ADDRESS FOR A PAPER. (Hansard, 26 February 1880)

LORD CAMPBELL,
in moving for the despatch of Sir Hope Grant on Easter Monday Volunteer Reviews, said, he did not at all wish to urge Her Majesty's Government to re-consider any step they might have now resolved upon. If they had formed a compact with the Brighton Corporation to hold a field day at the town the Corporation represented upon Easter Monday, there would be but one wish among the friends of the Auxiliary Forces—namely, to secure the best results, and, as far as possible, avert the inconveniences by which such occasions had been formerly attended. With a view to so desirable an object, the letter of Sir Hope Grant ought no w to be exhibited. It was certain to suggest lessons, which everyone who had in his charge a brigade, a regiment, or even a company, ought to keep before him. The noble Viscount the Under Secretary, with singular inaccuracy, had recently adverted to it as being 12 years old. It belonged to the year 1871. It was, therefore, based upon the military lessons which the great campaigns of 1870 had afforded. Nothing had occurred in connection with the Volunteer Force, or Brighton, or the Easter Holidays, to make it less applicable now than at the time when it was issued. He could not but take the present opportunity of touching on an erroneous view which seemed to linger at the War Office, and which, the other day, the Forms of the House prevented him from controverting. It was assumed by the noble Viscount the Under Secretary that the Metropolitan commanders of the Volunteer Force ought to dictate the time and place of annual field days, and that the Government had no function except to act on 1431 their conclusions. No doubt, that was the tendency of Governments; but, for the clearest reasons, it ought not to be so. In the first place, the Metropolitan commanders had no authority to represent battalions in the country. Besides that, the Force was not gratuitous; the public spent £500,000 on it annually, which gave an obvious right to the Executive to regulate its movements. If, however, the House more specially considered the larger field days, the grounds of interference were much stronger. They could not exist without co-operation from the Government. The divisional commanders, many brigadiers, and all the brigade-majors were furnished by the State; and thus the State had nothing but its own judgment to defer to, as to the conditions it imposed, when these advantages were granted. Whatever time or place it disapproved it could immediately prohibit. With these remarks, he would move for the despatch of Sir Hope Grant, as he was quite unable to anticipate objections to producing it.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
reminded the noble Lord that, as to the initiation of these reviews, from the earliest days of the Volunteer movement the Government bad allowed the initiative as to the place of meeting and the character of the reviews to rest with the Volunteers themselves. The Regulations on this subject provided that if any force exceeding in the aggregate 2,000 men wished to assemble for exercise, application as to these should be made through the Lords Lieutenant, the nature of the intended reviews to be stated at the same time. The Government had no option but to carry out the Regulations, leaving the initiation and the questions as to the place of meeting and the nature of the manœuvres to the Volunteers themselves. What the War Office had to do in the matter was perfectly plain. They had first to satisfy themselves that the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army entertained no insuperable objections from a military point of view to the proposed field day; also to ascertain that he could, consistently with the other 1432 military requirements, detail a competent officer to conduct the manœuvres, and that he had at his disposal a staff of competent military officers to carry out the commanding officer's orders. There the responsibility of the War Office in the matter ceased. He must express his surprise that the noble Lord should have moved for one despatch only, and not for the entire series of despatches written by the gallant officers who had commanded at other reviews since the inauguration of the Volunteer Force. The omission was the more remarkable, as the despatch in question was the only one of an aspect unfavourable to the Volunteers, whereas the others all spoke in high terms of their efficiency. Among others who had so reported of the Force were Sir James Scarlett, Lord William Paulet, Sir Robert Walpole, Sir Robert Garrett, General McCleverty, Sir George Buller, Sir George Ellis, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, and others. Indeed, Sir Hope Grant himself had spoken in 1869 of the excellent discipline of the Force on occasion of the field day at Dover. He now wished to say a word as a Metropolitan commanding officer of some 20 years' standing. The noble Lord who had moved for Sir Hope Grant's despatch had suddenly assumed the attitude of a severe critic of the Volunteer movement, and the other day had spoken of certain fiascoes which he declared had occurred on former Easter Monday field days, as if anticipating some such result on Easter Monday next, and he referred in particular to the meeting of 1869 at Dover, and that of 1871 at Brighton. Now, as to the field day at Dover, the day turned out so exceedingly wet that the review was postponed and the men dismissed. Now, what was likely to be the result of setting from 20,000 to 25,000 Volunteers loose in a garrison town with nothing to do and nowhere to go to for shelter but to the public-houses? The alacrity and discipline, however, which the men showed in getting under arms again for the review when, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge having arrived, the bugle was sounded, were in themselves a sufficient answer to the criticisms of the noble Lord; and Sir Hope Grant himself complimented them on their conduct. The noble Lord had moved for Sir Hope Grant's despatch of 1871; but 1433 why move for that unfavourable despatch and say nothing about the favourable one from the same authority, or the many favourable reports of other commanding officers at Easter Monday reviews held both previously and subsequently? To grant what the noble Lord asked for—a single despatch which was unfavourable out of a bundle of despatches which were favourable—nine years after the decision of Sir Hope Grant had been reversed by the concurrent testimony of many other officers, would be to cast what would certainly be taken as a slur, and a very undeserved slur, on a body which since the time referred to had increased very much in numbers, and still more in efficiency, and which at the present moment added to the defensive force of the country 197,400 efficient men. The despatch which the noble Lord asked for had, like others, been publishedin extensoinThe Volunteer Service Gazette,and, indeed, in nearly all the newspapers of the day, so that the noble Lord could hardly require it for his own information, and the only purpose it could serve seemed to be to cast a slur upon the Volunteer Force. In these circumstances, the House would support the Government in declining to produce the despatch. [The noble Viscount subsequently read the titles of the several despatches as they appeared inThe Volunteer Service Gazetteof February 3, 1872.]

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that if no other noble Lord was going to address the House, since he had made a Motion which the Government resisted, he was bound to offer a few words in answer to them. The noble Yiscount had expatiated widely upon topics which did not bear upon the question of producing the despatch. He had referred to a certain Regulation of the Volunteer force, No. 99, to show that the parades in question could only be initiated by the Volunteers themselves. He (Lord Campbell) had not attempted to dispute it. The State, he well knew, had no power, by a decree of any kind, in time of peace, to muster their battalions. But, almost at the same moment, the noble Viscount had explained that no parade on a large scale could happen without the previous sanction of the illustrious Duke who had the chief command over the Army. It was the exact concession which he (Lord Campbell) wanted. The veto of 1434 the State was, therefore, incontestable, while the proposal to assemble came from the Force itself. So far, there was no difference between the noble Viscount and himself. That portion of his speech might have been omitted altogether. When, however, the noble Viscount came to the real question, he had no argument of any kind against producing the despatch, except that it was more censorious than several despatches which in other years the same occasions had elicited. In the opinion of the noble Viscount, an armed Force ought not to be informed of its deficiencies, but only be allowed to contemplate a picture of its merits. "We cannot," he insisted, "produce the letter of Sir Hope Grant, unless others much more full of eulogy are given." It was a good principle—whether or not one was convinced—to humour men in trifles. The despatch in question would not lose its value from any number which accompanied it. He should act as the noble Viscount wished, by withdrawing the Motion, and in a few days renew it, with the addition he referred to. But he could not sit down without noticing his charge, that the Motion had no object but to "cast a slur" on that branch of the Auxiliary Forces with which he (Lord Campbell) was connected, when it was directly calculated to improve and to assist it. To ascribe such a motive was against the Order of the House, even if the imputation were not, as it was, an entirely unfounded one.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
I did not suggest to the noble Lord to move for anything; I merely said he should move for all or none.

LORD CAMPBELL
replied, that he would withdraw his Motion upon the understanding that he would move for the despatches on another occasion.