ARMY (DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MILITARY EDUCATION).

HL Deb 11 July 1898 vol 61 cc446-53

Moved— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the post of Director General of Military Education.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to fill up the vacancy caused by the recent retirement of the Director General of Military Education; and, if not, to inform the House what steps have been taken or will be taken to provide for the efficient supervision over military education; and to move for Papers. I am quite certain that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War will readily believe that I do not ask this question in any unfriendly spirit either towards himself or towards the great Department over which he presides. I should very ill requite the invariable courtesy the noble, Marquess has always displayed to me, both in this House and outside, if I were to plague him with unnecessary questions, or to subject him to carping criticism. The courtesy of the noble Marquess enables me to partly anticipate the reply he will give me this evening. The noble Marquess has told me that it is not his intention, at all events at present, to fill up the office of the Director General of Military Education, but that the work hitherto discharged by that official will be relegated to the Military Secretary. Well, my Lords, the noble Marquess may be right or he may be wrong in the change that he proposes to introduce. I am perfectly certain he will agree with me in this, that the change is one of grave importance; and I daresay the noble Marquess is not sorry to have an opportunity of explaining in this House the reasons which have induced him to take the step he has taken. My Lords, I propose to state some of the objections that it appears to me may be urged against the noble Marquess's proposal; but first I would say this—I do not for one moment suggest that either the noble Marquess or the noble and gallant Viscount the Commander-in-Chief are not thoroughly alive to the very great importance of everything appertaining to military education. My Lords, on that subject I need only say, I think, this: that it is a subject which appears to me to be equally important throughout every rank in the Army, from the highest to the lowest. With regard to the rank and file of the Army, opinion is constantly gaining ground that it is of great importance to elicit by education, taken in the widest sense of the word, every faculty that a soldier possesses. Now, my Lords, I wish to consider this question outside the military duties of the soldier. I say that entirely outside the military duties of the soldier, whether or not the education that he receives makes him a more or less efficient fighting machine—entirely outside that question it seems to me that the public are most deeply concerned in the education of the soldier. It appears to me that the education that a soldier receives while he is in the ranks is not only of importance in the way of turning him out an efficient military machine, but also has a most important bearing on the popularity of the Army; consequently, my Lords, if it has an important bearing on the popularity of the Army, it has a very important bearing on the burning question of recruiting. My Lords, it is not necessary for me to tell the noble Marquess, or any Member of this House, how supremely important is the question of obtaining a sufficient number of recruits of a good class. It is absolutely the keystone of our whole military system. As the noble Marquess knows, there is considerable difficulty now in recruiting, and that difficulty is no doubt to a great extent caused by the fact that the industrial classes see that men when they are discharged from the Army are unable in many cases to obtain employment, and they see that the reason why they are unable to obtain employment in many cases is that they are lacking in industrial training. Therefore, my Lords, I do think it is of the very utmost importance that the greatest possible amount of the best industrial training should be given to the soldier; and the ideal at which we ought to aim is this, that the soldier, when discharged from the ranks, shall be not in a worse position but in a better position to obtain a livelihood as a mechanic than the ordinary mechanic he sees around him. Now, my Lords, I think that that is a proposition that is very generally accepted, and I am glad to think that military education is tending in that direction, for it is in that direction, I think, that we shall find that the difficulties of recruiting may disappear. I confess that it does seem to me certainly to be in the nature of a reactionary proceeding to double up two such important official positions at the War Office as Military Secretary and Director General of Military Education. It looks as if a diminished importance and not a greater importance than heretofore is being accorded at headquarters to military education. One object of the noble Marquess in making this change no doubt was economy, and in so far as the noble Marquess has begun his economy by doing away with an important post my sympathies are entirely with the noble Marquess. I think he has begun at the right end. My Lords, I remember attending a public meeting at Devonport, when the Government of the day were being severely handled for the wholesale dismissal of labourers, and I remember that a dockyardsman got up and said that the Government, in their economy, were beginning at the wrong end—that if they wanted to economise they should begin by weeding out the higher officials; and he used a simile which struck me a good deal. He thought Her Majesty's Government, instead of taking the bull by the horns, had taken him by the tail. Well, my Lords, so far as the noble Marquess has had the courage to take the bull by the horns, I heartily sympathise with him, but at the same time I am not satisfied that in this particular instance his economy is a wise one. I take three objections to the proposal of the noble Marquess. The first objection I take is this: that the duties of the Military Secretary and the duties of the Director General of Military Education are not by any means analogous. Now, my Lords, on that subject I quote from a most authoritative document—namely, a Memorandum of the Duties of the Principal Officers and Departments of the War Office, which was issued in November, 1895, under an Order in Council dated November, 1895, when the noble Marquess was in office. The duties of the Military Secretary are thus defined— The Military Secretary deals with appointments, promotions, and retirement of officers of the Regular and Auxiliary forces; with selections for appointment to the staff, etc.; with the grant of honours and rewards, etc.; and with the regulations for admission of candidates to the Army. The Director General of Military Education is charged with— The educational qualifications required from candidates for commissions in the Army; with the education and examination of officers, non-commissioned officers and men; with the administration of the Staff College, Artillery College, Royal Military College and Royal Military Academy; with the supervision of Army schools. And this recital of his duties ends with the comprehensive word "etcetera." Well, my Lords, it does appear to me that these duties by no means require the same kind of qualifications. The Military Secretary has, I believe, to be the eyes and ears of the Commander-in-Chief, whereas the Director General of Military Education ought to be an educational expert; and one can easily imagine that a very excellent Military Secretary might make a very bad Director General of Military Education, and vice versâ. I quite admit, my Lords, that my objection to the doubling up of these offices on the ground that I have stated is not applicable to the present Military Secretary. The present Military Secretary has had a very remarkable career. Before entering the Army, he was educated at Oxford, where he took a brilliant degree, and I am far from saying that he would not make an excellent Director General of Military Education. But, my Lords, one swallow does not make a summer, and I think the noble Marquess may be hard put to it to find a successor, when the present Military Secretary's term of office expires, who has equal qualifications for both posts. To insist on the Military Secretary being an educational expert surely is very much to confine your choice, and it might well be that your choice would be confined in such a way that persons peculiarly qualified for the office of Military Secretary would be cut out. But if you do not have an educational expert filling the office of Military Secretary how are you to carry on the Education Department of the War Office? My first objection is that this policy of combining the two offices is a hand-to-mouth policy. It is a policy that, under exceptional circumstances, may succeed for a time, but it is not to be relied upon under ordinary circumstances, still less is it to be relied upon under circumstances of stress and strain. Now, my Lords, I take another objection. I will assume that the noble Marquess will always be able to find a competent officer to fill these two positions. My second objection is that, even supposing this officer is competent to fill both positions, he will not have sufficient time to discharge the duties of both offices. It may be that the time of the Director General of Military Education has not always been fully occupied, by the duties of his office, but at any moment questions of the gravest importance with regard to military education may arise which will have to be carefully considered with abundant knowledge. For instance, in my own time, there was a burning controversy with regard to examinations at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and the Director General of Military Education of that day had his mind thoroughly saturated with information bearing on that controversy; and if at that time he had also filled the office of Military Secretary I do not suppose he would have been able to satisfactorily discharge the duties of both offices. My second objection is, therefore, that these-two offices are more than one man can properly perform. My third objection is that, even if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the two offices could be filled efficiently by the same man, would those who are interested in Military Education, would the noble Marquess himself, if any difficult question were to arise with regard to military education, have the same confidence in the judgment of a man who only gave the fag end of his time to the duties of the Military Education Department, as they would in the judgment of a man whose whole time and whose whole thoughts were entirely devoted to the duties of that Department? Now, my Lords, it seems to me that the result, under the most favourable circumstances, of the noble Marquess's decision would be this, that the Secretary of State would have to rely not upon the Military Secretary for information and advice in regard to military education, but what he would do would be this: he would be obliged to rely principally upon the reports and information sent him by subordinate officials; and I do not think, upon such a very important matter as military education, that any official short of an official of the very highest rank in the War Office should be the official to consult with the Secretary of State. I most sincerely hope and trust that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War will be able to show the House that the doubts I have expressed with regard to his policy are entirely ill-founded, but I thought it my duty to bring the matter forward. Now with regard to Papers. Of course, I do not suggest that the noble Marquess should publish confidential Minutes or Memoranda of any kind, but it did occur to me that perhaps in a matter of such importance the noble Marquess has gone into certain sources of information—into certain public sources of information—perhaps he may have gone for information to the Continent, and have found out what, for instance, is the case in Germany with regard to the supervision of military education. If, however, he has no public information on this matter, on which he relied, to lay before the House, I shall withdraw my Motion.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, with one part of the speech of the noble Lord opposite I can only express the most sincere agreement. I refer to those passages in which he dwelt upon the great importance of education to the Army, and in which he urged that nothing should be done which might create the impression that we underrated its value. I can assure him that there is no difference of opinion between us on that point. We recognise the great value of, education to soldiers of all ranks, and in the case of the private soldier we certainly recognise its value as a means of fitting him for civil employment at the conclusion of his Army career. The change which we have in contemplation in regard to the appointment of Director General of Military Education certainly is not intended as in any sense a blow at the interests of education in the Army. Now, my Lords, I can tell the House very simply why it is that we have come to the conclusion, as at present advised, that this appointment should not be filled up. It is, as the noble Lord has truly said, a costly appointment, and we feel that, unless an overwhelming case can be made out to establish the neces- sity of retaining it, it ought not to be retained. My impression is that a case—an overwhelming case—cannot be made out in favour of retaining it. The Department of Military Education is, as I daresay the noble Lord remembers, divided into two branches. One branch is concerned with the administration of Army schools, and with the examination and education of non-commissioned officers and men; and the other branch deals with the qualifications of candidates for commissions in the Army, with the education and examination of officers, and with the administration of the Staff College, the Royal Military Academy, and the Royal Military College. Now, my Lords, I believe that the work of the first of these two branches—that which is concerned with the management of Army schools—can be very much diminished in consequence of certain measures of decentralisation which we are now adopting, and which will have the effect of rendering the general officers in command of districts much more responsible than they are at present for the control and direction of schools within their commands. That, to a certain extent, will diminish the volume of work which the Department will have to get through. But, my Lords, putting that on one side, the work of the Department—the great bulk of it—is really transacted in the two branches, and the position of Director General of Military Education has been rather that of giving the authority of a high military officer—an authority which is very much wanted—to the decisions arrived at in the two branches. There is also this to be remembered, that the Director General has not been really the person solely responsible for military education. In regard to many matters he has had to report sometimes to the Commander-in-Chief, sometimes to the Adjutant-General, and sometimes to the Military Secretary. Our opinion is that the two branches which I described just now, which are in charge of two very able and experienced officers, each of the rank of colonel, and one of them in the position of Assistant Adjutant-General, that these two branches are perfectly competent to get through what might be called the routine work of the Department; and we believe that, so far as the direction and authority of an officer of higher rank are necessary, they can be supplied, I will not say entirely, by the Military Secretary, as the noble Lord supposes, but either by the Military Secretary or by the Military Secretary and the Adjutant-General. That is a point which we are still considering. My Lords, that is the arrangement which we propose to adopt, and I have every hope that it may be successful. Of course, it is, to a certain extent, an experiment, and its progress shall be watched with the closest attention. I think the only other matter I need touch upon is the question of Papers. I do not think there are any Papers which could be laid upon the Table of this House. We have not referred to foreign Governments as to their practice, and the Departmental Papers are of the usual Departmental kind, and not of a sort which I think could properly be presented to Parliament.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.