their income, to supply themselves with the necessaries of life, with the result that the school board has had to come to their rescue and to supplement the Army allowances? At a conference of representatives of school boards in and around Glasgow, chiefly in Lanarkshire, a resolution was unanimously passed to the effect that—
Having had under consideration the necessitous state of the dependants and orphans of soldiers and sailors we find that such necessitousness is due to the inadequate scale of allowances paid to them for their support, and we respectfully ask the Government to raise such allowances, so as to meet the greatly enhanced cost of living.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)Will the hon. Member give me the date of that resolution.
Mr. SCOTTI will hand it to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a representation of a very responsible public body, the Glasgow School Board, based on actual experience in dealing with necessitous children. The other representation which I have has been made by the Presbytery of the United Free Church of Glasgow, which has an advisory committee to deal with the cases of soldiers and sailors dependants. This committee has reported that investigation has proved that in every case in the city where the sole income is derived from the Government allowance the family is in a necessitous state, and I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to these words:
Investigation has proved that in every case in this city where the sole income is derived from Government allowances the family is in a necessitous state, which can only be relieved either by the mother finding work outside her home, often to the detriment of her family, or by application to some public authority for help.8.0 P.M.The contrast between those soldiers and their dependants and those who have not been called to the front either because they are not eligible for military service or because in the public interest their services are required at home—the contrast is a great and deplorable one. It causes bitter resentment, and if that resentment is allowed to continue and to increase, if present conditions are allowed to go on unchecked, it cannot fail to have a serious effect on the temper and staying 837 power of our Army and our Navy, and upon public opinion at home, which is so largely created by the dependants of these soldiers and sailors. One remark which is made in this representation is that.—
The contrast between the family of the soldier and sailor with fixed allowances and the family of the man engaged on munitions work or other industrial employment, whose emoluments have increased beyond the present cost of living, creates a sense of injustice which cannot but react unfavourably upon the spirit of the men at the front.In view of these facts, and of the report of their committee, the Presbytery of Glasgow have passed this resolution. It makes a valuable suggestion, to which I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention:As the Government have now fixed a standard for voluntary rationing of food as necessary for the maintenance of health and vigour, the Presbytery would, therefore, direct the attention of His Majesty's Government to the scale of allowances to the dependants and orphans of sailors and soldiers, as well as men discharged from service as permanently disabled. The Presbytery, therefore, respectfully urges His Majesty's Government to reconsider the scale of pensions and allowances in the light of the present cost of living, so as to secure the well-being and comfort of the persons concerned.I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me if any inquiry has ever been held as to the relation between the allowance and the cost of living. It has been very difficult to do so in the past, because the cost of living was constantly varying, prices were rising, and there was no fixed relation between the allowance and the cost of living. Now conditions have changed. The Government has had to step in and ration us with various articles of food, and it has had to fix prices. On the basis of these rations, and on the basis of these maximum prices, it is possible to arrive at some definite and standard relation between the allowance and the cost of living. The suggestion which was made in this resolution by the Glasgow Presbytery is one which I think ought to be considered and adopted. It is that, in view of the new conditions, in view of the fixed rations, and in view of the fixed prices, a special inquiry should be made into the cost of living and into the relation of the allowance to the cost of living. If that were done, and if the allowance wore based not upon a mere cash basis, which sounds enormous compared with the cash values before the War, but upon the actual amount of the necessaries of life which the allowance could purchase, I am sure we would have a 838 scale of allowances which could be regarded as more or less permanent during the War. I earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the two representations to which I have drawn his attention into careful consideration, and to see whether he cannot meet them in any way.
§ Mr. PENNEFATHERI think those of us who have heard my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) cannot fail to have been impressed with the cogency of his argument. I think the point he has raised is one of very great importance, and I hope he will forgive me if, having said that, I branch off on to another subject which has not been touched upon in the course of this Debate. During the last few months an unofficial Committee has been sitting in this House, over which I have had the honour to preside, and that Committee has been engaged in considering the relation between our effective fighting manpower and the Army dental system, which we consider to be greatly at fault. Neither I nor, I believe, any member of this Committee has any special interest in the dentists as dentists. Personally, I have no closer connection with any dentist than that which has existed by the abstraction by him of something from out of my mouth, and also from out of my pocket, and I am, therefore, not in any sense pleading for the dentist. I would like to make that perfectly clear, but, although we have no special interest in the dentist, we have all of us, not only on that Committee, but in this House and throughout the country, a very special interest in our soldiers, and we do not think that they are being properly treated dentally in the Army. I should like at this point to say that I have no desire whatever to cast any slur on the Royal Army Medical Corps. They have done wonderful things, and, as far as their ordinary medical and surgical functions go, they are, I believe, deserving of all praise. But many eminent Army medical surgeons and physicians have told me quite frankly that they do not profess to be dentists, and yet we have this anomaly, that the whole dental service of the Army, on which depends the fitness of so many of our soldiers, is controlled, not, as one might imagine, by dental officers of experience, but by medical officers who have had little or no experience of dentistry! In fact, I think it might be said with truth that the more highly qualified 839 a physician or surgeon is in the matters which really appertain to his own profession, the less he knows about dentistry. It is only when you come down, if I may say so with all respect, to the inferior class of medical man that you find he begins to know much about dentistry, and few of that class are in our Army Medical Service.
The point we start from is that our fighting man-power in the Army cannot be fit or efficient unless the men's teeth are properly looked after. I have a very good authority in support of that opinion, and that is the opinion of no less a person than General Sir Francis Lloyd, who is in command of the London District, and who, speaking in London, on the 22nd September, 1917, stated that a soldier with bad teeth is very much like a man with a leg off—at any rate, in many eases, he is not much better. At the same meeting, Major the Right Hon. Lord Greville said:
If a man is unable to make use of his teeth or is suffering from any sort of septic poisoning in the mouth, he cannot be a fit man.If a man is not a fit man he is obviously not an efficient fighting unit, and therefore, from the point of view of efficiency, we do urge that the War Office should take into consideration the reorganisation of the Army dental service. I need not dwell upon the horrors of tooth-ache. There are few of us, I imagine, in this House or out of it, who do not know what its horrors are, and I am sure that nobody could fail to sympathise with the position of a Tommy who was asked to go over the top when he had tooth-ache, or to stand in the trenches in the bitter weather we have experienced with an exposed nerve in his tooth. Such things should not be, but they are. Again, quite apart from this matter of what one might call the momentary inconvenience, the momentary pain, or possibly even agony, resulting from defective teeth, there are more permanent consequences which invalid thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of men every year. I have had this confirmed by most eminent medical men, in this House and out of it, by medical men in the Army and out of it, and they all agree that it is a matter of common knowledge that if the teeth of a soldier are defective, if he is not able to masticate properly, there is resultant disease—digestive disease, stomach trouble, and, perhaps what is 840 more important than all, that if a man is wounded when his teeth are in a septic condition, that man's chance of recovery from wounds is very gravely minimised; and that even in ordinary sickness, in cases for example, where a man contracts pneumonia, if his mouth is in a septic condition his chances of recovery are very greatly reduced. From the point of view, therefore, not merely of fighting man-power, but from the point of view of humanity, our Committee have been investigating this matter. After examining many witnesses, after reading sheaves of papers on the subject, after receiving—and this is a point I would like to make; to my right hon. Friend who represents the War Office— a great deal of confidential information of which, I think, the Under-Secretary of State for War is to some extent aware after considering all this confidential information and other information, this Committee has come to the deliberate conclusion that insufficient attention is paid to our soldiers' teeth, both while they are in this country prior to going abroad and after they do go abroad. I have a little difficulty—and that is why I wish to arrest the attention of my right hon. Friend—in making this speech because so much of the information on which it is based is confidential. In the Report which has been issued by this Parliamentary Committee we have carefully eliminated the names of every dental surgeon, every doctor, and every officer. As regards the dental surgeons and the doctors, we were obliged to do that in order to avoid the suggestion that we were in any way advertising a man; and, in the same way, when we had evidence from a medical officer who had held a commission in the Army as a medical officer, who had retired and who gave us the benefit of his experience either personally or in writing, we naturally felt it would not be right to publish that man's name. Then, again, with the courtesy of the War Office, I have seen and interviewed some of the important officials of that office. I have had correspondence with them, and I find it extremely difficult to draw the line as to exactly how much I can say to-night and how much I must regard as confidential. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will understand that if I do not substantiate every statement I make by giving chapter and verse it is rather out of consideration for the confidence that 841 has been reposed in me by his colleagues and others at the War Office. After taking all these matters into account, and, after reading sheaves of letters, we have come to the deliberate conclusion—and our Committee is not an unimportant one— that insufficient attention is being paid by the Army authorities to the teeth of our men, both at home and abroad, and that, as a result of that insufficient attention our fighting man-power is being greatly reduced. I believe this trouble begins at home. It is supposed that the recruit's teeth arc examined when he joins the Army. That examination takes place by the medical officer, not by the dental surgeon, and the result is that the examination is only of a very casual and perfunctory nature. The man opens his mouth, and if he has a great many teeth missing and something very obviously the matter with him, the medical officer orders that that man is to go to the dental officer. But in the other cases where the nature of the disease is curable and preventable, where a little filling, a little stopping, or a little scraping might put matters right, the medical officer is not in a position, and has not had the training, to detect these early symptoms, and the result is the man does not go before the dental officer and is passed as dentally fit to go out. That inspection is quite inadequate.The man goes abroad, and there again the provision for dental treatment is quite inadequate. I do not want to make a statement like that without verifying it; but we have discovered that the proportion of dental surgeons to men in the United States Army is about one dental surgeon to 1,000 men; in the Canadian Expeditionary Force it is one dental surgeon to 1,000 men, while in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force the proportion is one dental surgeon to 2,500 men, and it is practically the same in the Australian Expeditionary Force. The provision made in the British Army for the dental treatment of soldiers is enormously below the standards of any of these young countries. If you assumed that all our commissioned dental officers, numbering 517, were abroad with our expeditionary forces, the number of dental officers would, on the Canadian or American standards, only be sufficient for an Army of about 500,000 men. It is giving no secret away to the Germans to say that we have Armies in France and Belgium of considerable over half a million men. Taking the New Zealand and Australian standards, 842 which are not so exacting, if every one of our dental commissioned officers was abroad there would only be dental officers sufficient for an Array of one and a quarter to one and a half millions of men. It must be remembered that the dental officers which we have in Franco have not only to attend to the Army, but they have to attend to all the labour which is employed throughout the Army, and even to the nurses. I think it is obvious, by simple comparison with what is being done in other Armies, that our Army is not sufficiently staffed with dental officers.
We believe that our Army leaves this country after inadequate dental examination, and that when they arrive in France or elsewhere when they go abroad they are supplied with an inadequate number of dental officers to attend to them. I have no doubt that both these points may be and will be disputed by the War Office. They will probably say that inspection and treatment in this country is adequate, and that it is adequate for the Armies abroad. Putting aside all technicalities, putting aside the arguments of the answers such as those which have been given to me in this House by the War Office—which, I must confess, are very ingenious answers and very carefully framed to avoid giving any particular information—I want to ask how it is that, if our soldiers' teeth are properly examined and attended to in this country before they leave, and that if they are properly attended to in France or elsewhere, that when they return to this country their mouths are in such a deplorable state? It is a matter of common knowledge that when they come back to this country their mouths are really, in the majority of cases, in a deplorable state. I have here an extract from a letter which I have received within the last two days from a dental officer who has retired from the Army and who is now carrying on work in London, and he says:
With reference to dental treatment overseas, I can only say that I see the mouths of men who return, and no further evidence of neglect is required. The men who return from overseas are in a far worse dental condition than our troops when they first join.I have here a certificate from an officer of a Red Cross hospital, who says:As a result of my experience in treating invalided wounded soldiers, I am convinced that in many cases their recovery has been unduly prolonged by the presence of untreated oral sepsis.Another certificate says:I have found that the great majority of invalided and wounded soldiers that have passed 843 under my care have had extremely bad teeth, which show little evidence of ever having been treated.I think it is quite obvious that if the inspection and the treatment in this country before the men went overseas was sufficient and that if the treatment when they were overseas was sufficient that it would be impossible when these wounded men returned to hospital here for them to be found in the state which has been described, with their teeth in a horrible condition, showing signs of neglect. Therefore, with due respect to the answers which I have received from the War Office, I must urge, and I and my Committee are still convinced, after the most careful investigation, that the Army dental service requires overhauling and should be put right in such a manner that a radical change is effected in the administration. It may be said that we have not sufficient dental surgeons to enable us to treat the soldiers dentally with the same efficiency that the American, the Canadian, the Australian, the New Zealand, the French, and the German soldiers are treated. We may not be able to get up to the same scale, but we have over 300 qualified dental surgeons serving in the Army as privates in the ranks. These men who ought to be stopping teeth are stopping bullets. They ought to be engaged in drilling with their little machines, and they are engaged in being drilled. On that point I will read an extract from a letter which appeared in the Press from the honorary dental surgeon to the British prisoners of war interned in Switzerland, who is an impartial authority, if ever there was one. He says:To employ a qualified dental surgeon as a combatant is one of the many examples of waste of human material, and is equivalent to allowing a medical man to be so employed. It takes years for his training, and, therefore, from every point of view, economy of human material should be exercised. In my position out here, I have had opportunities of demonstrating the terrible neglect of the mouth and teeth in the case of the average British soldier coming from the British Isles. On the other hand, the Canadian soldiers have had, almost without exception, excellent dental treatment before going to France. The dental profession in Canada was given its rightful position and encouraged to organise, with the excellent results seen here and elsewhere. Why should not the same plan be followed at home?It is my main point that when a man has been trained for years in his professional capacity as a qualified surgeon dentist he should not be taken into the ranks or given 844 a combatant commission, or employed in any manner except in a professional capacity. It may be said that we are short of men. I agree. It may be said that the dental surgeon has no more right to exemption than any other man. I agree again. But my point is that if you take the qualified dental surgeon, and put him into the trenches with a rifle or employ him in some combatant or non-dental capacity, you are certainly securing the services of one man, but that if you were to use that man in his proper professional capacity as a dental surgeon he would probably put ten men into the field for you.I heard not long ago—I do not think that this is seriously disputed by the War Office authorities—that shortly before one of our recent pushes a very large number of men —there may be some dispute as to the actual number—were back at the base camp awaiting dental treatment. I have in my possession a confidential communication, the whole of which I cannot read, but it states that men are constantly being sent from home who have not received dental treatment in England and who must be treated at the base. This refers especially to men who, after landing, owing to having septic teeth, have to have teeth drawn at the base, and time must be allowed for the gums to harden before impressions can be taken. Most of this time could be saved if the necessary extractions were made before these men were sent out. Time is being wasted; men who otherwise are perfectly fit to fight are being kept back, but the men do not get the necessary attention, and there is a consequent incapacity for fighting for a considerable time. I have been living with this subject for the last twelve months. I have heard and read and seen so much that I could dwell upon all this at considerable length. My hon. Friend, I think, knows that I am now speaking of a subject upon which I have some knowledge, not dental knowledge, but knowledge of the facts of the case; but, to summarise the whole thing, I may say that this Parliamentary Committee has arrived at some very definite conclusions. It has not been in the least shaken by anything which it has heard since those conclusions were arrived at. After careful consideration we have come to these conclusions: That the efficient man-power of our Army would be increased and preventable sickness and suffering to our soldiers reduced— 845
because, after all, the surgeon cannot be as familiar with all the intricacies of the jaw structure as the dental officer. The next is, I think, perhaps the most important:
- "(1.) If there were greater attention paid to the teeth of the soldiers while training in this country prior to being sent abroad, particularly in regard to treatment calculated to prevent unnecessary extractions.
- (2.) By increasing the number of qualified dental surgeons at base camps and casual clearing stations, and also by the use of more travelling dental lorries or ambulances, such as are used by the French and by our enemies the Germans.
- (3.) By detailing a larger number of specially skilled dental surgeons to co-operate with the Army medical officers in the treatment of jaw wounds, which primarily come naturally under the heading of surgical operations rather than dental operations, but in which the advice of a dental practitioner is very valuable in securing a perfect cure,"
(4.) By withdrawing from combatant and other non-dental services, other than medical and surgical services, all qualified dental surgeons who are now in the Army or who may come up for recruitment—They are being called up every day. Every day I get letters from qualified dental surgeons to say that they are being called up. I have had two this morning—and detailing these qualified dental practitioners to dental work in order to carry out the duties mentioned in the preceding passages,and(5.) By placing the organisation of the military dental service under the general direction of one or more experienced dental surgeons with special authority over Army dental officers of all ranks, and with an advisory position in regard to dental supplies and equipments.It has been my misfortune and, perhaps, the good fortune of the Under-Secretary of State for War that he has been absent during the greater part of my speech, but before sitting down I would like to assure him that I have not made anything in the nature of an attack on the War Office. I have gratefully to acknowledge, as I have had to do before, that on every occasion when I had to come into communication with my hon. Friend he met me with the greatest courtesy and fairness, and I have already endeavoured to make clear that I am full of admiration for the Army Medical Service as a whole. I have paid my humble tribute to my hon. Friend's efficiency, but I exclude this one point of the dental service, where I claim that the Army Medical Service has failed to organise properly. I will now leave it in the hands of my hon. Friend, again expressing my regret that the misfortune of my rising at a moment when he was not 846 in the House to hear me has placed him in a position that he cannot very well reply.
§ Mr. MORRELLI cannot take this opportunity of drawing attention to a very difficult subject which was referred to partially in the Debate yesterday—I mean the subject of courts-martial and execution of soldiers—without recalling that the question was raised yesterday in an atmosphere which in many respects, was unfortunate. I do not want to attribute blame nor do I attribute blame to anyone, but I will only say that the atmosphere yesterday was one of friction, even of recrimination, which I regret, and which I think, on all grounds, was regrettable. I charged my hon. Friend with raising prejudice, and he charged me with making criticisms, and saying that I had failed to appreciate the real humanity of officers of the Higher Command. I regret to have stated anything which could give rise to that unfortunate friction, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary regrets anything that he said in the circumstances. I would only like to say, with reference to what took place yesterday, that we all recognise that my hon. Friend speaks in the sense of being a guardian of the honour of the Army in this House, a very high and privileged position, but I believe that he will also recognise that the Army, in a sense which it has never been before, is now a national institution, and we are bound to take an interest in everything that concerns the Army, whether we are civilian or whether we are connected with that Service. I have as close connections with the Army as most Members of the House, although I have never served in it myself. I may say that I have not a single living relative who does not either hold or has held a commission in the Army, and I should be the last willingly to say anything that did not redound to the credit and the honour of His Majesty's Forces. On the contrary, I have said, again and again, that it is impossible to estimate the tremendous debt we owe to the men, whatever our view of the policy of the Government may be, the enormous debt we owe, to men who have gone and risked their lives, and given their lives, for their country.
I now come to the question, the difficult question, of trials by court-martial and military executions. What is called the death penalty is at the very root of military discipline. You cannot carry on 847 the Army in the stern business of war, or keep discipline in that vast organisation, without the death penalty. At the same time, it is a very simple question, because it must appeal to all our humanity. The stories that come to one of these death penalties and sentences are most poignant. Of all the horrors of war, I think nothing is more horrible than that men are condemned to be shot, and are actually shot by their comrades, in many cases for failure of nerves, or it may be sleeping at their posts—something which does not necessarily show moral delinquency, but only grave neglect of duty. It is a stern, a terribly stern, necessity that this should be so; but we are bound to see that the conditions under which these trials take place are as fair as possible. We are bound to ask questions, and to bring before the House any case which we think demands investigation. There, is necessarily a considerable amount of obscurity with regard to this question. There is obscurity because we do not even know the number. It is contrary to the public interests, we are told, to disclose the facts. There is also obscurity because the evidence of the minutes of the court-martial cannot be known; so that it is very difficult for the relations to inquire into what has happened in a case where one of these executions has taken place. So for that reason there is great uncertainty, which makes the subject all the more difficult. It will be wrong, and it will be foolish, to blind our eyes to the fact that there is a very great, widespread, and deep public interest with regard to this subject—very widespread and very deep. Stories are brought home by men from the front making this a very important matter. Questions that are asked in this House show the great degree of interest in this subject. I have taken the trouble to look at all the questions on this question during the last year, and I was astonished at the number of questions and answers on this very point of courts-martial. The discussion is not confined to this House, but is heard outside. I have here a copy of this week's "John Bull," which contains an article that I think the Undersecretary ought to peruse. The article is by the editor, and entitled "Shot at Dawn!" It gives the case of a young officer, aged twenty-one, who was engaged in taking part in some attack in the month of November last. This article will be 848 read by many thousands of people up and down the country, and therefore there is no need to keep it secret, because it is published, and it will be read. It gives the details of the trial and execution of this young officer. He was detailed with the Reserves, and while an attack was in progress he received orders to go and fill up gaps in consequence of casualties, and he went forward to do so. Letters from him are published as to the difficulties which he found. He admits that his nerves, not being strong, were completely strung up. That is in the letter which he wrote to a friend. At that time he met another officer. That other officer was his junior. That officer apparently ordered him to join his party. This young officer, the prisoner, refused to do so, saying that he was going back to Headquarters. At any rate, it may be summed up in this way: On 14th November he was arrested. On 26th December, after a long period of arrest, he was put on trial before a court-martial, and was there found guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy.
Mercy was urged on several grounds. This is what the article says:
The accused was young. It was dark when he lost his way in seeking to find British Headquarters. There was great disorder, and hundreds of men were retiring at the time. From what he said and wrote, the prior boy evidently thought that the worst that would befall him would be the loss of his commission.On 14th January, according to this account, he was playing cards with his brother officers one evening—he was still under arrest—when another officer entered where they were assembled, opened a big blue envelope and road out the death warrant that he was to be shot at dawn the next day. He was taken out and shot, and died, according to the account of this paper, with the utmost gallantry, crying out "Good-bye!" to the shooting party, and telling them, "For God's sake, shoot straight!" That is the account given with the utmost detail by Mr. Bottomley in this paper, which, as I say, will be read by thousands of people. It suggests various ways in which it is thought that this boy at any rate was treated harshly. I do not say there is any truth in it, but that is the suggestion clearly made in the article. One thing they complain of is that the officer who was to defend the boy did not see him until half an hour before the trial, so that there was no proper defence. That is the contention of the article. There is the main fact. As I 849 read the article, what I would say I felt was that it is no doubt substantially true, and if it is not true then the editor of the paper ought to be prosecuted. If it is true, I think it goes to show, like many other facts which I could bring before the Committee which have come to my knowledge, that there is a case for investigation as to the method of procedure in these courts-martial. I do not say more.There were two points I brought forward yesterday, and there is a third which I will mention now. The two points of yesterday wore, first, that where a man has been wounded and suffers from shell-shock there ought to be special care taken and special Regulations dealing with such cases. If a man has once suffered from shell-shock he is liable to fail again. I do not say that care is not taken, but I think these cases ought to be treated separately, and that the Regulations ought to be altered. It is possible there may be special Regulations on the subject, and I think there ought to be. For instance, in such a case where shell-shock is alleged there ought always to be possible revision or a chance of appeal. There should be a second chance or something of that sort, or at any rate some special Regulations putting those cases apart from other cases. The second point upon which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance is the question of the "prisoner's friend." That case has been raised again and again by question in this House, and only lately by me when I asked that in no case should a man be put on trial for his life without having the opportunity of a proper defence from an expert adviser, and, when he cannot get legal advice in France, that he should have an expert adviser as "prisoner's friend." The allegation is made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) that out of twenty-five cases of executions which occurred in October last twenty-four of the men had no prisoner's friend to conduct their defence, and that in only one case was the man properly defended, while twenty-four stood alone before the court-martial. I suggest that the man should always have a prisoner's friend without asking for him, unless he actually refused his help. I believe that is the practice in civil eases, and that a judge will never consent to try a man for his life without seeing that the man has the benefit of counsel to defend him. I think when a man is tried in the Army, in the same way he ought to have as good a 850 chance of making his case and the assistance of an expert advisor. The third reform which I desire to see is that there should be a chance of revision in these cases by a competent legal tribunal. There is at present, I know, a revision of the case by the Judge Advocate-General. I do not think that is enough, and that there ought to be the same chance of a trial by a Court of Appeal as a man has in civil life. I do not think it is too much to ask that that should be so in special cases like these. I put these three points before my hon. Friend to-night. I am perfectly confident that every effort is made by the officers who administer the present system to deal fairly and humanely with all the cases that come before them. I make no charge whatever otherwise. But I ask that the system should be examined, in order to see that, as far as possible, it is brought up to the highest standards of mercy and justice, so far as those are consistent with the stern needs of war.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI hope the Committee will allow me just for a minute or two to reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). In view of the importance of that speech, I think I ought to say a word now. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will reply to the general Debate later on in the evening. I must say that I have been greatly struck by the admirable spirit which pervaded the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and I need hardly tell him that the spirit which has induced him to take an active part in all matters which tend to the amelioration of the rigours of military life is a spirit which I greatly appreciate. He has quoted a specific case of an officer who has suffered the death penalty in very extraordinary circumstances. If the Committee would allow me, I should like, before I express any opinion upon it, to have all the facts investigated, because one finds very often that those cases—not from any unpatriotic spirit—are dealt with in a way which often leave a good deal of room for doubt in the minds of ordinary men.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASWill the hon. Member enable some Members of this House to see the evidence of the court-martial in this case?
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat raises a very technical point, namely, that no man is allowed to see the proceedings of a court-martial, and see what the facts really are person who has been tried by a court-martial, and the extraordinary technical difficulty arises that if the man is dead, unfortunately, that consent cannot be given. I will make it my duty to see the proceedings in this particular court-martial, and see what the facts really are, and, if I can, consistently with my duty and with the law, explain to the House the real facts of the case, I think it ought to be my duty to do so. My hon. Friend has referred to the number of cases which have been tried by court-martial and which have ended, unfortunately, in the capital sentence. Now, I think I ought to say that, considering the extraordinary numbers that are at the present time in the British. Army, of all classes and creeds, the number of executions has been the most remarkably small in the history of the world. I cannot say anything more, but I say that, to reassure the House, that whatever can be done to keep us back from going to the extreme penalty of the law we are always most anxious to do it. I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend has just said, that there is a widespread anxiety in the country, and I am not surprised at that, because if our civilisation in this country is worth anything at all it is worth ever so much more the more value is placed upon human life, and no British soldier and no British Commander-in-Chief or British court-martial really wishes in his or its heart of hearts to deprive any gallant soldier of his life. My hon. Friend put to me a very definite point yesterday, so I made it my duty this morning to see the Director of Personal Services, who has a greater knowledge in these matters than any man in the Army to-day—General Childs—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley knows him too—and I asked him to get me a statement of what actually has been done, and, fortunately for the House, he had at his disposal an Assistant Provost-Marshal from France— a very gallant officer, Captain Montgomery—and he got him to write down what he actually did in his own special division. He writes:
Regarding trial of soldiers by court-martial in France. In the case of any men under my command, while I was Assistant Provost-Marshal 36th Division, being returned for trial by court-martial, I have invariably asked them what wit- 852 nesses they wanted to call for defence, and if they wished to obtain the services of any particular officer to act for them as prisoner's friend. I have always found that the officer asked for by the accused has been allowed to act for him by his Commanding Officer, unless the exigencies of the Service forbid it, and in this case the accused has been so informed, and he has been given the opportunity of asking for someone else or the name of another suitable officer suggested. The above has been my practice with ray own men, and, so far as I know, it has been the general practice in my late division. There are, as a rule, plenty of officers in battalions with legal training who are only too glad to act, and, in fact, rather enjoy the job.My hon. Friend further raised this question yesterday: He asked me what I had done with regard to the point as to whether a soldier might be entitled to have a friend to defend him. Now that note which I have quoted is a very significant one. I am sure the spirit expressed in that note is the spirit of every assistant provost-marshal in the British Army, because, as I have said, if there is one thing the British soldier hates it is to be in any way party to the shooting of a soldier or an officer. He hates it. I believe that I gave some promise that I would make some inquiries in France, and I find I did make some inquiries through my gallant friend General Childs, and I have here a letter from the Adjutant-General in France, in which he says, as Captain Montgomery has stated, that every chance that is possible is given to the accused who chooses to ask for any witnesses, medical or otherwise. It must be remembered by the House that a court-martial officer in the eye of the military law is not the prosecuting officer at all. He is bound in law to produce every fact that shows anything in favour of the soldier who is accused, and I know of cases of strong resentment expressed by courts-martial whore there was any attempt on the part of a court-martial officer to take unnecessarily any chance of saying anything which might be prejudicial to the interests of the accused person. We are at the present moment, as I think I suggested to the House, making an arrangement to publish an additional Order. In saying that, I wish to cast no disrespect—far from it—upon the gallant soldiers and officers who are in charge of courts-martial. We are merely reasserting what is the law, but in order to reassure the country—because I agree with my hon. Friend there is on this point some feeling—we are arranging once again to publish a definite Army Order reminding all Commanding Officers and all the various distinguished officers concerned 853 what the proper procedure should be in the case of a court-martial in case any doubt may arise as to the justice of the sentence that has been passed. I think I might quite fairly, perhaps, give the text of the Order. It is really bringing again, as I said, to the minds of the officers concerned the rules of justice in courts-martial—what should be done, what chances may be given to the accused person, how he can be treated—and, above all, to remind the court-martial officer that it is his duty to place every fact that is in favour of the accused before the Court. This is what the Order says:If the accused desires to make his own selection of a friend subject to military law, whether of commissioned rank or not, the request should be granted, in which case such person shall conform to the rules laid down for counsel in R.P. 92. The friend of the accused shall be notified, and a copy of the evidence given to him in sufficient time to enable him to give due consideration to the case and to consult with the accused. The attendance of a friend of the accused in no way relieves the Court of its responsibility for safeguarding the interests of the accused and eliciting; all the facts which may tell in his favour.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASHas that instruction previously been issued?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt has always been the rule. I hope I make that matter clear. The only point of the matter is: seeing that these questions were causing a great deal of doubt in the minds of humanitarians, and hon. Members of this House, I thought it my duty to bring it to the notice of the War Office. As I have said, the Adjutant-General in France and at home and General Childs are most anxious and willing that every fairness should be shown to these men. They have no wish to deprive any man of a fair trial. This procedure under the rules of procedure has been the practice of the Army during the whole of the War. I thought it necessary, however, in order to relieve public opinion of this very serious burden of doubt which has been cast upon it— as one can see from the various Debates in this House—that a definite Order should again be issued recalling to the minds of the officials in France the definite rules of procedure which had been laid down by the rules of procedure. I trust I have reassured my hon. Friend and the House that whatever can be done is at the present time being done in order to save the life of any man who, unfortunately, at a given moment may have, as it were, fallen from grace under heavy strain, and 854 that everything in accordance with British ideas of justice and fair play is accorded to him in his hour of trial.
§ Major D. DAVIESI do not know that anyone, can take objection to the tone of to-day's speeches. Although I am glad to realies that my hon. Friend is in earnest in desiring to see this matter put upon a better footing, I think the House must feel that it is possible to attach too much importance to the letter of one Provost-Marshal of one division in France. My hon. Friend said he was going to issue an Order to the Command in France reminding them of the procedure which is laid down in the King's Regulations, and which has been our procedure hitherto. Although this procedure, whatever it may be, is good, it does not go far enough. Some time ago I put a question down asking whether the War Office could not consider the question of appointing officers in legal training to certain units in France, and to other centres, these officers being attached to the corps, say, and whose business it would be to attend at the courts-martial and act as counsel for the accused. Until this machinery, or some machinery of the kind, is put in motion, this matter will not be put on a satisfactory basis. In the first place, we are told by my hon. Friend, quite truly, that the officer who is in charge of the court-martial is neutral. He, and those that assist him, have simply to bring out the facts in connection with any particular case which comes up for trial. That is perfectly true. Personally, I had some experience of courts-martial in France. We all know that occasionally facts, and material facts, are not brought out. It does not always follow, though the Court may have done their best to give a proper decision, that such is the case; it must necessarily arise in some few cases that their decisions are not exactly what they ought to be.
I contend that as a criminal in this country has a right to counsel, and to expert legal advice on his behalf, that surely we ought to allow some measure of protection and of justice to our gallant fellows in the field. It is quite true that an accused soldier can ask to be represented by what is known as the soldier's friend. It frequently happens, however, —I have known many cases—when the soldier's friend is not available. There was one particular officer that I knew who was very often asked to take up these 855 cases, but he was allotted to some particular duty and it was impossible for him to get away to attend these courts-martial. Sometimes it happens that owing to the exigencies of the moment and the conditions at the time no properly qualified officer or man is available to act the part of the soldier's friend. The War Office and the Government are in duty bound to see that these officers are available, men with the necessary legal knowledge, who can see that all relevant facts are brought before the Court. There is one other point in connection with this matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the Committee. I do not understand what is the difficulty in regard to it. Could my hon. Friend explain to the House what the difficulty is about the point of an officer being attached either to a corps or a division, as is considered best? We know there are a large number of wounded officers who could undertake this work, and so not entail a great drain upon the combatant officers who are wanted for other duties. Such a procedure would improve the morale of the Army and certainly restore confidence at home. The fact that these cases have been put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn is, I think, an additional reason that the time has now arrived when the War Office should act better, and not go on with the existing machinery, which has not proved itself, at any rate, perfect. They should improve that machinery and appoint officers of the kind I have suggested.
I pass from that matter to another subject which has not been touched upon so far in the Debate this afternoon, although it is, I think, a matter in which every member of this Committee must be interested. I think it is a great disadvantage that in this House the War Office which, after the Ministry of Munitions, is the greatest spending Department in the State, is not represented here by the Secretary of State for War. I do not cast any reflection upon my hon. Friend who represents the War Office, and who does his best to give us all the information at his disposal, but when we fully realise that the War Office is the second largest spending Department it is only right that it should be represented here by the responsible Minister. This has, unfortunately, been going on ever since the War started, although for a few brief months the Secretary for War did sit in this House. But 856 now, when hon. Members have various proposals to make for improving the administration of the War Office, they are conveyed by the Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State, and we get a very cool response to any suggestions for improvement. The Secretary of State for War made a speech in another place last night which, as far as I can make out, absolutely went back on everything he said a week ago. Ten days ago he made a speech at the Aldwych Club in which he told the country:
I have mentioned Mr. Bonar Law's answer to the question of the confidence of the Government in the Higher Command, and I repeat once again that I have trusted implicitly in those two men. They have never failed me, and as long as I stay in the War Office, and they stay in the position they now hold, I shall have no cause to complain of the confidence they have placed in me, nor will I ever give them cause to doubt the confidence I place in them.…Mr. Bonar Law, speaking on behalf of the Government, gave the answer that the Government had confidence in those two officers. I do not know why he should always be called upon to do that. All I know is that so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Cabinet are concerned, there has never been the least wavering on my part in my allegiance—and I call it that—to those two officers who are bearing such a heavy burden on their shoulders.In the House of Lords last night Lord Derby turned a complete somersault, because he told the Noble Lords that when these matters were going on it made the holder of a post like his even more difficult than it would otherwise be, and he said that it made a man reluctant to do even what he thought was right. Then his Lordship went on to explain that he had become a convert to the decision that the Council at Versailles should be given executive authority, and he went on to say:Complaints had been made as to delay in settling the matter, and for that delay Lord Derby said he pleaded guilty.It appears to me we are discussing Estimates which provide for the continuance in office of a Minister who made a categorical and definite statement ten days ago, and who now repudiates all he said before. I think we are entitled to know whether this is the final decision of the Secretary for War. A few months ago, after the Prime Minister's speech at Paris, some of us urged that the Supreme Council at Versailles should be given executive authority then. At that time it took a great deal of persuasion to persuade the Secretary of State for War to use the word "advisory," but it had taken him three months to be able to 857 pronounce the word "executive." During those three months it appears to me the Secretary of State for War has allowed the grossest attacks to be made upon our great generals at a time when we were menaced by the greatest offensive with which we have been menaced during the War. At a time when our great generals should have been collaborating together and producing their schemes of defence in view of this great onslaught on the part of the enemy, the Secretary for War allowed all this bickering and Press campaign to go on unchecked, and allowed all this precious time to slide by. I should have thought if the Secretary for War had had any regard for the men serving under him, and if he had a spark of honour, that he would have placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister, or put an end to this campaign of abuse, for he ought to have seen that at this critical moment in the country's history our generals were given fair play while they were preparing their schemes of defence, and that executive authority should have been given to the Supreme Council in order to enable them to collaborate their schemes of defence.I see that one journal—I am not sure whether it was the "Times" or not— described the Secretary of State for War as spineless. One of those animals who do not possess a spine is a limpet, which is supposed to possess the faculty of dinging. I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Members in this House in allowing this state of things to go on. I understand that Lord Derby offered to resign, and I cannot understand the state of mind of the Prime Minister that he did not jump at it and accept it. The whole thing is of such an extraordinary character that we can scarcely realise that we are in the face of an enemy offensive, and that all our energies should be devoted towards winning this War. That is the only reason I got up, because I am absolutely convinced that every ounce of our strength should be put out to win the War. That is the only thing that people care for in this country, and I imagine that it ought to be the only matter which concerns any hon. Member of this House. It is for that reason and that alone that I get up as a humble Member and make the strongest protest I possibly can against the continuance in office of this Minister who during the last three months has, I was going to say, played the fool, when we are passing 858 through one of the greaest crises in our history. What is the record of the War Office during the last twelve months? My hon. Friend gave us a very interesting discourse, and I want to give the War Office credit for everything that they have done; but there is a great deal more that they might have done I quite admit that they have enormous difficulties to face, and one cannot expect them to be a perfect Department; but, when we remember the hopes that we had that a great revival would set in in the whole administration of the War Office, and when we look back on the past twelve months and study the record of the Office, I must say that we are extremely disappointed. The War Office started off badly with the Inquiry into the Barrett case. It will be remembered how that question was brought up in this House. I venture to say that the Report as presented had gone through a process of very stringent editing, and the House of Commons was refused the evidence which was placed before the Court of Inquiry. Really, it was a general whitewashing, and nothing happened. Then came the Mesopotamia Inquiry, and we remember how, after very strenuous protests in this House, the War Office did nothing, and some of the members whose conduct was impugned went back to their old posts.
We next had the Inquiry into the medical boards. The, Secretary of State made a strategical retreat to the rear, and handed over these boards, which had become, a perfect nuisance to the War Office, to the Ministry of National Service. We know perfectly well that one of the reasons those boards became a by-word was that the Director-General of Medical Services was merely a branch of the Adjutant-General's Department. The secret orders which were issued to the boards really originated in the Adjutant-General's Department. I do not suppose that the Director-General of Medical Services had any hand in the matter of sending out those secret orders. Some of us have asked my hon. Friend again and again to consider the whole question of the Medical Service Department. We have asked repeatedly that it should be placed on the same footing and given the same status that is accorded it in every military establishment among our Allies, but we have been met with a blank refusal. There was the Inquiry into the state of the Royal Army Medical Corps 859 Service in France. The Report was ready some months ago, but so far as I know nothing more has been heard of it. One of my hon. Friends was a member of that Court of Inquiry, and he has protested most vigorously against the attitude adopted by the War Office in the matter. Then there was the Cambria disaster. We were told that nobody in France was responsible for that disaster. It is the duty of Members in this House to bring these things home to the War Office. These are only cases, but they are sufficient to show that the administration of the War Office savours of whitewash, and that the responsibility is not brought home to the people concerned. For my part, I do not think that we shall ever be able to see any improvement until the present Secretary of State for War passes to another place.
It is no answer to say that these reforms cannot be carried out because a great War is in progress. It is the country that carries out its reforms most rapidly, that foresees the reforms which are necessary and adapts itself to the ever-changing conditions of warfare, that is going to win, and not the country that says, "This is no time for reform, because we are in the midst of a great war." War is constantly changing, and we have seen more changes in the last four years than we have seen in this country for the last hundred years. A War Office that cannot keep abreast of changing conditions and whose administration is cast in an iron mould and is absolutely bound up with red tape is not going to succeed. I sincerely hope that this House will insist upon efficiency in the War Office, because without it we cannot expect to be successful in this great campaign. I am sorry to have to strike this discordant note this afternoon, but I want my hon. Friend to realise that some of us, at any rate, do not share the satisfaction which has been expressed at the way in which the Department is conducted at the present time. I do not attach any blame to him. I think if he were Secretary of State we should have a very much more efficient War Office, because I think he would see to it that some of the views which are expressed in this House and some of the reforms which are described here were actually carried into effect, instead of being thrown into the waste- 860 paper basket. There is one other point which I want to raise in connection with the Medical Services, and it is as to the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry. My hon. Friend has told us in this House several times that the terms of reference only applied to France, but if ho will ask for the Papers I think ho will find that at the commencement of the proceedings the terms of reference also included this country.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONT have pointed out several times, and I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) will bear me out, that, as given in this House, the terms of reference applied to France alone.
§ Major DAVIESYes, my hon. Friend said so, but if he will look at the Papers I think he will find that at the commencement they referred also to this country as well as to France. They were subsequently modified after discussions in this House, and quite contrary to the expressions of opinion in this House. I do hope that my hon. Friend will urge again that these terms of reference should be carried out in their entirety, and that this Committee having now been disbanded he will appoint a new Committee and institute an inquiry, which is demanded by the whole of the medical profession, into the state of the Army Medical Services and the Royal Army Medical Corps in this country as well as in France. Then there are the other theatres of war, Egypt. Salonika, Mesopotamia.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAnd Palestine.
§ Major DAVIESWhere, from all reports, the question is almost as urgent as it was in France. I suggest he should also include them as well as this country in the terms of reference to the new Committee which I feel sure he will set up. At the risk of boring the Committee, I must once again point out that the Director-General of Medical Services does not possess the status in the War Office to which he is entitled. Fortunately, Sir Alfred Keogh is going to retire to another sphere. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that when he is appointing the new Director-General, who comes on the scene and takes up his duties on the 1st March, he should remedy this defect in the constitution of the War Office, and give the new Director-General 861 a seat on the Army Council. We know the history of this, matter, how in the old days after the Crimean War the Army medical scandals produced such a state of affairs, disclosed by Florence Nightingale and Lord Herbert of Leigh, it was suggested that the Director-General should have direct access to the Secretary of State for War. That system obtains in all military administrations among our Allies, and it is absolutely absurd that the War Office should not give the medical profession the proper status to which they are entitled. It is high time that the War Office got busy. I finish up where I started by saying that we cannot expect any radical reform in the administration of this great Department, for which this country is asked to vote millions of money, until the present Secretary of State is removed. He has lost the confidence not only of his opponents but of his defenders. Last year there were those who with one accord said:
On, Stanley, on!This year with one united voice they shout,Out, Stanley, out!
Colonel HOPEI would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has yet come to any arrangement with the Ministry of Food in order that men coming on leave from the front, also men on sick leave at home and men who are on leave at home awaiting discharge from the Army, may be able to get meat, butter, and margarine on and after Monday next? A question was asked on the matter a short time ago in this House, and the answer was that the War Office were consulting the Ministry of Food on the subject. There is now very little time left, only three or four days, and unless something is done very quickly the result will be that many soldiers from the front and men who are on leave at home awaiting discharge will be unable to get either meat or butter on Monday next. The procedure is quite simple. At the present moment, when these men are given leave, they are also given by the officer who grants them leave tickets which enable them to purchase 1 oz. of sugar per diem. A simple authority is required that officers granting leave should also give these men authority to purchase butter on and after the 25th instant. The time was cut a little fine in the case of sugar tickets. Some soldiers who were on leave when the sugar tickets were issued were unable to get their sugar because the tickets were 862 not printed. A short Order made now authorising officers to add to the present sugar ticket permission to buy meat and margarine is quite sufficient. It should be done within the next forty-eight hours; otherwise I am afraid the men will be unable to buy meat and butter on Monday next.
§ Mr. HINDSI wish to call the attention of the Committee to one matter which, although small, is rather important in the view of a large number of people attached to the various battalions—that is, the great disbanding of regiments which has taken place in this country and also in France. It is not my place to question the wisdom of this step. My criticism is that the greatest care should be taken as to what regiments should be wiped out. There is a large number of regiments which have only a number, while there are others of a very different order, whose character and identity should be maintained. For instance, we have the London Scottish Regiment, the London Irish Regiment, and the London Welsh Regiment. We are told, on what I consider rather good authority, that it is the intention of the Higher Command to wipe out this London Welsh Regiment. May I take the time of the Committee for a few minutes in giving the hisory of that regiment? It was raised very soon after the War broke out. We had a, great and important meeting at the Queen's Hall, which the Prime Minister attended, and at which he made one of his most brillaint speeches in connection with the War. He identified himself absolutely with that regiment. It was attached to the Welsh Army Corps afterwards. The Prime Minister went as far as to say at one meeting that if he was not the father of the regiment, at least he was the foster-mother.
§ Mr. THOMASGodmother!
§ Mr. HINDSAt any rate, he identified himself with it. This regiment had a strong London committee to look after its comforts. This London committee banded itself together to get a strong London Welsh Regiment, and it was the means of raising 3,000 or 4,000 men. They have spent three or four thousand pounds down to this time in maintaining and looking after these men. I was one of the committee, so I knew something of the history of the regiment. We were fortunate enough to get the use of Gray's Inn to drill the men, and we got together 863 something like 1,300 before they went to Llandudno. Then they went to Winchester, and in December, 1915, they were sent off to France. Then we raised a second battalion. That has been wiped out. We had a strong ladies' committee which has sent comforts to the men, and last Christmas they sent £131 to give the 1st London Welsh Battalion a Christmas dinner. After all that we hear that this battalion is going to be wiped out. The War Office ought to recognise the identity of the parentage of such battalions as this. I ask the War Office to consider the matter, and not to wipe out a battalion of this kind when care has been taken and a committee is in existence, and hoped to continue in existence, to look after the men who come back when the Wax is over and superintend their return to civil life. I attach a good deal of importance to sentiment. If the London Scottish or the London Irish were going to be wiped out we should have the whole of the Scottish and Irish Members up in arms. It is time for us Welsh Members to raise our voices in protest if this is going to take place. This London battalion has done great deeds. We are proud of what they have done. In one instance, at Pilkhem, the conduct of a second-lieutenant was so brave that at the end of the engagement he was promoted to be a captain. Now he is taken away from the battalion. When the history of the War comes to be written you will find that this man and many others have done such brilliant deeds of bravery that they ought to be recognised. I appeal to the War Office to retain the identity of this London Welsh Battalion. My only boy was in that battalion and fell in it, and I want it to be maintained to the very end. Other battalions only have a number, but this has something more than a. number. It has a parent who is very much attached to it.
Mr. PRICEI heard with very great pleasure the statement of the Undersecretary with regard to contracts. In the early stages of the War the scandal of the placing of contracts was serious, and the prices given were certainly not creditable to the country, and we are very grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement of the savings which have been brought about by the Committee in supervising these contracts. The last time I spoke on this Vote I called atten- 864 tion to the way in which men are being retained in this country while other men are being sent back to France after they have been wounded. We have men scattered over different parts of the country who have been in khaki since the commencement of the War, and are retained here whilst other men axe being sent back. I have here a most distressful letter from a lady in my own division, who has lost every male relative she had except her husband. He was wounded twice and gassed once, and then, after he was turned out of hospital, he had short leave and was sent back to his battalion. Other men have been here for twelve months and longer. That is grossly unfair, and we should do something to remove the grievance of these people, more particularly those who have been wounded. We must, as far as we can, remove the sense of grievance amongst the people who are suffering in this way, because nothing would do more to sour our people in regard to the War than any sense of injustice to the men and to their wives and families at home, and I trust the War Office will take note of this, because it is causing very great discontent.
Another matter I wish to refer to, on which I have received considerable correspondence this morning and yesterday, is the retention in the Army of a number of veterinary students who have passed through college in one or two years. I find that the Army Council has issued instructions that men who have been under enlistment in their third year as medical students should be released in order to pursue their studies. That is a very desirable thing, but my attention has been called to the fact, that you decline to allow the same thing to apply to veterinary students. That is scarcely fair. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of veterinary students in the country of late years, and something ought to be done to get these men back, so that they may continue their studies, and become fully qualified. You should not give separate treatment to the medical profession while the veterinary profession is treated in this way. Perhaps I may be allowed to send the correspondence to the War Office. I can assure my hon. Friend it is a matter about which there is very grave concern, more particularly when you bear in mind that the Veterinary College in Ireland is in a favoured position owing to the fact that 865 there is no Conscription there. I do not think that these veterinary students should suffer this disadvantage; they should be placed in precisely the same position as the medical profession.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. THOMASI want to join in the appeal made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hinds) that the claims of Wales should be recognised. There can be no doubt there is not only a. strong sentiment existing in connection with this matter, but there is also a feeling growing up that the claims of the Welsh people are not sufficiently recognised. It ought not to be necessary to make any claim for Wales when we have a Welsh Prime Minister. Whether the War Office feel that this is a detail on which they can get their revenge on Wales at the expense of the Prime Minister I am not sure, but in any case I desire the representative of the War Office to recognise the strong feeling which exists, and to realise that unless the legitimate claim is met Welsh Members in this House will not be so contented as they have been in the past, but will find it necessary to assert themselves more. I desire to emphasise the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). The Under-Secretary for War told us that he had found it necessary to issue again a previous instruction, but in the case which is so widely reported to-day we find that this young lad, not twenty years of age, who was brave enough to face death when he was shot by his own people, was not allowed to see any legal representative until half an hour before the court-martial took place. I ask the Committee to recognise the position of these young boys. I have a boy eighteen and a-half years of age. We never believed he would be a soldier. I never believed it would be possible for him to have to talk about killing people, and that is the position of millions of our boys. We are not a military nation; we do not bring up our boys with a military spirit, and that fact ought to be kept in mind. We have only to see some of the poor fellows who return, the victims of shell-shock, to imagine what must be the effect on the nerves of our boys when they are suddenly called upon to perform certain acts in France. You cannot call a man a coward who, when under the age of twenty years, volunteers for the Army. That is not the stuff a coward is made of. You may depend upon it that the revelations in this case, and the many things one hears 866 of from private soldiers, will go a long way to cause grave apprehensions in this country. Let me put this to the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office: the law of this country gives a right of appeal, a right to the review of sentences, a right to the consideration of recommendations to mercy to the vilest criminal in the land. Surely we are, at least, entitled, to claim these rights for those who have volunteered to defend their country! I quite appreciate the reply given on behalf of the War Office, but I want to emphasise this point—that the admission that it has been found necessary to reissue this particular Order proves pretty conclusively that the Order has, in the past, been ignored by someone in authority. We are further entitled to ask that where recommendations to mercy arc made in cases they shall not be entirely ignored. It may be that in this particular case the recommendation was never passed on to the proper authority. In that case I say we are entitled to an assurance that in future these recommendations shall be considered by those who are empowered to deal with them. I want to raise the question of the number of soldiers in this country who are being kept in the Army at the country's expense, who will never be fit for fighting purposes, who will never go to France, and who, nevertheless, are being denied the opportunity to do work on which they could be more usefully employed. One of my own staff was taken under the Act. We knew perfectly well before he left the office that he was not fit to be a soldier, and never would be, yet the Army kept him for twelve months, and during a larger portion of that time he was in hospital Finally, he was returned to civil life. I hear of cases in which railwaymen taken into the Army have never been sent abroad, but are kept at home doing work of a menial character which is useless so far as the prosecution of the War is concerned. In this connection we are entitled to ask if consideration is given to the cases of those who are fit to go abroad. Nothing causes so much discontent as the feeling that there are some people in this country who ought to go to the front, but are kept at home, while there are large numbers of others who are again sent to the front although they may have been wounded two or three times. I hope the War Office will pay attention to that aspect of the question. It is causing a good deal of grave apprehension in the public minds.
867 I want to say a word as to the issue raised yesterday. I am not going into the very debatable point as to the position of the Higher Command, because as a layman I am not competent to express an opinion on that. But I am competent to express an opinion as to the effect of these repeated quarrels upon the industrial situation. I took occasion last week to draw attention to the grave unrest in this country, an unrest that is far more serious than is realised by many hon. Members, and far more serious than it has been at any time during the last three and a-half years. The vote which has just been taken in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers is the best indication of that. It was a vote which excluded apprentices and men abroad, and yet it was a record vote so far as a number of men taking part in it goes. Never before in the experience of this society have so large a percentage voted on any question. What I want to draw his attention to is that, whilst these quarrels are taking place, the ordinary man in the street is not concerned with the technicalities of the Higher Command. He is not concerned with the position of one Minister and another Minister, but what he is concerned with is with asking, "If all is true that the Press says about our incompetence, are these the people who are going to be responsible for our lives"? What the women are asking is, "If all the attacks on your generals are true, and they are as incompetent as the Press say they arc, are these the kind of people who are going to be responsible for determining the lives of millions of our fellow men?" That is what is disturbing the working classes. That is why men are saying that they are not going into the Army to be made mere powder of. That is why the men are saying, "If these people are so incompetent, we are not going to place our lives in their hands." It is, therefore, because this side of the question is not sufficiently appreciated that I beg those in authority to realise that that in itself is one of the causes of the great industrial unrest existing in our country to-day. You cannot have this political sniping; you cannot, day after day, take up the Press and find that first one Minister and then another is attacked—
§ Mr. PRINGLEBut it is the Government who is doing it.
§ Mr. THOMASAttacks first against one officer and then against another, without realising that the man in the street is not concerned with the high politics of the situation. What he is concerned with is that he is the victim of all this quarrelling. It is because I believe it is disastrous to the success of the War, because I believe it is disastrous to the best interests of the country, and because I am satisfied that if it continues much longer it will create an industrial situation that it will be impossible to control, that I ask the Government to realise that it is they who have to be responsible. If they can prosecute your "Labour Leader," if they can make a raid on some insignificant Labour Press because it is acting against the best interests of the country, they ought to have the power, and the authority, and the courage to tackle the big people as well as the smaller people. The man in the street feels that they have not the courage or the desire. The man in the street feels that if they can make a raid on the "Labour Leader" offices they ought to make a raid on some of the bigger offices. While they do not do that there is going to be discontent and ill-feeling, and I am quite satisfied the best interests of the country will suffer as the result.
§ Mr. FORSTERI agree very largely with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Thomas). I believe that it is essentially mischievous, that it is in a very full degree highly dangerous, that attacks should be made in the Press upon individual officers in the Army. I hope that the strong feeling which ha:; been expressed on all sides during the past two or three days will bring it home to those in authority in the Press world, or in any other, that that is a practice that must stop.
§ Mr. FORSTERMy hon. Friend asks why I do not stop it. It does not rest with me to stop it. If I could stop it I would. May I say also that I strongly deprecate attacks made upon the honour of individual Ministers such as that which was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major David Davies) a few moments ago. I am not going into the controversy which has occupied our attention during the last two or three days, and which I hope was closed yesterday.
§ Mr. FORSTER— —which I hope was closed yesterday. I will only say this: that I think Lord Derby may trust his honour to the soldiers in the Army, and I share the hope expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the latter portion of his speech that we may devote our attention to getting on with the War. The hon. and gallant Member expressed regret that the Secretary of State was not in this House, and he pointed to some of the great advantages that would ensue if the Secretary of State were in this House. It is not very long ago since the Secretary of State was in this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was his private Secretary. Ho complained that under existing conditions all that reached the ears of the Secretary of State was the pale reflection of the opinions of this House conveyed to him by the mouths of the Under-Secretaries, but if he had cast his mind back a few short months he would have remembered the time when the only ordinary method of conveying the opinions of this House to the Secretary of State for War was through my mouth, because at that time the Secretary of State, owing to the overwhelming nature of the burden he had to bear, was unable to devote to this House that amount of attention which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think could be devoted to it by some other Minister. I do not think I need touch further upon the speech which fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but before I pass from the concluding portion of the Debate I should like to say one word with reference to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member for West Carmarthen (Mr. Hinds), and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, namely, the question of the London Welsh Regiment. I confess that I am not familiar with all that has happened in connection with this case. I know how strongly anyone would feel with regard to the disbandment of so distinguished a regiment, and I will certainly undertake to represent the very strong views which have been expressed, and, indeed, my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Macpherson) is already in possession of the views of Members upon that question. I have listened, with the exception of a very few minutes, to the whole of the Debate, and I think my hon. Friend and I can congratulate ourselves that the administration of the War Office has been free from any serious or very damaging criticism.
§ Mr. FORSTERA great variety of topics has been touched upon, and with the permission of the Committee I will follow very briefly the leading points that have been raised. The first question that really engaged the attention of the Committee was the question of leave. It was raised by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Banffshire (Major Waring) and Rotherhithe (Captain CarrGomm), and also by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim (General M'Calmont). The view that has been expressed, if I may summarise it, is this: You have, at any rate, in the distant theatres of War a large number of men who have been out there an unconscionable time, and that it is essential, in the interests of the Army as well as in the interests of the men, that periods of leave should be given with greater freedom and greater frequency than are given at the present moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Major Waring) asked the Under-Secretary to get the War Office to allow the authorities at Salonika to grant more leave. It is not a question of the War Office allowing the authorities to give more leave. There is no one in this House who has done more than my hon. Friend to press upon the attention of General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the various theatres of the War the urgent need for giving as much leave as the exigencies of the military situation will allow. I do not think that those who advocate a very full measure of leave for the troops have a better friend than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I know from my own personal knowledge that he has gone far out of his way to bring the matter to the attention of the Commanders-in-Chief, and I hope that we may shortly receive from the Commander-in-Chief at Salonika indications that something further has been done in the direction of giving increased leave facilities.
§ Captain CARR-GOMMAnd more equally distributed.
§ Mr. FORSTERAnd more equally distributed. That is the special point which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is only natural that hon. and gallant Members of this House who are also officers in the Army should urge upon the attention of the Committee and those who represent the War Office the various problems, difficulties and matters that affect the units with which they arc themselves concerned. They speak from 871 their own experience. I do not quarrel with that for a moment; it is a very valuable contribution to the general door of knowledge on that subject. I, who professed no knowledge whatever of military matters before I went to the War Office, have always been glad to have intelligent criticism and to avail myself of such valuable experience. The War Office and the Commanders-in-Chief, however, have to keep in view the interests of the Army as a whole and have to be guided in their decisions by a wide view of the circumstances which concern the Army under their command. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras (Colonel Sir H. Jessel) asked me a question which I know is agitating the minds of a great number of officers, as to whether officers on consolidated rates of pay will share in the increase of pay recently given to other officers in the Army. I can reply by saying that it all depends upon the rate of consolidated pay. Those who draw the lower rate will get an increase, while those who draw the higher rate will not. The increase is confined to those who draw £300 a year or less, and in those cases they will get an increase of £50 a year. Full children's allowance will also be drawn by those who get consolidated pay up to £400 a year. If my hon. and gallant Friend socks further information he will find it in an Army Order issued on the 26th January last.
The hon. Member for Galway referred to potatoes which were stated to have been bought at £4 a ton and sold to the men at £7 a ton, and wanted to know what had become of the profit. If that is carried out under the administration of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, as I imagine it was, I can assure him that the administration of the Board is conducted by a committee of exceedingly able business men who are very much concerned to see that the business is run on business lines. I know that in connection with the purchase and sale of potatoes the action of the Canteen Board and their officers has been largely affected by the decisions and rules of the Food Controller. It is quite possible that the price payable for the potatoes and the price at which they were sold were regulated by the Food Controller. In the absence of detailed information it is quite impossible for me to express any kind of opinion in regard to the matter, but I will ask the hon. Member to make a point 872 of sending me any details which he may have since he has thought it right to raise the matter in this Committee. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire referred to a waste of petrol, and quoted instances in which aeroplanes in Franco, on returning from flight, instead of having the petrol preserved for future use, let it go to waste in one form or another. I cannot say, from my own knowledge, whether there is waste of petrol in this way or not in connection with aeroplanes. I know that in the Army Service Corps it used to be alleged that there was very considerable waste of petrol, and the most stringent rules and regulations have been issued to prevent waste of petrol in that sense.
§ Mr. FORSTERI will bring it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to the Air Ministry, and he will no doubt have it inquired into. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen quoted a case of a friend of his who was on the march in France, and, being benighted, had to bivouac in a field. A neighbouring haystack was used by the men under his command, and a bill was presented for the hay in the morning, and my hon. Friend wants to know if this sort of thing goes on generally, and whether or not our people are to be robbed in this way. What does my hon. Friend expect? Does ho expect that we should be allowed to take the hay and make no payment for it? If so, that would be treating the population of an Allied country, with whom we are defending civilisation, even worse than we should have the right to treat the population of an enemy country. If we take consumable stores we are bound to pay for them, and my hon. Friend may be quite sure that before payment is made the claim is closely considered by the Commission specially appointed for the purpose, on which I bad the honour to serve before I came back from France to undertake my present duties.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton also raised the point referred to by the hon. Member far Aberdeen in regard to the position of the retired officer who draws his pay in addition to retired pay. This question has been raised on several occasions since the outbreak of the War. During the South African War the position was different. The retired officer recalled to the Colours was allowed a higher rate of pension by reason of the service he gave after he rejoined. That 873 was found to be a very expensive operation ; it also led to a great many inequalities between various officers, and as the result a Committee was set up to inquire into the matter after the conclusion of the South African War, and it was decided that in future retired officers in receipt of retired pay who were called back in time of national emergency should continue to draw the retired pay which they already had, as well as pay in respect of the new period of service, but not to be able to add to the rate of retired pay. That is the system which is being followed now. I may say incidentally that as many as possible of these retired officers and re-employed officers are being allowed to return to civil life, and their places are being filled by those who have come back from foreign service. My hon. Friends the Member for York and the Member for Salford raised the question of delay in dealing with a large number of dependants' allowances. I regret the delay just as much as they do. The delay has been caused to a large extent, not so much by delay in the Army Pay offices, as by the fact that the pension officers, who have to deal with the assessment of these claims of dependants, have been intolerably overworked owing to the large extra duty they have had to do in connection with the reassessment of old age pensions. I know that the burden of work which has fallen upon these pension officers has been infinitely greater than most Members of this House have any idea of at all
§ Mr. FORSTERPerhaps "assessment" is the wrong term, but there has been an increase in the old age pensions' grant, and I think a certain amount of recalculation was involved. It is on that ground, I think, that matters have fallen so heavily into arrear. We are now making a great effort to overtake the heavy burden of accumulation, and I hope we may look forward to a brighter and easier period. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) drew my attention to a letter which he had just received, dated yesterday, calling attention to the fact that the allowances issued in respect of dependants and orphans of soldiers arc insufficient. I will certainly have this matter looked into. I do not think that 874 my attention had been called to it before. I may remind the Committee that the question of children's allowances for both orphans and otherwise was revised by the Cabinet only twelve months ago. I am not sure without further investigation that the differences in the cost of living between that date and this is so striking as to make any increase over the rates then decided upon necessary, but I will certainly have the question examined, and I would ask my hon. Friend to let me have a copy of the letter from which he was quoting. My hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather), who referred to the organisation of the Dental Service, raised a matter of great importance affecting, as he pointed out, our man-power. I will certainly have the matters to which he drew attention examined. He impressed me with the facts— I do not doubt that they are facts—and I will do my best to sec that full consideration is given to them. I come to a question which was raised, I quite admit very properly raised, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt). He quoted the case of an aerodrome which had been under construction for some little time, and which had involved expenditure of very large sums of money, and the use of which has apparently certainly been abandoned, and he very pertinently asked for some explanation of that occurrence. I propose to give quite frankly, and with, I hope, complete candour, the story from the point of view of the War Office. My hon. Friend found some difficulty in dealing with the question owing to the fact that the responsibility for this question had been a joint responsibility since while it started in the War Office it now rested with the Air Council. That makes the matter a little difficult for me, too, because I can only deal with it up to the point to which the War Office was responsible for it. My hon. and gallant Friend wanted to know how this particular site had been selected. He said, quite truly, you had the whole of the British Islands in which to find a site, and why was this particular site fixed upon, and which apparently has proved to be unsuitable. It is quite true that we did have the whole of the British Isles from which to select a site, and before the site was selected great efforts were made to find the best possible locality.
875 I would remind the Committee that in a school of aerial gunnery you want rather special features. When you are teaching people to shoot from the air, I think it is essential that you should have a sparsely-populated neighbourhood. It was considered essential that you should have a large sheet of smooth water, and you also wanted ground that either was, or could be made, suitable for aeroplanes to land and leave. I think those were the throe necessary characteristics for the site, and the country was searched, I think, pretty well from end to end by the authorities of the Royal Flying Corps before they selected the site in question. When they brought it for sanction, the Royal Engineers pointed out, after inspection, the manifold objections to it. They pointed out that most of it was a peat-bog, and that there were other engineering difficulties of a substantial character. They suggested alternative sites, and the alternative sites were considered, but subsequently rejected by the Royal Flying Corps authorities as not being suitable for their purposes. The Flying Corps authorities said that, after searching the country, this particular site was the one which they wished to have, that it was the best site for their purpose, and that, unless the engineering difficulties were found to be insuperable, they urged that the matter might be proceeded with at once. They pointed out that it was a matter of great urgency to get the work started, so that training might begin at the earliest possible moment. The matter was again considered. It was considered, after inspection, that the peat bog should be drained, and the engineering difficulties, although they were considerable, were not insuperable. The matter then came to me for financial concurrence, which, after due examination of the findings of both the Royal Flying Corps and of the Corps of Royal Engineers, I gave. I do not think I could have done anything else.
The work has proceeded. It has undoubtedly extended far beyond the bounds which were at first contemplated. I do not think that in itself is unreasonable, because everybody knows that, as the requirements of the Flying Corps increase, as they vary from day to day, you must adapt your facilities to equip and to train the men upon whom the safety of the Army—it may be the safety of the people 876 —ultimately depends. Therefore I do not think that undue weight is to be attached to the fact that the work has developed from what was originally contemplated.
§ Sir W. BEALEWas the right hon. Gentleman made aware, then or afterwards, locally, of the growing difficulties of making this place suitable? Perhaps it was not in the right hon. Gentleman's time? Perhaps the developments took place afterwards?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo; it was in my time, and the fact, if it be a fact, has not been brought to my knowledge. Some question arose, I think it was in the autumn of last year, of buying the site. I wanted to know, before sanctioning the purchase, from the financial point of view, whether or not this was going to be a permanent establishment. The Flying Corps authorities thought, really, so far as they knew, it was going to be a permanent establishment. I mention that because it shows that what might possibly be considered worthless, if it were considered with a view only to immediate use, was not necessarily worthless if regarded as a permanent establishment. That is as far as I can carry the matter. A question was asked me yesterday by, I think, the Member for East Edinburgh whether civil engineers were consulted before the work was put in hand? They were not. He asked was it examined and reported upon? The recommendation was considered, and the difficulties not considered insuperable by the Corps of Royal Engineers, who took the work in hand. I think the history of that corps, and the work they have been able to do under circumstances of every conceivable difficulty, and in every clime, prove that they are fully confident to carry out work of this description.
§ Mr. SHAWCould the right hon. Gentleman say whether civil engineers were consulted at a later stage by the War Office, and with what result?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo, I do not think they were consulted. Speaking from memory, I think the Committee of the Institute of Civil Engineers was asked by the Director of Fortifications and Works to report to him upon certain works being carried out under his direction. My recollection is that they went to various places, including Loch Doon, and subsequently presented a report. In that report they expressed an opinion that was unfavourable to the 877 aerodrome in question and unfavourable to the proposal of the extension of the railway which was in contemplation. I think that was last autumn, but as far as the undertaking of the work and so far as its execution is concerned, the matter rested with the Royal Engineers.
§ Sir W. BEALEThis is my Constituency, and all I recollect about the civil engineers being consulted was that it was made known when the objections were forwarded to the scheme that these were local engineers who had expressed strong opinions about the unsuitability of the site, and that would be before the inquiries to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
§ Mr. FORSTERI have not heard anything of these matters. That is as far as I can carry the matter, and that so far as the War Office knew this was to be a permanent undertaking.
§ Mr. HARCOURTIn view of the Debate to-morrow, do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, in plain language, it was a going concern? Did all this, in fact, take place before the transfer to the Air Board?
§ Mr. FORSTERI do not think that any aeroplanes have been flown there yet— that is my impression; therefore, we could not say it was a going concern.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhat is the exact amount spent?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe estimated sum necessary to complete is £400,000.
§ Mr. PRINGLEDoes that include the contractor and the amount spent by the Royal Engineers?
§ Mr. FORSTERIt includes the whole thing. It includes the amount estimated to finish the work which is now in hand.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs it not going to cost nearly a million? The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that £400,000 will be necessary to complete the work. He has said nothing about the cost of purchasing the land.
§ Mr. FORSTERWhat I meant by what was necessary to complete was the total cost necessary from start to finish. The original estimate and the original amount sanctioned was £150,000. This has grown from that sum, so that if we complete it now it will cost £400,000. I 878 have not the slightest wish to evade this point, and I should be a fool if I did it, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland will wish to go into this transaction with the greatest possible minuteness, and I should be a fool if I were to do anything save dealing with the matter in a spirit of the most complete candour, as I am doing. I should like to say a word with reference to the appointment of Mr. Weir, who last spring was appointed Surveyor-General of Supply. He took over the control of the Contracts Department, but the responsibility for that Department rested with myself. Sometimes in administration there is a certain amount of friction between two gentlemen who occupy positions such as those occupied by Mr. Weir and myself, but in our case there has been no friction of any sort or kind, and our terms have been most cordial. I believe that in Mr. Weir, with his great capacity and experience, we have a gentleman rendering services of high value to the War Office and to the State. I have attempted to deal with the points which have been raised in course of the Debate. I quite admit that I have dealt with them in a fragmentary manner, but I think the Committee will agree that there has been no substantial criticism for me to meet.
§ Sir ELLIS GRIFFITHThe right hon. Gentleman stated that he had dealt with the matter in a fragmentary manner, but we must all admit that he has also dealt with it in a frank manner. There are a number of these small matters which must end more or loss in an error of judgment, and I am bound to say that this Scottish matter of the Royal Flying Corps is one of them. I understand that the matter has been before the War Office for two and a half years.
§ Mr. FORSTERNo; since the end of 1916.
Sir E. GRIFFITHIt was after the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and, therefore, he must be conversant with the facts. The right hon. Gentleman misled me for a moment when he said that some of the matters came into being before he came into office.
§ Mr. FORSTERNo; I did not say that.
Sir E. GRIFFITHI apologise if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that there was a controversy 879 between the Royal Flying Corps and the Engineers as to whether a certain site was suitable. I would trust the Royal Flying Corps for expert opinion in the air and the Engineers for expert opinion on the land. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have trusted the experts on both, and to have come to grief between them.
§ Mr. FORSTER indicated dissent.
Sir E. GRIFFITHI am sorry if I am wrong. I understood that the Engineers, from the start, advised against this particular spot. They said that the difficulties were not insuperable but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that when an expert witness says that the difficulties are not insuperable, it will cost you a jolly lot of money.
§ Mr. FORSTERIn those days it was not a question of cost. It was a question of having a site for a school which was held to be imperatively necessary. It was put to the Flying Corps, "Cannot you find some other site?" and they said "No."
Sir E. GRIFFITHAnd they went to Scotland. I can understand that, because the Scottish Members here exert an influence, and I can quite understand that they would say that this spot in Scotland was the most ideal spot for flying.
Sir E. GRIFFITHI really do think that the War Office might very well have left the whole matter to the Engineers. They were the people who know about it. The Royal Flying Corps did not know about the proper site. They knew, when they had got the site, how to fly, and the Engineers knew the spot. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very valuable contribution to this Debate. He has dealt with the Press question, which is present, of course, in all our minds, and he said quite frankly— it is a habit he has, and it is a valuable one in a Minister—that he would stop it if he could. He has only to pass that on to his superiors in office, and I am sure that all this difficulty that we have dealt with in these past few days will be removed. He spoke about the Secretary for War, and said that he left his honour to the soldiers. I am bound to say that he can safely leave his honour to the House of Commons, It is 880 not a question of the soldiers against the House of Commons. It is a question for the House of Commons alone. I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague a small matter—all these matters individually are small, but they are important to certain groups of individuals—and that is the position of the London Welsh Regiment. This was a regiment raised under very special circumstances. It was raised at a very early stage of the War when the War Office were not quite so independent as they are now. They were very willing to get assistance then. They did not believe in themselves so much as they do now, and I dare say they had less ground for it. They asked us in London to raise a Welsh regiment upon lines analogous to those of the Scottish regiment and the Irish regiment. Ever since there has been a special Welsh committee looking after this regiment. It did not cost them a penny to raise those regiments, it did not cost them a penny to equip them. Of course, the War Office are always hard up, and it was left to voluntary subscribers in London to actually equip these men and they did equip them. They not only equipped the 15th but, as my hon. Friend knows, they equipped the 18th as well— the two London Welsh regiments. The 18th is gone, and you have turned it into a training reserve, but the 15th, at any rate, still remains on paper. May I remind my hon. Friends of one fact, and I invite them to verify it. That is that we were told, not on paper, because that is merely a scrap, but by the word of mouth of an English general, that this regiment would retain its identity. Will they inquire into that, and if they are satisfied that the promise was given, will they see that that promise is observed? The hon. Gentleman did not deal with this matter fully because he said it was in the custody of his right hon. Friend who was absent.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI did not say that.
Sir E. GRIFFITHIt is always safer to throw the responsibility upon somebody who is absent. There was one excuse or justification. I quite understand that this regiment, like every other regiment, must submit itself to the general considerations that affect the British Army. We must not ask for any preferential treatment—of course we must not. We do not claim it, and we do not put it on that high ground. All we ask the 881 hon. Gentleman to inquire into is this: that upon the 22nd January this year the number in this regiment was over 800, and although it may be quite true that it is necessary to reduce the number of regiments, for reasons into which I need not enter now, I do submit to the representatives of the War Office that it is not really necessary in this case. They have nothing to lose. You may say that all this is a miserable, poor, Welsh question. I ask them to see that that is not really the Imperialistic view of this matter. If you can, I am quite sure you will see that in this matter you have nothing to lose but everything to gain. You have the esprit de corps, you have the tradition, although it is for but a short time, of these particular regiments. My hon. Friends know perfectly well that they have done remarkably well. Very few regiments in this War have done better on the Western Front than the 38th Regiment. They have given a good account of themselves. If it is really necessary to disband these regiments in the interests of the Empire, of course it must be done. I ask my hon. Friends to take from outpoint of view this national consideration. We have contributed to these two regiments. One you have disbanded; the other still, at any rate, nominally remains. I do ask them, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to take the matter seriously into their consideration, and, if possible, to retain the identity of this regiment, because I am quite sure that it is not only conferring a favour, if you can call it so, upon Wales, but it really is retaining the identity of a Welsh unit, which has hitherto done well, and which will do still further service to the Empire.
§ Mr. HOGGEThere is a large number of questions one has not yet been able to ask to-day, and there obviously is not time to do so now. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are going to give us another day in Committee on this Vote. We are really with the Army, which includes now so many men, and raises so many questions that you cannot possibly deal with it at one sitting when two Ministers make speeches to take up a lot of the time for raising questions. The first question I want to raise is—
§ It being Eleven of the Clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
882§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.