§ *LORD HENEAGEMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the present Army Regulations in regard to the Staff College and to the appointment of officers to Staff and extra regimental duties, especially in relation to officers above the rank of captain in the cavalry and artillery; and to move that it is desirable, in the interests of the service, that opportunities should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their 6 regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service. With regard to the first point, that of the entrance and period of instruction at the Staff College, it may be known to your Lordships that there are two ways only in which officers can enter the Staff College—the first is by nomination by the Commander-in-Chief without any examination whatever, and the second by competitive examination after a period of "cram." This period of "cram," and the two years which officers have to stay under present circumstances at the Staff College mean two years and a half away from their regiments, and I cannot help thinking that it is rather late in the day when officers have been serving His Majesty for nine or ten years that they should be asked to go to school again and "cram" before they can go in for a practical examination. After all, cramming, though a great benefit to some, is a great impediment to others. Those who are able to cram their brain without injury to themselves, and who are rapid writers, get an advantage over many who are, perhaps, practical and good officers and better soldiers Therefore I suggest that this period of cramming and this competitive examination should be abolished. I think that all officers who are carefully recommended to the Commander-in-Chief as fit and good officers to go to the Staff College and likely to make good Staff officers, ought to be allowed to go there without having to undergo this second schooling and this competitive examination. The cramming alone, if it were abolished, would save at least six months, but I should like the competitive examination done away with also. I also think that the two years at the Staff College is a very much longer time than is necessary for men who ought to have a practical knowledge of most subjects, and who had passed a competitive examination before they entered the Army.
But if that two years cannot be done away with in all cases, I venture to suggest, as an alternative course, that after one year at the Staff College officers should go through an examination, and those who prove that they are 7 particularly and exceptionally proficient in special subjects, and likely to make good officers for the Intelligence Department or for the Scientific Departments of the War Office, should be allowed to stay another year, on the understanding that they are to leave their regiments and to look in future for appointment on the Staff. I should also like to see other officers allowed to go to the Staff College to improve themselves in subjects in which they think they are deficient without having to undergo the whole of the course in all the subjects set down for them. The present system limits the number of officers who are able to go to the Staff College, and it also limits the number of officers available when a war breaks out to go to the front. It is notorious that at the commencement of the late war nearly every officer went away from the War Office on active service, and left the Department with only new recruits to carry out work of which they knew nothing whatever; and it is very creditable to the heads of the War Office that they carried on the work as well as they did; but I think there ought to be a sufficient number of Staff officers to supply the requirements of a war without removing those officers who are so much needed at that particular moment in the position in which they have acquired most knowledge. In favour of my proposals I will quote words from Lord Selborne's eloquent speech on Naval reform in this House. Referring to "competitive examinations," the first Lord of the Admiralty said that—
These words have been invested with a halo of infallibility and democracy which I do not think they in the least deserve.I believe from the cheers with which that statement was received in this House, that your Lordships largely agreed with my noble friend. But the noble Earl went further, and added that—He was not afraid of a system of nomination carefully guarded.Again I cordially agree with him, and I assert that the principle of education which he laid down at that time as good for the Navy is equally good and up-to-date for the Army. Lord Selborne laid 8 down in clear and emphatic terms that—The principle of sound education is that all useless education should be eliminated, and that officers should be taught what they must know and is of use to them.I cannot understand why, if that is good for the Navy it should not be good for the Army also, and I venture to suggest to those who control the War Office that they should consider the plan that has been put forward by my noble friend for the Navy. I do not believe myself in "cram" work; I believe that what is crammed is very easily forgotten.This system not only limits the duly qualified officers both in peace and war, but it prevents, what is more important, that constant interchange between Staff and regiment which, I think, would be a very great advantage to both. It is laid down, and I believe it is still continued in the edition of the Royal Warrant for this year, that Staff appointments are only for five years, but everybody who knows anything about the subject knows perfectly well that that no longer refers to a period on the Staff after which officers must go back to their regiments, but simply to the period in the one office in which they are serving. Once on the Staff is always on the Staff now, and that is a very bad thing, in my opinion, both for the Staff and for the regiments. In the first place it prevents the regiments from getting the advantage of highly educated officers coming back to them; and, in the second place, it prevents the opinions of regimental commanding officers and others being made known to the War Office, because they have to filter through those who know very little about regimental work. The principle with regard to Staff College officers is not adhered to altogether. In our wars, even in little wars, regimental officers are constantly called upon. Officers who, it is thought, would be useful, are sent out to Africa and elsewhere when they are wanted, whether Staff College men or not. Then the halo of infallibility is quickly abandoned; it is only with regard to snug berths and soft billets at home where this rule is inviolable. The officers on the Staff have greater opportunities of rapid promotion than regimental officers, and they gradually rise to the higher positions at the War Office without any 9 very great experience or knowledge of regimental work. It therefore makes it all the more, desirable, in my opinion, that their subordinates should include officers who are in touch and sympathy with regimental officers and men.
But I do not desire to labour this question, as great changes have been made in the Military Education Department. I turn to the point in my Motion with regard to the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain. By Regulation 26 of the Royal Warrant no officer above the rank of captain can be seconded. As your Lordships are aware, when an officer below the rank of major goes on the Staff he is seconded, and another officer is promoted to take his place; but when a major or lieutenant colonel is removed to Staff duty, his place is not filled up, but an extra captain is allowed to the regiment to do the duty of the captain who is performing the work of the major. This may be for Treasury reasons; the Treasury save 2s. a day in the case of cavalry majors, and 3s. 6d. a day in the case of battery majors, by not filling up their places when the officers go to the Staff. These officers are, therefore, deprived of from £30 to £40 a year, for the years they are doing major's duty. That is a great hardship, especially as these officers have great responsibilities. In old days the regiments were entirely bossed by the colonel, the adjutant, and the riding-master, but now every battery major and every squadron major is practically the commanding officer of his battery or squadron. He is also responsible for the paying of the men, for the drill, for the mounting of the men, and for discipline, with an appeal only, if he gives punishment which is considered excessive, to the colonel commanding. These senior captains are called upon for years to assume all these responsibilities, and perform all the duties, of majors without either the rank, pay, or position. Many regiments are deprived of one or more majors for years, and these Staff or extra-regimental duty officers rarely return to regimental duty again. I could mention cases, but I will not, where captains seconded on the Staff have become squadron majors and remained on the Staff unseconded. I could mention other cases where captains who have been seconded on the Staff have 10 come back as majors and again gone away to the Staff, leaving the captains to continue doing major's duty. I think this is most unfair to the captains. During war time if an officer is taken for Staff duty he is graded according to the duty he has to do, and receives pay and rank accordingly. Why should not the same treatment be given to regimental officers as is meted out to the Staff? I think this is a suitable time to do justice to regimental officers, for I think every general officer and everybody who was in the South African war will admit that it was to a large extent a regimental officers' war, and they can no longer be considered inferior to Staff officers. I ask those responsible for the Army to look at these questions with an open mind and not to allow themselves to be ruled only by opinions of Staff College men; to give more facilities to regimental officers to make themselves proficient in any subjects without having to stay at the Staff College two years, and to do all they can to promote interchange between regiments and the Staff, and closer touch between the War Office and the views of regimental officers.
Moved to resolve that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the Service, that opportunites should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service.—(The Lord Heneage.)
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL of HARDWICKE)My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the matters to which he has drawn my attention have been receiving most careful consideration at the hands of the military authorities. I would remind him that the Secretary of State has recently created a new post at the War Office—that of Director-General of Military Education and Training, who of course has specially to deal with the various matters to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord stated that there were at the present time two means of entrance to the Staff College. 11 It is a small point, but perhaps I might as well make it clear, there are, as a matter of fact, three. There is, in the first instance, the competitive examination. There are twenty-four vacancies in the Staff College each year, and the number of officers who are allowed to compete is unlimited. They are officers who have shown ability and a desire to make themselves proficient in Staff work, and who have received the approval of the colonel commanding their regiment to their working for this competitive examination. The recommendation of the colonel has to be endorsed by the General Officer commanding the Army Corps, and he submits their names to the Commander-in-Chief for approval. The second means by which officers can enter the Staff College is by nomination of the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief nominates each year eight officers who have shown themselves specially able and devoted to their duties, and he can also nominate any adjutant whose duties have brought him to the front in connection with the regiment to which he is attached. Then there is the third means, to which the noble Lord referred, namely, special distinction in Staff work on active service. Of course the noble Lord will understand that it is only when the opportunity arises for an officer to distinguish himself on active service that his name can be brought forward, and that in times of peace those specially selected officers do not get the same chance as in time of war.
The noble Lord has referred in terms of disapproval to the system of competitive examination. He wishes to see officers allowed to pass into the Staff College without having previously to cram, and in futherance of his argument he quoted my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that every word that the First Lord said has not got my most cordial support and the support of the military authorities, but I would point out to him that the Navy and the Army are carried on under entirely different conditions. The naval officer is practically always on active service, and therefore it is not difficult for the naval authorities to see by practical observation that an officer is doing well in his 12 work. On the other hand, the regimental officer, unless, as I have said, he is engaged on active service, does not have the opportunity of showing his capacity for Staff work, and though we have a system of nomination for officers who have distinguished themselves in Staff work on active service, we are obliged to adhere to some form of examination for officers to show their capacity before they are allowed to pass into the Staff College. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted and a great many more regimental officers allowed to pass through the Staff College, we should be placed in this dilemma, that we should have a very large number of officers passing through the training necessary to qualify them for Staff work and we should not have the Staff work to give them. It seems to me obvious that if we increase the number of officers entitled to claim to serve on the Staff it would be necessary to largely increase the number of officers employed on the Staff. Otherwise you would have officers qualified for whom there was no employment, and that would not receive any favour at the hands of the officers themselves. I would like to inform the noble Lord of the number of officers who have passed through the Staff College in previous years. In July, 1884, there were at the Staff college forty-four students; in July, 1889, there were sixty-five; in July, 1894, sixty-four; and in July, 1899, sixty-seven. The noble Lord will see that the number has been steadily increasing. We hope shortly to be able to allow eighty officers to be at the Staff College at one time; and it is under consideration whether or not it would be possible, with the accommodation available at the Staff College, to increase that number still further; but I am afraid I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any hope that we shall be able to do away with some form of examination for entrance into the Staff College. The officers who join the Staff College are now all seconded, and though they are not seconded for the period which they have to devote to preparing themselves for the entrance examination, that has not been found to interfere greatly with the efficiency of the regiment.
The noble Lord considers that the course at the Staff College is too long. 13 He thinks that it would be better if, instead of a two years course, officers were allowed to pass out at the end of the year, having made themselves proficient in only certain subjects. I am afraid that is not the view that is held by the military advisers of the Secretary of State on this subject. The course at the Staff College has lately been considerably changed. The experiences of the South African War have enabled the authorities to see in what special subjects it is necessary that officers should make themselves proficient, and I would point out that the course for the first year includes military history, strategy, tactics and administration, topography, law, and riding; and in the second year that is supplemented by the study of Imperial defence, reconnaissance, the working out of problems, both administrative and purely military and strategical, etc. In addition to that officers have to make tours of instruction, visiting battlefields, etc., under military tuition, and they have also to go through a course of instruction in other arms than that in which they are themselves employed and to learn modern languages. It is not considered possible that this course could be adequately gone through under the period that has been laid down, namely, two years. The noble Lord says that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded. I admit that there is a great deal to be said, from the point of view of military efficiency, for the argument that the noble Lord advances, but I would point out to him that it is not a matter that has been pressed by the military authorities, for this reason—they are aware that to give effect to the change the noble Lord proposes would be a very expensive matter. They agree that, in view of the questionable advantage that might be gained, it would not be to the advantage of the Army as a whole to take a sum of £35,000 out of our Military Vote to carry out this change, and perhaps to deprive some other branch of the service of this sum of money. The noble Lord is particularly anxious that this change should affect only the cavalry and the artillery.
§ *LORD HENEAGEI think the noble Earl must have added an extra "0" to 14 the figure. It would not cost more than £3,000 or £4,000.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEI will give the exact figures. I have them here. If the majors and captains were seconded it would cost—in the cavalry, £3,400; in the artillery, £4,300; and in the infantry, £24,100 a year.
§ *LORD HENEAGEI did not raise the point of the infantry, because infantry majors have no work to do.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEThough, of course, it is not impossible to make such a change, and to make it applicable only to the cavalry and artillery, I am afraid that from the point of view of the military authorities it would be undesirable to distinguish in a matter of this kind between the infantry and the cavalry and artillery, and it is perfectly clear that if we made the change it would have to apply to the Army as a whole and not to the particular branches to which the noble Lord refers. Then the noble Lord urged that it was desirable that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years Staff or extra regimental service. The noble Lord said "Once on the Staff always on the Staff," and he pleaded for a greater interchange between officers on the Staff and officers serving in regiments. The noble Lord will be glad to hear that his suggestions have already been adopted by the War Office. It is laid down, and the practice is rigidly adhered to, that every officer after five years on the Staff is to go back on the completion of the five years to his regiment. I may even say that the appointments are for three years and five years, so that after three years in many cases officers will return to their regiment, but in no case will they remain after five years. Of course this does not apply to full colonels who have left their regiment, but so far as junior officers are concerned they will always return, as I have said, after five years. The noble Lord further asked that they should return to their regiments on promotion, but it would be impossible for officers to return to their regiments immediately on promotion. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied generally with the tenor of my remarks, and that he will not think it 15 necessary to press his Motion to a division. Staff officers are not separate in any way from the regimental officers; they are only the best officers coming to the front by examination and by their desire to get on in their profession. The services of regimental officers have been recognised during the late war, for out of some 2,000 rewards given for service in South Africa, 1,800 went to regimental officers and only 200 to officers who had passed through the Staff College. I think that must appeal to the noble Lord as a conclusive argument that the War Office have not in any way disregarded the services of regimental officers who served in South Africa.
§ *LORD HENEAGEAfter the explanation that has been given by the noble Earl I shall withdraw my Motion. I only desired that the question should be fairly discussed. I can assure the noble Earl that I did not mean to infer that regimental officers had been overlooked. Three-fourths of the officers who served on the Staff during the late war were not Staff College men but regimental officers who had been taken away from their regiments and not seconded. The reason why I refer to artillery and cavalry majors is that they are to all intents and purposes the commanding officers of their batteries and squadrons, whereas the rank of major is merely a titular rank in the infantry without any responsibility whatever.
§ Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.