HL Deb 28 May 1900 vol 83 cc1419-33

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—(The Mart/ness of Lansdowne..)

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I am very loth to intervene, even for a few minutes, before the interesting debate which is about to take place on the Colonial Marriages (Deceased Wife's Sister) Bill; but I feel very strongly that there is a portion of the Bill now before your Lordships which is extremely objectionable, and I should like the House to extend to me its courtesy while I explain what those objections are. The Bill is separable into two distinct parts. The first part deals with the alteration of the conditions under which the Volunteers can be called out. I think the change proposed in the law in that direction is a good one, and that the reason given for it by the noble Marquess is a valid one—namely, that it is not always desirable to tell the foreigner, whatever our private opinion may be, that we consider ourselves in danger of an invasion. Therefore I agree that it is a good thing to alter the law in that respect, and to provide that the Volunteers may be called out, not only when invasion is apprehended, but in time of imminent national peril or crisis. But there is another part of the Bill which is totally distinct, and which, to my mind, is most objectionable. I refer to that part of the Bill in which Volunteers are invited to fight at the front whenever and wherever Her Majesty's Government may think fit to call upon them to do so. Just see what that amounts to. It means that any Volunteer who complies with that invitation will be obliged to pledge himself to surrender in advance his own judgment as to the right or wrong of any quarrel in which his country may be engaged, and also entirely to surrender his own judgment as to whether or not there is any real need for his services. We quite understand that in the Regular Army it is necessary that a man in those respects should surrender his private judgment to the Government of the day, but it is a very long step indeed to require Volunteers to do so. This provision in the Bill works an absolute revolution in our conception of what is meant by a Volunteer force. Volunteers are not professional soldiers, and, with regard to the obligation to fight abroad, the Volunteer, in his capacity as a Volunteer, is no more obliged to fight than any other of Her Majesty's subjects. He is in the same position as a railway porter, or an agricultural labourer, and, like a railway porter or an agricultural labourer, if he is a citizen and a subject of the Queen, he may, if he thinks it his duty in a particular crisis, place his services at the disposal of the Secretary of State. But, if he does this, what I would like to point out is that he does not do it in his capacity as a Volunteer. He proffers his services as a citizen and as a subject of the Queen. It seems to me to border on the ridiculous to say to a Volunteer, " We invite you to Come forward under circumstances that must be absolutely unknown to you, to surrender absolutely your judgment to us, and yet we call you a Volunteer and tell you that your motto is ' Defence, not Defiance.'" There is another objection I have to this part of the Bill. Even supposing the noble Marquess and his advisers still adhere to their opinion that it is wise to make this great and far-reaching change in the status of a Volunteer, I contend that the present is the worst of all times to do so. I do not deny that this may be a good opportunity for reorganising the Army, but such a change in the status of the Volunteer force does not come within the scope of what we commonly understand as the reorganisation of the Army, and involves issues of a totally different description. It appears to me that it is unfair on the part of the noble Marquess to take advantage of the hot fit of patriotism that is now on the nation, and to ask Volunteers under these circumstances to lay themselves under an obligation to do something in events that have not happened—an obligation which they may deeply regret having entered into, but which they may not be able to free 'themselves from. I know that the noble Marquess has stated that he will provide in the rules under this Bill that after duo notice a Volunteer may relieve himself of this obligation, but it will be extremely difficult, if not in many cases impossible, for a Volunteer to do so. It will be difficult and will need a great deal of moral courage for him to remove himself from what I may call the combatant section of the Volunteers to the non-combatant section, and if there should be a prolonged national crisis it will be as impossible for a Volunteer to do that as it is for an officer to send in his papers under similar circumstances. I would be glad to know what good the noble Marquess expects to get out of the change. Does he expect to get a single recruit for the Army whom he would not otherwise get? If he does, he obtains an unwilling recruit who will have a grievance and will think he has been entrapped. It appears to me that the noble Marquess is in this dilemma—if the Bill is to be of any use at all it must strengthen the force of the Army, but in so far as any person who volunteers would be obliged to serve under this Bill who would not otherwise have volunteered he will only servo in compliance with, I venture to think, a very mischievous provision. The Secretary of State says that he wants to know beforehand how many men he can rely upon. It is very necessary that the Secretary of State should know before the crisis arises on how many Volunteers he can rely. I should have thought that as the Volunteers do not go to the front at once, the noble Marquess would know a considerable time before it was necessary to send them out how many Volunteers he could rely on under the present law. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he is dissatisfied with what has taken place during this war. Have the Volunteers been backward in coming forward? I would suggest to the Secretary of State that he might in this matter leave well alone. The noble Marquess said the other day that by dividing the Volunteers into what is practically combatant and non-combatant sections, he would relieve the non-combatant section of the Volunteers from any moral obligation that they might feel they were under to servo their country by going to the front. I doubt very much whether this Bill will have that effect. I do not see how it is possible by this Bill or any other Bill to divest the Volunteer of his citizenship. Again, has the noble Marquess considered how the measure is likely to affect recruiting in the Volunteers? If the Bill passes in its present form, practically no able-bodied young fellow will be able to enter the Volunteers except as a combatant. He may not choose to enter that section, and, as public opinion would prevent him from entering as a non-combatant, it is quite possible that a great many who would otherwise join the Volunteers will not do so. I think it is most unwise to make any distinct classes within the Volunteers. I think that the only distinction to be made between one class of Volunteers and another should be as to efficiency. When you go beyond the natural distinction of efficient Volunteers and non-efficient Volunteers, it appears to me that you get into very great difficulties, raise heart-burnings and bickerings, and do a great deal to destroy the feeling of esprit de corps. I object to Clause 2 because it is useless except in so far as it is mischievous. It will not add one willing recruit to the Army, because it takes an unfair advantage of the present wave of patriotism, and it will, as I think, injuriously affect Volunteer recruiting. Lastly, I object to it on this ground, that it is of so revolutionary a character that no Liberal Government would have dared to introduce it.

* LORD HERRIES

My Lords, I feel bound to support the views which have fallen from the noble Lord with regard to this Bill. I am of opinion that the Bill will work a revolution in the status of the Volunteers. Hitherto the motto of the Volunteers has been "Defence, not Defiance," and I cannot help thinking that if this Bill passes in the form in which it is at present it will prevent from joining the Volunteers a great number of men who otherwise might be inclined to do so. They will be liable under this Bill to be called out in cases of "great emergency," a term which seems to me to be of very wide application. What is a great emergency? The Government of the day might think that a great emergency was created by threats of war with any European Power. Those threats and the danger of war might disappear, and yet at the same time the Volunteers might have gone to all the expense of being called out, and might have been sent to garrison towns at a distance from their homes, with all the inconvenience that might thereby be created. I would ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War whether any information has been received from those who are competent to furnish it as to the effect which this Bill will have upon the Volunteers throughout the country. I wish the War Office would make such inquiries from the colonels and officers, not excluding the captains, connected with Volunteer corps. I cannot help thinking that the result would be to show an opinion that the Bill in its present form would be injurious in its effect upon the Volunteers. Looking to the last few months I would ask, has the Volunteer force shown itself so inefficient? Have we not been surprised at the manner in which they came forward for service in a distant land? We have every reason to be gratified on that score. But in this Bill you are asking them to pledge themselves to come forward if called upon. That is a very different question. We are asked to legislate, I was going to say, almost in a panic; I will not say in a panic, but certainly in a moment of enthusiasm. I think myself it would be very much better if the legislation on this subject had been postponed till the end of the war, when people were in a calmer mood, and when they were able better to ascertain the feeling of the public with reference to a Bill of this sort. The importance of the measure has, in my opinion, been under-valued, because if it does not prove as satisfactory as its promoters hope it will be a very great danger to the Volunteer movement in this country. It is because I appreciate the Volunteer movement and the benefits it has conferred on the country that I feel compelled to make these few remarks. For twenty-two years I was connected with the Yeomanry, and I well remember the difficulties I used to have in getting men to serve. We must remember that the agricultural classes, from whom the Yeomanry, at any rate, are principally recruited, cannot leave their farms for more than a short time, and it will be the same with the Volunteers. If they feel that they may be called upon to leave their occupation for months, I am afraid that it will prevent from joining many men who are excellent Volunteers, and who, though they may not be able to go to a foreign country through home ties, would, through the spirit which they engendered in the corps, do very great service indeed. I hope, therefore, the Government will, before passing this Bill, take steps to inquire from those who are connected with the Volunteers what the effect of this Bill is likely to be upon that force.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I confess that I do not view this Bill with the same alarm that has been expressed by the noble Lord who has last spoken. With regard to the first part of the Bill, there seems to be very little difference of opinion amongst your Lordships, and I do not think that anyone need fear the mere substitution of the words "imminent national danger or great emergency " for " apprehended invasion." The fact is that matters have considerally changed since the Volunteer movement was first instituted. Since those days our difficulties and dangers abroad, the extensions of our territory, and, still more, those of foreign Powers, have complicated very considerably questions which were once-comparatively easy. In point of fact, if you were to look at the annual results which will accrue from this Bill, so far as the men are concerned the Volunteers would be left in a position very little different from that which they occupy at the present time. At the present time if a Volunteer-desires to volunteer for active service and the military authority is ready to accept him, what is to prevent him, with the formal consent of his superior, taking his discharge from the Volunteer regiment and enlisting the next day in the Line? What I apprehend is in the minds of the military authority is a much larger question; it is that at the present moment the Volunteer enlists, so to speak., ad rem. I do not suppose that a single-Volunteer who has volunteered for service abroad in the present conjuncture is serving anywhere but in South Africa.. I believe that if there was a war again exactly the same thing would happen.. But that is not all. The war in which we are at present engaged is comparatively localised—it is a war in one part of the world only. But at some future period it is not, unfortunately, unlikely that we shall not only need large forces on the immediate field of operations, but also to strengthen in advance the garrisons of distant colonies. I take it that the desire of the military authority is—rightly as. I think—to know beforehand what men they can reckon on for service, and to have power of distributing those men, whether it be for service in garrisons which are beyond the actual field of operations, or whether it be where the fighting is chiefly going on. It is said that there would be a moral compulsion upon men to put themselves under the obligation to go abroad. It is said that you would have two classes of men serving under unequal engagements side by side, some who are prepared to go abroad and some who are not. But we have been suffering under this supposed grave evil in the Militia. The Militia Reserve has been serving side by side with men who are not liable to go abroad, and I have never known that fact to be cast up against them On the contrary, I remember well that in former years a battalion had to be asked, man for man, whether they would volunteer for service abroad. The commanding officer went down the ranks and asked the men. One would reply "Yes"; another that he had reasons for not serving; but I have never heard it cast up against the men who declined to serve that they had done anything discreditable. If the Bill goes to a division I shall certainly support it. So far as I am aware, the Bill will be generally accepted by the Volunteers, though I hold no brief for them, as putting them in a position to which their own bravery, their own efficiency, and their own readiness for service entitles them.

* EARL SPENCER

My Lords, I cannot claim anything like the experience of the noble Earl who has just spoken on this subject, but I feel strongly that there is a very important matter connected with this Bill which it is desirable your Lordships should have clearly and plainly before you. What I think we have to consider is this. Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for War have been thinking, and are thinking at the present moment, of the numbers that they can send abroad to strengthen the Regular forces in South Africa. I most heartily support the view that it is essential that the Regular Army of this country should be put on such a footing that within a short time the War Office will be able to send abroad a strong and efficient body of men; but when Her Majesty's Government are thinking of that are they not forgetting a little on what basis the Volunteers were originally formed? As one who had the honour of being one of the very first Volunteers, and of raising one of the first Volunteer corps in this country, I believe it is of the utmost importance to keep up this force, according to its original constitution, in full numbers and efficiency. I am afraid, however, that the second clause in this Bill may have a very serious effect in that direction. There is, no doubt, at the present moment, an enormous amount of patriotism and loyalty abroad. I, for one, highly approve of this feeling, and heartily applaud the Volunteers who. have come forward and the motives which induced them to take part in the fighting lines in South Africa. But we must remember that this feeling of enthusiastic patriotism, and the war fever, as it called, will not be always with us, and and I am afraid that when that time comes the clause in question may have a very serious effect indeed as regards getting men enlisted for home defence for which the Volunteer force was originally formed. I shall not go into the question of having two classes of men side by side, but I have always thought that there would be some difficulty in regard to this. I should lament very much to see this great force, which has done so much, not only directly, but indirectly, to assist the Army, diminish in numbers or efficiency. I need hardly say that neither I nor any of my friends behind me desire in any way to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; but I think we shall feel it our duty to consider at a later stage, when the Bill goes into Committee, whether it may not be expedient and desirable to alter the provision to which I have called attention.

EARL BROWNLOW

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the Bill as at present drawn and worded is somewhat difficult to understand. In Clause 2,. Volunteers are invited to subject themselves to the liability to be called out for actual military service at any time. The Bill does not say where they are to be called out or how they are to be called out. I do not know that it means that they are only to be called out in cases of imminent national danger. I presume not, because it says "at any time." Does the clause moan that they are to render themselves liable to go on active service or any service? I suppose it means on active service in case of need. If so, it should be stated in the Bill. These are, however, matters of detail which, of course, can be settled at a future stage; but the object and aim of the measure is, I presume, to place at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War a body of men who are drilled and trained in the use of the rifle, whom he can depend upon to come forward in case of emergency. I regard this Bill as one scheme among several that have been brought forward of late. We are all familiar with the scheme advocated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend the Earl of Wemyss, which is founded on the Militia ballot. We are all aware that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government only recently, in addressing the members of the Primrose League, advocated the formation of rifle clubs throughout England. There is another scheme which seems to me the simplest of all, and that is to apply coercion at a time of life when coercion is permissible, and to insist that every schoolboy in England should be properly drilled, and taught, to a certain extent, the use of the rifle. I think any of these schemes, if adopted, would be likely to have a much more far-reaching effect than the scheme brought forward in the Bill. I have no objection to the Bill, and will support the Second Heading, but I have some fear that the noble Marquess will find, if it passes into law, that its effect will be some what disappointing and that he will not get the number of men he anticipates to accept the larger liability. Of course, a great deal in the future will depend upon the regulations which are promised in this Bill, and I can only hope and trust that those regulations will be framed in a spirit which will enable the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to obtain the service of such a body as he desires. I cannot help saying, however, that the Bill appears to me to be rather a small one. I look upon it as a valuable auxiliary, but a mere auxiliary, to larger measures which will have to be passed in the future if the country is to be adequately defended.

* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AVAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I will not take up the time of the House by discussing that portion of the Bill which has reference to the proposed alteration of the form of proclamation to be used for calling out the Volunteers. The change has been regarded, I think, with general favour; and although it may perhaps be described as a change of form rather than of substance, I think it is a change in the right direction, and one which may be found convenient. But the remaining part of the Bill—that under which we take power to agree with the Volunteers that they shall be liable to serve at any time, whether an emergency has been declared or not, and outside as well as inside the United Kingdom—has been a good deal criticised. The noble Earl who spoke last asked what the precise meaning of the clause was. The Volunteers, as noble Lords are aware, are at this moment liable to serve only when a proclamation of apprehended invasion is issued, and within the limits of the United Kingdom. Under this Bill we take power to enter into agreements with any Volunteers who desire to enter into such agreements to serve in the absence of either or both of those conditions. I think the account given of the Bill by the noble Lord who spoke first was perhaps a rather exaggerated one. My noble friend who spoke last was nearer the mark when he told your Lordships that the Bill is a small Bill. It is not, of course, intended as a settlement of any great question of Army organisation. It is a small modification of the law which seems to us eminently desirable, and which we therefore ask Parliament to make without prejudice to any larger proposals which may hereafter be submitted. The apprehension which has disturbed the minds of the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite is an apprehension of this kind—that if we create within the Volunteer force two classes of Volunteers, the one liable and the other not liable for active service abroad, you will find undue pressure put upon the members of the force to join that section of it which is to have the larger liability, and that the result would be to place those men who did not wish to assume that larger liability in an invidious position. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether from the point of view of the noble Lords it is not better that the Volunteers should be asked, as we propose to ask them under this Bill, to tell us in time of peace, deliberately and when they are not surrounded by exciting circumstances, whether any of them are willing to accept the liability which this Bill imposes. I can conceive that when that question is addressed, as it was lately, to the Volun- teer force amid all the fervour and enthusiasm of a great campaign, it would require a certain amount of strength of mind on the part of the individual Volunteer to reject the overtures made to him. I can conceive a case of this kind arising. A particular corps might have raised the whole of its special service company with the exception of half a dozen men, and I can conceive that in these circumstances very considerable pressure might be made, not by the military authorities, but by the members of the corps itself, to induce a few more men to join to make up the requisite number. That kind of pressure is less likely to be put on members of the Volunteer force under the provisions of this Bill than if no such Bill is passed into law. The noble Lord who spoke first objected to our proposal because he said that the men who took advantage of it would surrender their own judgment, that they would not be able to form any judgment as to the merits of the quarrel in which the nation might be engaged, and that they might have to take service whether they approve the policy of the country or not. The same point was well put, although argued in a different manner, by the noble Earl who spoke on this side of the House. He told us that in the case of the present campaign Volunteers had enlisted ad rem. That is perfectly true. A great many men joined the Volunteers because they were inspired by the wave of enthusiasm which lately swept over the country. But supposing a great war to be in progress and the whole Volunteer force to be called out, does the noble Lord suppose that the Volunteer then has any opportunity of exercising his own judgment as to the merits of the quarrel?

LORD MONKS WELL

But he will only serve in Great Britain.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

He is a soldier. He will carry a rifle in defence of his country; in both cases he surrenders his judgment as to the merits of the quarrel.

LORD MONKSWELL

In one case he merely defends his hearth and home, which every one is willing to do.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

But he is equally a soldier engaged in hostilities. The fact is that there are three possible ways of dealing with this question. You may absolutely forbid— and I gather that that is what the noble Lord would like to do—the Volunteers from taking service except for home defence. [Lord MONKSWELL: No.] That is one way. Another way is to leave it to the last moment, and say to the Volunteers: "You may come forward when war has actually begun and offer yourselves for enlistment in the special section of your battalion." The third way is the way we propose in this Bill— namely, that Volunteers should be allowed to come forward beforehand and say whether they wish to accept service or not. Now if we are to tell Volunteers that in no circumstances are we ever going to allow them to serve out of this country, I verily believe that the force would regard us as putting a great and unmerited slight upon them. They have served with great credit during this campaign, and if we were to tell them that never again were they to have a chance of giving their services to the Empire, I believe the Volunteer force would greatly resent it. I therefore put that on one side. That leaves us with two other solutions—one is the solution of the noble Lord that we should leave things to the last moment and trust to luck; the other is the solution we propose. Although the manner in which the Volunteers came forward on this occasion is past all praise, we all know that both the force itself and Her Majesty's Government were put to very considerable inconvenience for the reasons I gave to the House the other night. We did not know how many men were ready to come forward; we did not know whether those who were ready to come forward were efficient; we did not know whether they would pass the doctor; they were not fitted with proper equipment. These things had to be considered in hurry and confusion; and the result was that on several occasions there were great complaints— the complaints were in many cases well founded—of the manner in which the necessary arrangements had to be made. We wish to avoid that. We do not propose to press the whole Volunteer force into a special service of this kind, but we propose to take power—the Bill is a permissive one—to engage a certain number of these men for special service, and beyond as well as within the United Kingdom. As I told your Lordships the other night, we undertake to provide that any man who accepts this liability and afterwards desires to be relieved of it shall be put in a position to free himself. There will be no difficulty or doubt about that. I believe that our proposal is one which will commend itself to the great body of the Volunteer force. I am able to answer a question asked of me by a noble Lord, and to tell him that we did not take this step without doing our best to satisfy ourselves by consulting a number of representative Volunteer officers that our proposals were generally agreeable and! acceptable to the force as a whole.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I wish to say that my objection to the Bill is not confined to the particular objection which I expressed the other night. I object to the Bill on wider grounds. It seems to me that the whole nature of a Volunteer corps is disregarded by a Bill of this kind. The real object of the Bill is to make a portion of the Volunteers in one sense a part of the Regular Army. The noble Marquess has explained that what the War Office desire is to be able to lay their hands on a certain number of men who have distinctly pledged themselves beforehand that they would serve out of the country. How does that differ from the Reserve of the Regular Army? It is the position of the Reservist; and I look upon the proposal with the greatest jealousy, because it seems to me that it is one of the devices of the War Office to avoid dealing with the task which is really before it. It may be comparatively a small matter, but it is not by enabling a portion of the Volunteer force to serve in this way that you will place the military service of the country on a proper footing. The noble Marquess said it is better that you should ask the Volunteers to place themselves under an obligation of this kind than to trust to the offer of help when a great wave of feeling and excitement passes over the country. But I hold that the Volunteers ought not to be placed under an obligation to serve out of the country, and they ought not to be called upon to serve unless the emergency is very strongly felt by all classes throughout the country. It seems to me that the Volunteers are essentially a force to be relied upon in a case of emergency when you have had to send away a large portion of the Regular Army. When we speak of foreign service we ought to consider a little what it means. I admit that at present we may feel the great pressure which such a war as we have been engaged in has placed on our Army, but it is reasonable to say that such a war is not one which will very often occur. You will want your Regular forces, for instance, to defend India. Are you to send the Volunteer's to India? You will want the Regular forces in case of any great upheaval on the Continent, possibly to. take some small part in it; but I cannot conceive in the ordinary circumstances of the case that you will want a large force-to be sent on the Continent. You want to have a certain number of men thoroughly trained who are fit and ready to be sent in any emergency throughout our widely extended Empire; but I do. not think you should come to the Volunteers until an emergency which to a great extent is unforeseen, like the present way, has arisen, and the magnitude of it is appreciated by the country. Then you may fairly ask your Volunteers, in the peculiar circumstances of the Empire, to come forward with a sense of patriotism to assist you to meet it.

EARL COWPER

My Lords, it strikes me that the noble Earl who has just spoken objects to Volunteers under any circumstances being called upon to go abroad to serve their country. Does he object to those gallant Volunteers who have gone to South Africa, and who have done very good work there? Does he think that they ought not to have been invited to do so?—for that is what his; remarks tend to make one think. If he-does not think this, the only question is,. whether it is more desirable that they should make their choice under the influence of excitement, or after calm deliberation. The noble Lord (Earl Spencer) seemed to think that this Bill would prevent the enlistment of Volunteers for home defence. If I thought that the measure would in the least degree interfere with enlistment for the Volunteers I should not support it; but I do not think that that would be the case.. I think that when we have the deliberate statement of the Government, who have-looked well into the question, that this. Bill will have good results in increasing our forces, we are bound to support it.

On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I should be glad if the noble Marquess would state when he intends to take the Committee stage of this Bill.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I will confer with the noble Earl on that point.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday, the 21st of June next.