MOTION FOR A RETURN. (Hansard, 28 March 1882)

§ LORD TRURO

, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the number of recruits shown in the General Annual Returns is that of exclusively new men recruited to the Army, or whether it includes the numerous oft-repeated re-enlistments of deserters; and to move for a Return showing the number of re-enlistments respectively by deserters, said, that he had recently asked the Government to furnish the Annual Army Returns earlier in the Session. Some objection was taken to his request; but he was glad to hear that the Government had taken an opportunity of considering whether they could grant it. But, while it was extremely desirable that the Returns should be furnished earlier, it was still more important that they should be fuller and more accurate, with more uniformity in classification and headings. He had been informed that, even in the Army, considerable trouble and difficulty had occasionally arisen from the headings of the Returns not being uniformly 137 the same. With respect to the accuracy of the Returns, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a few points in which considerable divergence existed between the Annual Returns presented to Parliament in April, 1880, and the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for the same year. In the Annual Returns for 1880 the number of desertions was stated to be 3,276, while the Inspector General placed them at 2,384. Then the Inspector General stated the number of recruits to be 22,022, whereas, in the Annual Returns, the number of recruits was shown as 25,535. In speaking of recruits he wished to ask, as it did not appear from the Returns, whether the men who joined the Army from the Militia were below the age at which they could properly be enlisted? Nor was there any allusion whatever in the Inspector General's Report to the recruits who did not come up to be attested. The Annual Returns showed that 6,589 men in 1880 were recruited, but did not attend to be attested. There was also an absence in the Inspector General's Report of a proper classification of men discharged for misconduct. A large number of men had been discharged for illness and misconduct; but some of the Returns were classified so indifferently, that it was difficult to understand what number should come under the different heads. The large number of 8,462 deserters from the Militia was given in the last Return, and this was a serious matter. But what he particularly wished to draw attention to was the number of re-enlistments, because unless they ascertained this it was impossible to understand what the strength of the Army was. If a man deserted and re-enlisted in various parts of the country and was returned each time as a new recruit, the nation was miserably deceived as to the strength of the Army. His sole object in calling attention to the facts and figures was that in future better Returns should be furnished, and at a period of the Session when Parliament would be able to consider them. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Return of which he had given Notice.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, he could assure his noble Friend that this 138 subject, upon which he had asked a Question on a former evening, was occupying the attention of the military authorities of the War Office, and that they were quite as desirous as he himself and their Lordships were to get as early as possible the Returns in question. It was of great importance that they should be obtained as accurately as possible. The noble Lord had criticized the Returns, and said they should be more accurate. He (the Earl of Morley) quite agreed that they should be accurate; but the inaccuracies pointed out were very small, and not of a serious character, being in one case only eight men in 8,000, and in another instance 28 men in 25,000. He could not say exactly how these slight inaccuracies occurred; but he had no doubt they could be explained. The question of fraudulent enlistment was one which caused uneasiness, and they were as anxious as the noble Lord to check them as far as possible. Of course, if a deserter were known, he would not be enlisted at all; but, if he were enlisted, he would come under the head of recruits until discovered, when he would be liable to punishment. A paragraph in the Inspector General's Return showed what it was proposed to do in order to check, as far as possible, those practices. It was proposed that the medical officer should record in the attestation whether he thought the recruit had served before. An order would be issued almost immediately with the view of preventing fraudulent enlistment. Under that order a man offering to enlist would not be accepted unless he should satisfy the officer that his answers as to previous enlistment were to be relied upon. Last year 667 men were convicted of fraudulent enlistment. He regretted that there were so many, and the authorities were very anxious that the crime—for it was nothing less than a crime—should be checked as far as possible. He trusted that with greater care on the part of the medical officers and recruiting sergeants that would be done. The Return for which his noble Friend asked he was afraid it was impossible to give. It would not add much to the information he (the Earl of Morley) had already given to the House.