HL Deb 07 March 1893 vol 9 cc1220-3
THE EARL OF STRAFFORD

asked the Under Secretary of State for War what changes had lately been effected in the organisation of the Yeomanry. He said that during the last 12 months a Departmental Committee had sat at the War Office upon the organisation of the Yeomanry, and as many of their Lordships held commissions in that force, it might be interesting to them to be furnished with information by the Under Secretary of State on the subject.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST)

said that he should be glad to lay before their Lordships the information he had with regard to the Yeomanry. It was quite true that reorganisation of the forces for the defence of the country was to take place, and the order had been made public, and should come into operation on April 1st. The Yeomanry were not included in the mobilisation scheme for various reasons. Reorganisation, it was found, in a large number of weak corps would have resulted in many tactical and administrative difficulties; their shooting was unsatisfactory; also they were organised in troops, whereas the Regular Cavalry was organised by squadron. Therefore a Departmental Committee was appointed by Mr. Stanhope, and presided over by Mr. Brodrick. The Committee included Sir R. Gipps, now Military Secretary, Colonel Duncombe, Inspector of Yeomanry, and Colonel Grove, in the Adjutant General's Department, he having principal charge of the mobilisation scheme. The Committee reported in favour of a reorganisation. They drew up a Report giving each unit of Yeomanry its proper place in the scheme of mobilisation for defence, recommending that each unit should be of such strength as to properly fill that place; and stating that it was desirable to make the change in time of peace, instead of leaving it till an emergency arose; and that the superfluous teaching staff should be withdrawn from Yeomanry regiments. The withdrawal of this superfluous teaching staff would relieve the pressure in Regular Cavalry regiments from which the teaching staff were drawn. It was true that such non-commissioned officers were made supernumerary and others were found, but the withdrawals had been found prejudicial, as they were always very good men who took part in the Yeomanry. It was also proposed to reduce the number of adjutants, who were officers serving in the Regular Cavalry. While these reductions would result in some economy, it was not intended to return the sum thus saved to the State, but to give an increased contingent allowance in certain circumstances. The Committee found that in 1892 there were 39 different regiments of Yeomanry, with an establishment of 13,067; the numbers enrolled were 9,869, and the efficients 8,471, an average per regiment of 217. There was great variety in the strength of the regiments. Taking an average, for the purpose of turning out a little more than 200 efficients, one commissioned officer and six non-commissioned officers would be employed. Particular cases were still more remarkable. The Lothian and Berwick Regiment had 116 efficients and four staff sergeants, or one to every 29 men. The East Kent Regiment had 167 efficients and six staff sergeants, or one to 28 efficients. The Hants Regiment had 133 efficients and six on the permanent staff, or one to 22 men; and other instances could be given. Thus it would be seen that a corps was not much stronger than a squadron would require to be for war purposes. The regiment would be too weak for war purposes. It could not be treated as a Cavalry regiment, and "the troops of 20 or 30 men were too small to form a satisfactory unit." The Committee, therefore, proposed that the Yeomanry should be organised on the same lines as the Cavalry, i.e., on the squadron system. It had been deemed advisable that 100, exclusive of officers and permanent staff, was a suitable strength as a maximum for a Yeomanry squadron, and that 70 efficients might form the minimum. The average strength of a troop in 1891 was 35. Thus, taking the minimum, a squadron of 70 efficients would include two troops. Under a proper system of brigading the objections to weak regiments would disappear. With weak regiments the brigade became the regiment, the regiment the squadron. By the introduction of this squadron system reduction could be made in the permanent staff of each regiment; and by the amalgamation a reduction in the number of adjutants would gradually be effected. But where the adjutant, as would be nearly everywhere the case, became a brigade adjutant, a proposal was made for allowance to the adjutant for an extra horse, and his exemption from certain garrison duties which he was now expected to fulfil. It was also recommended that Yeomanry brigades should, as such, be trained once in three years. The Committee came to the conclusion that though in certain cases certain difficulties might present themselves, they were not likely to be so formidable or so numerous as to warrant the postponement of the proposed changes. It would suffice to say that under the proposed plan the sergeants would be reduced from 230 to 148; a saving would thus occur of about £8,300 per annum. Assuming that the proposed absorption of adjutants had taken place, they would be reduced from 39 to 19, causing an annual saving of about £5,000. This reduction would be gradual, in this way—that as vacancies in adjutancies occurred it was not proposed to fill them up. As regarded the use of the money which would be saved, this part of the question bore directly upon the shooting. Before this Report the shooting training as laid down could really not be considered as a serious matter, though it was acknowledged much was done by the energy and public spirit of officers and men. All that the regulation required was that 40 rounds were to be shot off annually, and the contingent allowance would be earned. That allowance now stood at £2; it was proposed to increase it to £3, but to saddle the extra grant for the years 1893–94 with this condition, that the Yeoman to be efficient must get out of the third class in shooting, and if in two years the Yeoman failed to pass out of the third class he should cease to belong to the corps. It had been represented that this made a very hard case, but he put it to the House whether a man who was so extremely unskilful as not to be able to get out of the third class, and not showing signs of improvement, was worth retaining in the Yeomanry. Moreover, he pointed out that the insistence on in- creased efficiency in the Volunteers had by no means had the result of reducing the number of efficients, but that this year there were 3,000 more than last year. The Committee, acknowledging that there were certain difficulties and expense about shooting, recommended the payment of 3s. 6d., or one day's pay, for the day on which the man was engaged in his class shooting. Those, briefly sketched out, were the salient points of the reorganisation changes contemplated. A hundred years ago the Yeomanry were created for the defence of the country; later they were reduced, excepting where it was thought necessary for the aid of the civil power. Now the aim of the Secretary of State, as appeared to have been that of his Predecessor, was to reconstruct them so that they might be of real use for the purpose for which they were originally intended—namely, the defence of the country. It was possible in certain cases a difficulty might arise, and that more work might be thrown on the commissioned officers through the reduction of the adjutants, but the Secretary of State looked to the public spirit of all ranks for the making of the Yeomanry a really efficient addition to the defences of the country.