HL Deb 11 July 1904 vol 137 cc1148-80
THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I hope that the reasonableness of the Motion I have placed on the Notice Paper and the necessity for what it proposes will induce your Lordships to give it favourable consideration. My Motion reads:"To move to resolve, That this House, while reaffirming the Resolution passed by the Lords in 1883,'That having regard to the present defective military organisation, and to the great importance of the Militia Force, it is essential that the Militia should be forthwith recruited up to its established strength,' is further of opinion that so long as the Militia continues to be, as it now is, the constitutional basis of our existing military system, it should bs so raised as not to compete for voluntary recruits, as it now docs, with the Regular Army to the great detriment of the military forces of the Crown." Your Lordships will observe that the first part of the Motion is an historical statement of what passed in 1883, but it does not say that the Resolution which is quoted here was carried in the teeth of the combined opposition of the two Front Benches. It was carried, my Lords, by the independent, patriotic action of your Lordships, to which again, under like circumstances, I intend to appeal. The latter part of my Motion says that the Militia is the constitutional basis of our existing military system?

Now what is our existing military system? It is a system which is, I think, absolutely perfect, having regard to our insular position. It is this, that you hare an Army raised by voluntary enlistment which is ready to go anywhere and everywhere out of the United Kingdom where wanted and, on the other hand, you have a Militia which is raised by compulsion—that is the history of the Militia; raised properly by compulsion— for home service, and for home service alone. That Militia is capable, though raised only for home defence, of volunteering as regiments for foreign service, or the man may individually go into the Army. The third element of our military system is the Volunteer Force, and that force originally consisted of those who volunteered rather than run the chance of the Militia ballot. I need not tell your Lordships that the existing system is not enforced, that the foundation and basis of it, a Militia raised by compulsion, is a dead letter. It is not so raised. The foundation of our military system is every year broken up by a special Act which suspends the ballot for the Militia.

Now, my Lords, what is the state of the Militia? In 1883, when your Lordships passed the Resolution I have read, the state of the Militia was as follows:— Establishment, 128,069; enrolled,104,431; wanting, 23,638; under nineteen, 15,904; struck off as absent, 6,904; Army Militia Reserve, 26,692; a further reduction of one-fifth for casualties and artillery, left infantry, rank and file, above nineteen years of age, 36,638. The state of things on the whole has been the same throughout there has always been a deficiency in the Militia of from 20,000 to 30,000 men. And why, my Lords? Because, as I have said, the foundation and basis of our military system is annually broken up.

What is the conclusion come to on this question by the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, who were appointed to inquire into the organisation, numbers, and terms of service of our Militia and Volunteer Forces, and to report whether any, and if any, what changes are required in order to secure that these forces shall be maintained in a condition of military efficiency and at an adequate strength? The conclusion they have come to is that it is through compulsion, and compulsion alone, that you can get a satisfactory Militia and Volunteer Force for home defence. Thus, in con eluding their report, they say that"a home defence army capable, in the absence of the Regular Forces, of protecting the country against invasion can be raised and maintained only on the principle that it is the duty of every citizen of military age to be trained for the national defence and take a part in it should emergency arise." I would personally thank the noble Duke and his colleagues who sat on the Commission for the splendid courage they showed in bringing up this recommendation. They have been accused of exceeding the terms of the Warrant under which they were appointed, but they did nothing of the kind. They found in the course of their inquiry that everything was unsatisfactory, that it was not a case of doing this or that little thing to bring the force to a condition of military efficiency and adequate strength, but that the whole basis was wrong, and they had the courage to say so. They deserve our thanks for putting forward the view which I think to be the right view, and for having the courage to tell the nation the truth.

The Report of the Commission has been received in a way that is not to the credit of this country. It has been universally abused, and if anybody wants to know what was said about it they have only to read a most interesting article in the Nineteenth Century and After by a great military critic, but not a politician—Colonel Lonsdale Hale. The title of his article is" Our Pitiable Military Situation," and in it he shows how unjust has been the action and the language used towards the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. This brings me to the question of compulsory service. In the opinion of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission it is only thus that our military forces can be put on a right foundation, but, as I have said, this is denounced in every possible way, and by no one has this question of compulsory service been so strongly denounced as by an old brother officer of mine, Colonel Sir Howard Vincent, in a letter in The Times.

Colonel Sir Howard Vincent had the audacity—there is no other word fully expressing it, and it is a word I have used to his face—to say that all those who are in favour of compulsory service are foolish persons. I naturally wrote to The Times, asking my friend to name these foolish persons. He declined to answer my letter, and as far as he is concerned, these foolish persons are unnamed. But I thought it right to endeavour to find out, as far as I could, who these foolish persons were, and I hold in my hand a list containing their names. I begin in 1804 with Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt; Then comes Lord Sidmoulh in 1807; Sir James Graham's Committee on Army Organisation in 1860; The Duke of Wellington, Lord Palmerston, and the Recruiting Commission in 1867; Lord Dalhousie in 1867; Lord Longford in 1867; Sir James Scarlett in 1870; Mr. Card well in 1871; Earl Russel in 1871; Lord Sandhurst in 1871; and the last authority is the noble Marquessthe present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Marquess in 1900 introduced a Bill to bring the Militia ballot up to date, but it is lying derelict, a dead letter, and we were told by the late Under-Secretary of State for War that it would require some sixty or seventy more clauses to make it work. These are some of the "foolish persons" referred to by Sir Howard Vincent. But you have besides that, the evidence given before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, and I think my noble friend, Lord Newton, did good service in writing to The Times, giving a summary of the names and evidence of the witnesses who were in favour of compulsory service. The names were Sir T. Kelly-Kenny, Earl Roberts, Viscount Wolseley, Sir John French, Sir John Ardagh, Lord Castletown, Sir Evelyn Wood, Sir H. Hildyard, and Sir William Parr; and among others were Lord Raglan, a former Under-Secretary of State for War who is opposed to the ballot, but is one of those who are in favour of compulsory service. In addition compulsory service is supported by eminent business men, employers of labour, Volunteer officers, and others. I think it would be as well at this stage that I should read to the House the names of the members of the Norfolk Commission. The Commission was composed as follows:—The Duke of Norfolk, Chairman; The Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Earl of Derby (a former Secretary of State for War), Lord Gren-fell, Sir Coleridge Grove, Sir Ralph Henry Knox, Colonel George O'Callaghan-West-ropp, Colonel Evan H. Llewellyn, Colonel E. Satterthwaite, Colonel James A. Dal-mahoy, and Mr. Henry Spenser Wilkinson.

Now, my Lords, with such evidence as is before them, and knowing as the Government do that all their difficulties as regards the Army would disappear if they only had the courage to enforce the existing law, why is it that they do not enforce it? There are two reasons—first the existence of the Navy; and, secondly, what is more important still, the existence of the voter. The idea of what is called the "blue water school," is that if you have a powerful Navy you want nothing more; that you may be subject to small raids, but not to serious invasion. I hold in my hand a quotation giving the views of Mr. Pitt on this very point a century ago, for there were also at that time men who held the view of the blue water school. Mr. Pitt abused the Government for their insufficient action, and proceeded— What, then, are we to think of Ministers who, with such an opportunity of observation, overlooked renewing the ballot for that important part of our force, the Militia, during peace. Could anything, my Lords, after a hundred years be more applicable than that to the state of things existing to-day? Then Mr. Pitt went on to speak of Bonaparte's preparations for invasion and of our 184,000 men in the Army and 400,000 Volunteers and our naval means — Nelson was then alive — as being insufficient for our defence. I turn from Mr. Pitt to what was said by Lord Wolseley one hundred years later before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. Lord Wolseley said— I think it would be living in a fool's paradise were the English people to depend exclusively on the Navy for the defence of this country from invasion. Later on Lord Wolseley said — To depend upon the Navy alone for the defence of this country, and to forego having an Army on that account, would be the madness we are told in ancient writings the gods used to send to those whom they wished to destroy. Those who believe and preach that, preach what is the most injurious doctrine the English people could hear. The same language was used by Lord Palmerston, who stated that the men who thought we could rely, even in this nautical country, upon the Navy alone for home defence were simply mad and I doubt not that if now alive he would call the "Blue Water" School the "Blue Bedlamites." So much for this question in the past.

I asked the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty two years ago whether he thought we could trust to the Navy alone for defence, and he replied that I had put a conundrum to him that it would take all the debating societies in England two or three years to answer. When I saw the name of the noble Earl among those who had given evidence before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, I thought I should find an answer to that question; but, from first to last, there was not a single question put to the First Lord as to the Navy. He spoke as a Colonel of Militia, and not as First Lord. I quite understand why the Commission did not put any questions to the noble Earl with regard to the Navy. It was because when they asked for evidence from the Admiralty it was denied them, and in the same way evidence was denied them from the Defence Committee. Therefore, we get nothing from the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the efficiency of the Navy on this point. As I have said, Lord Wolseley agrees with Lord Palmerston and others that those men are mad who think we can trust to the Navy alone.

It is always said that the people of this country would not stand the foreign form of conscription. No one asks them to stand it. All that is asked for is that the English system of raising Militia in this country which is already on the Statute-book may be put in force. Nobody asks for more. I hold that the language that is used is a libel—nothing less—on our nation. When you want it, and think it is of use, you then speak and boast, as you did in the days of the late war, of the patriotism of the people; you then went down on your knees, with 5s. a day in your hand, to men who had never been across a horse, and asked them to become Yeomen, and many of them did and performed excellent service. Therefore, when it suits you, you trade upon their patriotism, but when it does not suit you and you think you run the danger of losing votes by doing your duty, you abstain from doing it and say that the people would not stand compulsory service for home defence. I maintain that that is a libel on the people of our country, and I want to know on what authority those who make that statement base it.

For the last forty years I have spoken in favour of compulsory service everywhere, and I have never heard a whisper of dissent. Further, I tested the feelings of the country in a way that cannot be denied. I sent out two year ago a circular, on the one hand to Lords-Lieutenant of counties, chairmen of county councils, chairmen of quarter sessions, chairmen of chambers of agriculture, chairmen of chambers of commerce, and, on the other hand, to mayors, provosts, and chief magistrates of cities and burghs. I may say that 400 circulars went out, and between 200 and 300 replies were received. The questions I put were (1) Whether, in their opinion, the present state of our home defence was satisfactory and reliable? To which question 75 per cent, replied "No;" and (2) Whether in their opinion the nation would, for home defence only, accept a modified form of compulsory service? To which question two to one answered "Yes." From those replies I am justified in declaring that the statement that the people of this country are so unpatriotic as to refuse to accept compulsory service, when told it is necessary, is a libel on the nation.

When I was examined before the Duke of Norfolk Commission I was asked by Sir Ralph Knox, an old friend of mine— But would not what you propose be unpopular? Do not forget, my Lords, that he was one of the Commissioners who signed the Report in favour of compulsory service. Indeed, the general principle that there should be compulsory service was agreed upon unanimously by the Commissioners. My answer to him was— It does not matter whether it is popular or unpopular; if it is right it should be done. During sixty-two years of public life I have never known a Government come forward on their own responsibility and ask either for money or for men or what ever was required for the safety of the nation and be refused what they asked. We are on the eve of an utterance in another place from the Secretary of State for War as to what this recondite Army reform measure is on which there has been so much dispute, and we are to begin this last form of reform as late as 14th July, when the session has nearly gone. I know that His Majesty's Government are not going to have anything in the shape of compulsory service, because when I was asked if I would put this Motion oft' I said that if the Government would give me an assurance that compulsory service formed part of the new scheme I—

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)

The noble Earl's request was for an assurance that the ballot formed part of the new scheme.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

The noble Earl thinks, perhaps, that the ballot is more severe than compulsory service.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I think it different.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

The ballot is an alleviation of it. In foreign countries the whole nation is liable to conscription, but we do not require that. But, at any rate, I am assured that compulsion in no form consti- tutes part of the Government measure. I am inclined to think, however, that there must be something in what we hear about the reduction of the forces, Militia and others, for on 28th June the Secretary of State for War and the Prime Minister both showed that they had been nobbled, captured, got hold of, by the blue water school of thought. They spoke in favour of money being given to the Navy rather than spent on our land forces. And it looks to me as if there is some truth, too, in the statement that this scheme, whatever it may be, does not meet with the approval of non-political experts. I hold in my hand an extract from a speech by Sir Neville Lyttelton, who, as your Lordships know full well, is the military adviser to and the first military officer on the Defence Committee, of which, I think very wrongly, the Prime Minister of the day is to be the head. I venture to think that is a great mistake; but I do not wish to discuss it now. I think the Prime Minister ought to be out of all that, leaving the Cabinet to say whether what is proposed by the Defence Committee is right or wrong. Speaking at the South African dinner, at which the Duke of Marlborough presided, Sir Neville Lyttelton said— The British Army was in the smelting-pot again; it had been there very often. He hoped that the scheme to be promulgated next week would please the public. Sometimes he had some misgivings, and doubts arose in his mind. They did their best, but it was making bricks without straw. I leave the House to*ay what that want of straw is. Sir Neville Lyttelton continued— This year money was short and men were short both in numbers and stature. They had done their best with regard to the scheme, but he was not happy—far from it. My Lords, I cannot do better, I think, than close my remarks with these words, these very comforting words, from the officer who, above all others, has been chosen to represent the Army on the Defence Committee. I hope they will give comfort to your Lordships. I have no doubt they do to those who sit on the Government Bench. I also hope they will induce your Lordships, as they ought to do, to support the Motion that I now humbly move.

Moved to resolve: "That this House, while reaffirming the Resolution passed by the Lords in 1883,' That having regard to the present defective military organisation, and to the great importance of the Militia Force, it is essential that the Militia should be forthwith recruited up to its established strength,' is further of opinion that so long as the Militia continues to be, as it now is, the constitutional basis of our existing military system it should be so raised as not to compete for voluntary recruits, as it now does, with the Regular Army to the great detriment of the military forces of the Crown."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, lest there should be any doubt as to whether the noble Earl will receive any support, I rise at once to assure him that I, at all events, will go into the lobby in support of his Motion. Neither do I see any reason why the Motion should not be supported by the votes of every Member present who is in favour of maintaining the Militia. The Motion does not commit anyone to the particular nostrum favoured by the noble Earl, and those persons who are in favour of the continuance of the Militia can vote for the Motion with a clear conscience. The other day my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, expatiated with, I thought, some envy on the peculiarly favourable position which is occupied by my noble friend Lord Wemyss. It appears to me that on this particular occasion he enjoys a more favourable position than ever, because he has every right to count upon the support of the Government.

I do not think that sufficient recognition has ever been paid to the dealings of this Government and of the last Government with regard to the Militia, and I think it just as well to refresh the memory of the House upon this subject. In 1899 the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs introduced a Militia Ballot Bill. The next year the noble Earl opposite, Lord Wemyss, brought in the same Bill and was opposed not only by the Government but by the Front Opposition Bench. As a rule, I believe the theory of legislation is that when a Government Bill is introduced it represents the settled convictions of Ministers and the collective policy of the Government; but in this particular case we must adopt a totally different theory. The theory I have in my mind with regard to this particular Bill is that it was introduced much on the same principle as that on which the drunken helot used to be introduced at Spartan feasts—as an object to be avoided. This is a species of legislation which might be defined as legislation by scarecrow.

I confess that anything which is brought forward by my noble friend stands a very poor chance of acceptance in this House. The two Front Benches invariably combine against him, and I have before expressed the opinion that if the noble Earl brought forward a Motion that two and two made four, or that the earth was round, the two Front Benches would unite and say they made something totally different, or that the earth was flat Therefore, any Motion proposed by the noble Earl is foredoomed to failure. He is looked upon, in fact, by both Front Benches as a sort of hostis humani generis. For my part, though I may be singular in my views, I maintain that the proposals brought forward by the noble Earl are infinitely more practicable and more definite than all the recommendations of your Hartington Commission, your Dawkins Commission, your Esher Committee, and your Elgin Commission. With the one exception of the Commission presided over by the Duke of Norfolk, the recommendations brought forward have been recommendations for the improvement, reorganisation, and what tiny call the "co-ordination" of our military system. Practically they deal with nothing but War Office reorganisation.

My noble friend, whether you agree with him or not, goes to the root of the matter, and proposes a definite solution, inasmuch as he puts forward a really solid basis upon which the military edifice may be constructed. I do not propose on this occasion to repeat the arguments which have already been used in this House by myself and others on the subject of compulsion. I have no doubt we shall have many future opportunities of returning to this subject, but I do not think anybody present can be in any sort of doubt as to the actual value of the Militia and as to the inestimable value which it has been to us in the past. If you only take the late war as an instance, I think any impartial person would be bound to admit that the services of the other two blanches of the Auxiliary Forces, that is to say, the Volunteers and the Yeomanry, cannot be compared for one moment with the services rendered by the Militia. The Militia sent something like 100,000 men to the war, and I will go so far as to say this, that if it had not been for the existence of the Militia, I do not believe it would have been possible for us to have carried on that war at all, because, as everybody knows, they took the place of the Regular Army when we had sent every available man to South Africa.

But if anybody feels any doubt as to the relative value of the various portions of the Auxiliary Forces, it can very soon be demonstrated if you take, for instance, the test of embodiment. You would then realise the infinite superiority of the Militia over the other two branches. We know, not only from speeches which have been delivered in this House, but also in consequence of the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, that in the opinion of those who have had the best opportunities of studying this question, the Militia can only be kept up by resorting in some form or other to compulsion. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, speaking the other day in your Lordships' House, strongly repudiated the idea of compulsion, and, with an ingenuity which really would have done credit to the oldest Parliamentary hand, he actually established a difference a most important difference, between the principle of the Militia ballot and the principle of universal service. I admit at once that my intelligence is not sufficiently nimble to follow my noble friend through these distinctions. Personally, I see very little difference between the two things, but I do not despair of my noble friend. When the day arrives, some years, or possibly, some months hence, when we migrate to the other side, I entertain a faint hope that I shall hear my noble friend pointing out to his successor on this Bench that the one absolutely necessary thing in order to put our military affairs in order is to resort to the principle of compulsion. [The Earl of DONOUGHMORE dissented.] The fact is, the principle of compulsion is receiving allies from the most unexpected quarters.

The noble Earl who moved the Motion now before your Lordships has drawn attention to a most important speech which was delivered last week by General Sir Neville Lyttelton. I was prepared to read a number of extracts from this speech, but, as Lord Wemyss has done so, I will not trouble the House with them. I must, however, draw attention to one particular phrase. General Lyttelton, after stating that he felt no confidence whatever in the coming scheme, stated that he did not like the French word "conscription," and preferred to use the English words, "compulsory service"; and, referring to compulsory service, he said he disagreed with the Norfolk Commission, who wanted compulsory service for home defence. The only explanation you can put upon this is that Sir Neville Lyttelton wants it for foreign service. I believe he has already withdrawn some of his expressions, but the most important part of his speech was the sentence with which he concluded— When I speak of even a modified form of compulsory service I am not speaking as an official, but it will come one of these days. That is what we have to bear in mind. Whether he approves of it or not we know what he anticipates. General Lyttelton is not only a very highly distinguished soldier; he is the first military member of the Army Council, and he is practically our English Chief of the Staff. He announced that he was only speaking for himself. I contend that a man in his position is quite unable to speak for himself in his private capacity. This is not an utterance of an irresponsible person.

General Lyttelton is not a man who can be described as rash or indiscreet. His words must inevitably carry great weight, not only in Parliament, but throughout the country; and what do they mean? Well, they mean this, either that he despairs of solving the military problem, or that he thinks the coming scheme is based upon the probability of its popularity in the country rather than upon securing the national safety. In any case, I am sorry to say that this speech suggests that as much indecision, if not chaos, prevails under the present conditions at the War Office as in former days; and with regard to what is now taking place at the War Office, I cannot help being reminded of that phrase which I have often heard applied to continually changing French Governments, "plus cela change plus c'est la m®me chose." I am not one of those persons who have habitually abused the War Office. I have never indulged in what I have always thought has been senseless abuse of the War Office, because I think it absurd to charge the War Office with the shortcomings of our military administration; but I do not think anyone, however ignorant, can fail to recognise the want of purpose, the want of decision, and the want of a definite policy which characterise the management of our military affairs. We have within a very recent period witnessed the introduction and the abandonment of a most ambitious and far-reaching scheme. We learn from the Duke of Norfolk's Commission that not so long ago the Defence Committee had no clear idea of the purpose for which the Militia and Volunteers existed. We witnessed quite recently the Prime Minister appointing a Commission to deal with this most important question, and then airily, and probably without having read the evidence, saying he would not have anything to do with their recommendations. And now, to crown it all, we have the First Military Lord practically throwing over the Secretary of State for War.

VISCOUNT HARDINGE

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl for bringing this question to the notice of your Lordships' House. Speaking as a Militia -officer, I can say that all the members of the force, officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, will be glad to think they have the noble Earl as the champion of their cause. We have in this House several noble Lords who are commanding officers of Militia, including two members of His Majesty's Government, and for that reason the Militia had every hope that their interests and welfare would be in good hands; but if rumour is true, that is not the case., We are told that the Secretary of State for War, with the sanction of His Majesty's Government, proposes to abolish the Militia altogether. If such is the case, I feel sure that most of your Lordships will agree with the statement which appeared in the Standard last week, to the effect that the idea of destroying the Militia will be received not so much with indignation as with astonishment that such a proposal could ever be seriously put forward by a responsible Government. I think I am perfectly justified in asking the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War whether that rumour is true or not, and, if it is true, how it appeared in the newspapers—in the Standard and the Daily Express—before it was proclaimed to the world by the Secretary of State for War. No wonder the senior Military Lord on the War Office Council, when making a speech the other evening, said that his mind was uneasy. It is perfectly true, as he stated, that the Army at the present moment is not only short of men, but that the men are short in stature. If the Secretary of State for War thinks that that is going to be rectified by the abolition of the Militia, I think it will be some time before the mind of the gallant officer to whom I have referred is made any easier. Until I hear it officially announced I shall refuse to believe the astounding rumour that the Militia is to be abolished.

Personally, I am in favour of compulsory service. I am not, however, a supporter of the ballot; and I would remind the House that the Duke of Norfolk's Commission declared that compulsory service for home defence is preferable to the ballot. I concur with the noble Earl in his tribute to the members of this Commission. I think they deserve the gratitude of the nation for speaking the plain truth, and telling the people that the country is, so far as its defence is concerned, living in a fool's paradise. The noble Duke told us the other day that that was the reason why all the members of his Commission were unanimous in saying there must be compulsory service of some kind.

When a fortnight ago my noble friend Lord Newton called attention to the Report of the Esher Committee, the only noble Lord, other than the two members of the Government, who spoke against compulsory service was the noble and gallant Lord who commands the Gloucestershire Militia. The noble and gallant Lord said he did not think the country was ripe for such a system. I believe that if the change is not necessary now, it never will be. The opinion of Lord Bathurst is not the opinion of most commanding officers of Militia. He will find that most of them agree with the Duke of Richmond, who commands a Militia regiment and was one of those who signed the Report of the Norfolk Commission favouring compulsory service. I think Militia officers would rather take the opinion of the noble Duke, who has had longer experience in the Militia, than that of the noble Lord. On the other hand, however, the noble Lord (Earl Bathurst) has on his side the Under-Secretary of State for War. The Under-Secretary stated the other day that his reason for opposing compulsory service was that it would involve considerable expenditure, but that does not agree with the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, for they stated that, after having gone thoroughly into the subject, they considered that under compulsory service the expenditure would be a great deal less than at present.

Another reason given by the Under-Secretary for opposing compulsory service was the difficulty of getting skilled instructors. Surely that is a matter for legislation. If other countries who go in for compulsory service are able to find instructors, surely they could be found in this country. In the same speech the noble Earl the Under-Secretary said that if we were to lose command of the sea, we would be well advised to lay down our arms and sue for peace with the enemy—a proposal which, if I may say so without offence to the noble Earl, would be scorned and repudiated by every man calling himself an Englishman. I would prefer to rely upon the noble and patriotic instincts of the people, well drawn out in the cartoon in Punch last week, where we find a humourist not afraid to put the truth, which is that an island Power should organise its forces on the basis of national duty. This is an example which we have received from our ally Japan. The lesson that is taught us surely gives ample food for reflection, especially when we think that in this vast population of ours only one man out of every ten does any actual service for his country.

We have learned in South Africa that modern war is a scientific matter. We therefore do not want men who, when emergency arises, lush to arms and become food for powder. The day of putting a pike in a man's hand at the last moment has long since gone by. For this reason we require the best of the manhood of the nation, not the men we have been getting of late, and they can only be obtained, in my opinion, by some form of compulsory service. I know one of the great arguments against compulsory service is that if we had such service for home defence, we would not get the men for our volunteer Army to serve abroad and in India. In my opinion we would get men to join the Army then who had never thought of joining it before, in the same way as many men who are in the Army now have gone in through the Militia and would never have gone into the Army if there had not been a Militia Force. This is only the second time that I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, and I thank you for the indulgence you have granted to me. I felt: that in the circumstances it was my duty, as an officer commanding a Militia battalion, to raise my voice in support of the noble Lord's Motion.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, I had not intended to address your Lordships to-night, and I only rise to say two or three words in answer to the remarks of my noble friend who has just sat down. He referred to a speech I made some ten days ago, and I am afraid he drew a wrong impression from it. I did not say that I was not in favour of compulsion. I said that I thought the country was not ready and was not prepared to vote for compulsion. I am, on the whole, in favour of compulsion and still more in favour of the Militia ballot, and I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion now before your Lordships' House.

LORD ROSMEAD

My Lords, the time has now arrived when something will have to be done as regards the old constitutional force. I thoroughly agree with every word that has been said by the noble Earl who so eloquently brought forward this Motion. It will be impossible for the Militia to continue as it is now. As your Lordships are aware, it becomes weaker and weaker every year, and if the decrease continues it will in time cease to exist. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that it would be a serious loss to the nation if a force like the Militia, which has rendered such excellent service in the past, should cease to exist, and therefore I consider it essential that some drastic steps should be taken to ensure its remaining a part of His Majesty's forces. The noble Earl, as I understand, is in favour of the ballot being amended and brought up to date so that it could be enforced. With that I entirely agree. I am not speaking without some experience of the Militia before going into the Regular Army, and I have had experience of it since. For at present I have the honour of holding a commission in that force.

The ballot is either a good or a bad substitute. If it is a bad one it should be repealed; if is a good one it should be applied; but as it is at present it is worse than useless. The ballot looks like the beginning of conscription or compulsory service, and, ugly as it may sound to a nation which has always prided itself on maintaining a voluntary Army, I venture to think the time is not far off when some form of modified compulsory service will have to be adopted if we are going to maintain such a strong and effective Army as is necessary. The time now appears to be ripe when a commencement should be made in that direction by enforcing ballot for the Militia, and I therefore trust your Lordships will support the Motion moved by the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, I should, of course, be the very last to question the right of any Member of your Lordships' House to initiate a discussion upon any subject at anytime; but still I cannot help thinking that my position is rather a difficult one this afternoon, and at the same time it is, certainly to myself, and possibly to noble Lords, rather an unsatisfactory one. Your Lordships are aware that the Prime Minister has made a statement this afternoon to the effect that the Secretary of State for War will make his statement upon a scheme of Army reform on Thursday next. Naturally I have no intention of saying anything this evening which would in any way foreshadow that statement, and I am sure that in saying that your Lordships will acquit me of any want of respect to the House. But when a big scheme of Army or any other reform is to be introduced it is only right that the principal Minister concerned should make his statement himself and should make it as a concrete whole. For this reason I would ask the noble Viscount behind me, Lord Hardinge, to be a little patient. He has accepted certain rumours that have been about during the last few days as gospel truth and has asked me for a categorical affirmation or denial. I would ask the noble Viscount, and I am sure he will meet me so far, to be patient until Thursday next, when he can hear the scheme of my right hon. friend in its completeness, and I am sure your Lordships will then be very glad to listen to any criticisms or remarks that he may have to make upon it.

As regards the Motion which is before us my noble friend Lord Newton said that anybody could vote for it, suggesting presumably that it really does not commit anybody to anything in particular, that it does not commit noble Lords who support it to compulsory service, to the ballot, or to anything else. It is perfectly true that the words of the Motion do not contain either the words compulsory service or the ballot, but still I think I any noble Lord who is acquainted with the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, knows perfectly well what was in his mind when he put this Motion down, and knows perfectly well, if he has read the report of the debate in 1883 which is referred to in the Motion, that after all it is to the principle of the ballot that the noble Earl wishes to commit the House; and noble Lords who go into the lobby with the noble Earl must do so with the full consciousness that they are pledging themselves to the ballot, and to the ballot definitely. Before passing on to the more general question I would ask to be allowed to say a word upon a speech that has been very much quoted—I refer to the speech made last week by my friend Sir Neville Lyttelton. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Newton, said that Sir Neville Lyttelton had already withdrawn part of that speech.

LORD NEWTON

He did so in a letter to the Westminster Gazette of Saturday.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I do not know anything about a letter in the Westminster Gazelle but I have here a copy of a letter published in the Standard, in which Sir Neville Lyttelton did not withdraw anything that he said, but repudiated the interpretation that had been put upon the speech in certain quarters, which is a very different story. Sir Neville Lytteiton has been quoted in your Lord-ships' House to-day and elsewhere as being in favour of compulsory service. The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, quoted part of Sir Neville Lyttelton's speech, but did not quote one sentence, which, I think, is very germane to this discussion. It is a sentence towards the end of the speech. Sir Neville had already said that he preferred the words "compulsory service," to conscription, and he proceeded— He did not now put it forward. When Sir Neville Lyttelton says definitely that he does not now put the policy of compulsory service forward, it is not quite fair to claim him as being in the same camp as those who have been advocating compulsory service in your Lordships' House this evening. But I have gone further. I have seen Sir Neville Lyttelton twice upon this point and have ascertained his views a little more definitely than they are shown in the very different reports that there are of his speech as made the other night. I do not like quoting the opinion of any individual member of the Army Council, but I think your Lordships will realise that this is an exceptional occasion. Sir Neville Lyttelton authorises me to say that he recognises at once that public opinion is not in favour of any form of compulsory service.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Why?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I will prove that to the noble Earl before sitting down. Sir Neville Lyttelton recognises that public opinion is not in favour of any form of compulsory service, and, as he said in his speech, he has no desire to introduce it now. He does not like compulsion for its own sake, but he cannot keep out of his mind the possibility of some day being forced to adopt it. He is in favour of doing everything he can to avoid it.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

They have been doing that for forty years.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

And I hope they will continue doing it for another forty years. As I have said, Sir Neville Lyttelton is in favour of trying everything to avoid adopting it, and for that reason he entirely supports the scheme which will be put forward by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War on Thursday next. That is what I am authorised by Sir Neville Lyttalton to say, and I think that statement will, perhaps, make matters clearer than they have been on this subject. To return to the question of compulsory service. My noble friend Lord Newton mentioned that I endeavoured the other day to prove to your Lordships that there was a great difference between compulsory service, as advocated by him and by the Norfolk Commission, and the ballot, and he said he was unable to follow my string of reasoning. If I remember rightly, I do not think I produced any string of reasoning. I produced a quotation from the evidence given before the Commission by the noble Earl Lord Wemyss, whom I recognised as the greatest living authority on the subject of the ballot.

LORD NEWTON

What the noble Earl argued was that Lord Methuen, who gave evidence in favour of the Militia ballot, was, in consequence of that, opposed to personal universal service.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

That was in another part of my speech. The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, said most distinctly in his evidence:— Universal obligation is alleviated by the chance selection of a few. Thus, the ballot is quite distinct from Continental universal conscription. It was on that that I relied in claiming that there was an absolute difference between enforcing everybody to serve and the ballot. Viscount Hardinge and my noble friend Lord Newton said a great deal this afternoon upon the subject of compulsory service, but I claim that that has nothing whatever to do with what is advocated by the noble Earl in this Motion. We have already had a debate upon the subject of universal compulsory service as advocated by the Royal Commission, and if your Lordships choose to have another one I shall, of course, attempt to take my part in it; but I do not think it is necessary for me to go in any detail into the various arguments that have been brought forward on the subject this evening.

I will confine my attention more particularly to the ballot, which is advocated by Lord Wemyss. The noble Earl quoted a number of authorities as being in favour of the ballot. He read out as distinguished a list of names as could be found in English history. I should have thought, as regards some of the earlier names, that we might have claimed that conditions had changed a little. Mr. Pitt, after all, did not know what a battleship was that was driven by steam. But I do wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the last name quoted by the noble Lord, namely, that of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Marquess's opinions are well known in your Lordships' House. I presume the noble Earl based his inclusion of the noble Marquess upon the fact that my noble friend introduced a Militia Ballot Bill two years ago, but, if I remember rightly, it was made perfectly clear on that occasion, and I think Lord Newton recognises that fact, that the Bill was simply brought in, if I may use a phrase I have heard used with considerable effect by Lord Ribblesdale, as a sort of pilot balloon. It was brought in as illustrating the form such a Bill should take if carried through Parliament. It was made quite clear that it was not the intention of the Government to pass it, and that the Government had no intention of adopting the ballot as a definite policy.

After all, what are our objections to the ballot? Firstly, there is the fact— and this has not been recognised by noble Lords this afternoon who have been quoting the Duke of Norfolk's Comnr's-sion—that that Commission rejected the ballot in no equivocal terms. They rejected it because they said it was un-suited to the conditions of this country; they rejected it because it would press unfairly upon the poorer classes; they rejected it owing to its general unfairness and general unsuitability. We entirely accept and agree with all those contentions. I would add that we do consider that the use of the ballot for the Militia would considerably increase our difficulties in getting voluntary recruits for our Regular Army—difficulties which are quite great enough at the present moment. As the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, has alluded in his Motion to the debate which took place in 1883, perhaps I may be allowed to read a few lines from the speech delivered on that occasion by the noble Duke the late Duke of Cambridge, who was then Commander-in-Chief. The noble Duke said— The noble Marquess at the head of the War Office and the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War were endeavouring to find the best means of bringing the Line up to its full strength. Until that had been done they could not force recruiting for the Militia, because by so doing they would injure recruiting for the Line. I venture to think those words from His late Royal Highness will find general agreement in your Lordships' House this evening.

I now come to the last argument which I would bring to your Lordships' notice as to our objection to the ballot. It has been characterised by the noble Earl as fear of the voter. We object to the I noble Lord's proposal because we have the strongest evidence—it is stronger now than ever before—that the ballot would be very unpopular in the country. We have the evidence that was given before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. The question was asked of eighteen witnesses whether they thought that the ballot would be popularly or unpopularly received in this country. Four of the witnesses answered that they thought it would be popular, and fourteen in the negative, and I would remind your Lordships who those witnesses were. First there was the noble Earl himself, who told the Commission about his 400 circulars. I do not think, my Lords, that the 400 individuals the noble Earl wrote to can possibly be fairly claimed as representing the whole of the nation. But still the noble Earl said, and his experience is greater than anybody else's, that wherever he had spoken in favour of the Militia ballot he had heard no word of hostility. I presume he excepted your Lordships' House, because I believed the noble Earl has asked your Lordships on several occasions, without success, to affirm the principle of the ballot. The second witness who said he thought the ballot would not be unpopular was Sir William Nicholson, a great authority, of course, who opined that the trades unions would like it as a help towards the solution of the question of the unemployed. The third witness was Lord Methuen, who said he had not noticed a feeling against the ballot for the Militia; and, lastly there was Colonel Howarth, of Lancashire, who said he thought Lancashire would dislike it at first, but would get to like it m the end. Not very strong testimony perhaps my Lords, in favour of the popularity of the ballot! The fourteen witnesses who said that they thought the ballot would be very unpopular in the country included Sir Evelyn Wood, Sir W. F. Butler. Sir Henry Hildyard, Mr. E. W. Bur-bridge (General Manager of Harrod's Btores, Ltd.), Mr. George F. Shee (Secretary of the National Service League), and Colonels of regiments from Inverness, Glasgow, Lancashire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Surrey, two from South Wales, and one from Ireland. That is testimony from all parts of the country, and testimony which, I think, your Lordships will admit is very valuable in this particular. It is because, in addition to the reasons I have given, that I think the Militia ballot would be unpopular in the country, and rightly unpopular because unjust, that I ask your Lordships to vote against the noble Earl's Motion

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, I am sure that no one in this House will resent the Motion of my noble friend. We all in this House admire the man who has strong convictions, and who, notwithstanding opposition and defeat, still holds to those convictions and brings them forward as opportunity offers. We admire, I need not say, the vigour and the energy and the eloquence he displays, qualities which in a young man we might be proud of, but which when coming from him we admire all the more. The noble Viscount referred to rumours that were current with regard to what His Majesty's Government intended to do with regard to the Militia. I deprecate altogether fastening any argument on rumours. I do not intend to do so. I feel that this is a matter so grave and so important that a statement must come from the Government itself before we attach any importance to the rumour set at out in regard to this matter. I do not blame my noble friend for having referred to it, but I think it right to state what view I hold on such a matter.

The noble Earl who spoke so admirably for the War Office dealt with this question, and I heard from him for the first time that in another place the Prime Minister had announced that the Secretary for War would declare the policy of the Government on this subject next Thursday. I think it right, as here representing the Opposition, to claim for this House the privilege and right and opportunity of expressing also their opinion and of having a statement made to them on this subject. On a matter of finance we know our position. We know we are not able to criticise in detail or to throw out in detail any measure of finance. But this is not a question of finance. No doubt eventually it will effect finance, but it is a principle of great national importance. It covers a great deal of ground. It will lay—I was going to say the foundations, but there have been so many foundations laid and ruthlessly torn up by the Government who have laid them—it will lay down a great policy again; and it is only due to your Lordships' House that you should have an opportunity of hearing from the responsible representative of the Government what the scheme is, and that your Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Therefore, I ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, to respond to this appeal which I make, and to say that he will give this early opportunity.

I now come to a matter exceedingly painful to me, because it concerns a near and dear friend of mine, who has lately achieved a high position at the War Office on the Military Council and who has within the last few days made a speech. I have the highest regard and affection for Sir Neville Lyttelton, and it is painful to me to refer in what must be, I am afraid, a somewhat critical mood to what he has stated. I hope that, if he has made what I fear may be a mistake in dealing with matters as he has done, it is from the novelty of the position he holds and to his not, perhaps, being aware what, as I at least think— and I do not know that the Government will differ from me—is the constitutional position in which he stands as a member of the Army Council. As the leading Military Adviser of the Secretary of State for War, he made a very important speech on this question last Thursday. The noble Earl has referred to it, and he has also referred to certain explanations that have teen given. But what do they amount to? The explanations certainly amount to this—that, though the question may not be imminent, the Chief Military Adviser of the Secretary of State has declared opinions which certainly, so far as I know, do not agree with those of His Majesty's Government. No doubt there have been two letters written by him explaining his speech; but I confess I do not think myself that these letters materially alter the situation. He alludes in the first instance to the scheme which His Majesty's Government were about to announce, and, as an old soldier, he says that he looks with doubt upon it and has considerable fear of what may be the result.

I venture to think that this brings before us in a very marked—in a very serious —way the position of the Army Council. I do not know exactly whether the Army Council is based on the model of the Board of Admiralty. In my opinion, every member of the Board of Admiralty, as a member of the Government, is not entitled to make, and does wrong in making, a statement on a question on which he differs from the Government. I am afraid very much that Sir Neville Lyttelton may have exceeded the proper limits by stating that his views differed from those of His Majesty's Government. I have made these remarks with the greatest possible pain, but I hope that Sir Neville Lyttelton's action has arisen from a misconception on his part of his position. I hope we may have some full explanation of Sir Neville Lyttelton's views. I am sure that he is a man of such honour and good sense that he will be ready to understand his position; for I feel it is of the greatest importance with regard to this new branch of administration at the War Office that they and the public should understand exactly how they stand in regard to making independent speeches on such important subjects, and that a member of the Military Council cannot speak, while holding that office, as a private individual. I have made these remarks with every wish to be perfectly fair to my friend and relative, and I feel quite sure that his action arose from the novelty of his position. As I hope we are to have an important debate on the subject of the Army, I shall reserve my opinion on a great many questions which belong to that subject. I hope my noble friend will not divide the House.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Certainly I shall.

EARL SPENCER

Well, if he does it will be my personal duty to vote against him, because I do not think it would be possible for anyone reading the division list not to infer that those who voted with my noble friend were in favour of the ballot or in favour of conscription.

THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I have heard with great relief the announcement of the noble Earl opposite that he had no intention of pressing us for a premature statement on the Government Army scheme. It would obviously be unfair, both to the authors of the scheme and to your Lordships' House, that it should be disclosed by fragments in the course of a debate like this. But we admit the reasonableness of the noble Earl's demand that your Lordships should be given a full opportunity of considering and discussing the Government scheme, although I do not think I can specify at this moment the precise form in which the opportunity may be given or the particular date at which it may be afforded to the House. I regret that we should have been obliged to postpone to a comparatively late period of the session the disclosure of our views on this important subject; but I do appeal with some confidence to the indulgence of your Lordships, because I think it can scarcely be denied that the task on which the War Office has been engaged is one of the most difficult tasks which has ever; fallen to the lot of a public Department.

We are endeavouring to reconstitute one of the most complicated Army systems known to any country. We are endeavouring to do so by the light of recently acquired experience and in view of new principles which have not been sufficiently recognised until very recently. The difficulty is increased by I the all-pervading question of expense, which has to be taken into account when we consider the rapid growth of the Army and Navy Estimates during the last few years; and last, but not least, we have endeavoured to do these things amidst the pressure and turmoil of a busy session of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will not think that we have been playing with this subject or trifling with the House because we have not been able to come before you with our proposals at an earlier moment.

The noble Earl devoted a considerable portion of his remarks,to a speech delivered by Sir Neville Lyttelton. Let me say at once that, as a question of general principle, I agree with the noble Earl opposite in thinking that speeches on these subjects by military officials, holding high positions, are not desirable, and are, as far as possible, to be avoided; but in this case Sir Neville Lyttelton was placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. He was taking part in one of those festivities in which we all have to take part from time to time. He was called upon unexpectedly to make a speech, and he spoke, I am sure, with the utmost frankness, straight from his heart. But did he really do anything that amounted to or could to represented as throwing over his official chief? He admitted he had misgivings as to the Government scheme; but if you can show me anyone who will put forward a scheme of Army reorganisation and will say that he does so without misgivings, I shall wonder at, but I shall not admire, the confidence of that individual.

EARL SPENCER

He would not say it.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

If, in those circumstances, Sir Neville Lyttelton's faith in the War Office schema was the kind of faith which is sometimes represented as connected with honest doubt, I do not think we can greatly blame him. But Sir Neville Lyttelton, so far from saying or suggesting anything to give the idea that he was not at one with the Secretary of State's scheme, has most distinctly intimated that he approves of it, and thinks it the best scheme which can be devised in the circumstances. It is true that he made the reservation that in his opinion a really satisfactory scheme such as, I presume, a soldier and non-politician would approve could not be arrived at without some form of compulsion; but he expressly intimated that he regarded compulsion as being for the time out of the question, and he avoided putting any such proposal forward. I, therefore, do not think that Sir Neville Lyttelton's observations were of a kind that merits animadversion on the part of your Lordships.

There is one other matter as to which I should like to say a word. The noble Earl at the Table and Lord Newton both quoted me as an authority in support of the Militia ballot, and they cited the fact that I had introduced into your Lordships' House a Militia Ballot Bill as conclusive evidence on that point. I feel bound to refresh the otherwise excellent memories of the noble Lords as to the circumstances in which that Bill was laid on the Table of the House. We had had many discussions on the ballot, and I had been constrained by the eloquent arguments of the noble Earl to admit that the machinery of the ballot was in an obsolete and unsatisfactory condition. The ballot, as the noble Earl knew, was, and is, the law of the land, although it is suspended from year to year by special legislation; and I was bound to admit that, so long as the ballot was the law of the land, it was reasonable to ask that the machinery for enforcing it should be in such a condition as to render it reasonably possible that, if we had ever to resort to the ballot, that machinery could be made to work.

I took the advice of my legal advisers on the subject and I introduced the Bill, expressly guarding myself against the suggestion that I was in favour of the ballot; and I think I am right in saving that the noble Earl twitted me not a little on my want of courage in taking that course. I do not think the omens are at this moment propitious for proposals for introducing the ballot. It has received a rude shaking from the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. At any rate it is out of the question that we should at a moment like this take up a proposal to introduce the ballot. I will not again travel over the ground which the noble Earl who represents the War Office has so fully occupied. I have listened, as we all have, with admiration] to the speech of the noble Earl, and I think the debates which he elicits on occasions like this serve a good purpose, for they enable us to consider these matters and to hear the views of noble Lords who are connected with the Militia and take an interest in its affairs. But I am afraid that for all practical purposes the Motion which he has put on the Paper, and which, if it means anything, is a suggestion in favour of the ballot is one which we cannot possibly accept, and if it is pressed to a division we shall have to vote against it.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I merely quoted Sir Neville Lyttelton as showing that he was not happy about the new Gov-ernment scheme of Army reform. As to the etiquette of his making such a speech, in view of his position on the Defence Com-mittee, I know nothing. But at any rate we know this, that whatever the measure of the Government may be which is to be produced on Thursday next, it does not make the first military authority on the Defence Committee very happy. We have heard from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the War Office have got a most difficult and complicated task in re-constituting the Army. I have always held that it is the simplest thing in the world if the Government would only do their duty. We are the only nation in the world, civil sed or uncivilised, which has a military system which is not en-forced by those who are responsible for the safety of the nation. As to the sup-posed need of producing a measure which would not be unpopular, I have new known the public and the nation refuse that which the responsible officers of the Crown, answerable for the safety of the nation, told them was necessary, no matter whether it was disagreeable to them or not; and on that position I stand. I thank the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for the kind way in which he spoke about myself.

As to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne being quoted by me as in favour of the ballot, I would explain that it a rose from my noble friend having said in this House three years ago that the power of the ballot in a case of emergency was a power with which he would not readily dispense. I then urged that it would not do to wait till an emergency did arise before beginning to deal with an Act which my noble friend had admitted was obsolete. I then pressed him to bring forward a Bill which, as long as the ballot remained the law of the land, would enable it to be put in force, and the result was that my noble friend brought in a Bill, but he put it down, not as a measure to make an obsolete Act operative, but as showing the sort of Bill that the Government would bring in to make the ballot effective when emergency arose. You have not the courage to repeal an Act which you say you cannot enforce because it is unpopular, but you do not make it so that you can enforce it in case of emergency. The position taken up by the Government is an absolutely untenable one. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary quoted MR. Shee. I have had a correspondence with that gentleman, who wrote to me, objecting to the Militia ballot on the ground that it was invidious. I am still waiting for an answer to my last letter to MR. Shee, in which I in substance said— You call the ballot a hardship, while I should call it a hardship if, needlessly, the

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.

whole country had to go like foreigners into compulsory Militia service, of which the ballot, like decimation is, an alleviation."

I feel so strongly upon this that I shall divide the House as an expression of my own opinion that the Militia ought to be kept up to its full strength and should be so raised that it does not compete with the Regular Army for voluntary recruits. Your Lordships' House is, as regards this Motion, in exactly the same position as it was twenty years ago. Then, as I said in my opening remarks, a Motion was brought forward in the same spirit as the one I have moved to-night. On that occasion both Front Benches were in combination against it. They are also combined against it to-night; but, notwithstanding that, I will still hope there is independence and public spirit enough in your Lordships' House to secure for the Motion substantial support.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-contents, 59.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshall.) Dartrey, E. Newtown, L. [Teller.]
Argyll, D. Egerton, E. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Richmond, D. Playfair, L.
Hardinge, V. Rosmead, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Sherborne, L.
Chelmsford, L. Stanmore, L.
Abingdon, E. Monck, L. (V. Monck.) Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss) [Teller.]
Bathurst, E. Muncaster, L.
Carlisle, E. Muskerry, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Lauderdale, E. Glanusk, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.) Mayo, E. Hawkesbury, L.
Romney, E. Heneage, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. P ivy Seal.) Selborne, E. James, L.
Devonshire, D. Spencer, E. Kenyon, L.
Crafton, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Killanin, L.
Marlborough, D. Westmeath, E. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Portland, D. Yarborough, E. Lawrence, L.
Ailesbury, M. Churchill, V. [Tetter.] Leigh, L.
Bath, M. Cross, V. Lovat, L.
Camden, M. Hutchinson, V. (E Donough-more.) Lyveden, L.
Lansdowne, M. Monkswell, L.
Sidmouth, V. Ravens worth, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Ribblesdale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Sandhurst, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Barrymore, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Belper, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Carrington, E. Brassey, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Craven, E. Braye, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Crewe, E. Calthorpe, L. Windsor, L.
Dartmouth, E. Cottesloe, L. Wolverton, L.
Hardwicke, E. Ellenborough, L.