RESERVWE FORCES BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 June 1904)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, the first object of this Bill is to facilitate the residence of Reservists in India and the Colonies. Some 3,000 Reservists are now living in India and the Colonies, but at present we have absolutely no hold on them whatever. We have no power of compelling them to return to the colours in the case of mobilization. This Bill gives legal sanction to their living in the Colonies, and also provides the necessary machinery for enforcing liability for service while they are residing aboard. It also authorises direct enlistment into the Reserve in India and the Colonies. Your Lordships are aware that we now enlist certain classes of men into the Reserve direct, such as employees in the Post Office, employees under railway companies, and other people possessing 5 technical knowledge; the Government of India are anxious to have facilities given to them to enlist into the Reserve direct in India, and the Colonial Office are anxious that they should have the same power in the Crown Colonies.
The object of Clause 2 is to amend Section 14 of the Reserve Forces Act of 1882. This section prohibits the appointment or transference of a Reservist to a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served, and Clause 2 provides that these words shall be repealed. The provision, as it exists, is not of any great service to the man in helping him to get back to the unit in which he served whilst he was in the Army, but at the same time it considerably hampers the authorities on mobilisation. Take, for instance, the Remount Department. This department, which is a very small one in time of peace, is necessarily a large department in the time of war, and, properly, it should be filled up in war by Reservists from the Army Service Corps. But practically the whole of the Reservists of the Army Service Corps will be required in the time of war as drivers. Consequently we have no nucleus left from which to fill the Remount Department in time of war. We are practically certain to have a very large number of Cavalry Reservists who would be available in time of war, and it would be no hardship whatever to ask them to serve in the Remount Department if for the moment we did not want them in the Cavalry. We shall, of course, make sure that no man will suffer pecuniary loss by such transfer. That is practically the whole of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to read it a second time.

LORD MONKSWELL
My Lords, from the explanation of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary, I take it that Clause 1 does not expressly allow any self-governing colony direct enlistment into the Reserve, and has nothing to do with transfer from the Army to the Reserve.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
That is so.

LORD MONKSWELL
Under this Bill a man may have liberty to reside in Canada, and I suppose in that case it would not be necessary for him to come over to England to be transferred to the Reserve. He may be transferred in Canada. I confess that Clause 2 of this Bill raises points of very considerable difficulty. The noble Earl said that the object of this clause was to do away with the necessity for a man's consent before he can be transferred to a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served. The object was, he explained, to enable cavalrymen to be compulsorily put into the Remount Department. I do, not know that cavalrymen would have any objection to that; but the clause goes a great deal further. A cavalryman might be put in the Infantry, or the Artillery, or any other branch of the service. If the object stated by the noble Earl is the only object, it should be so set out, and the Bill should be so limited. The Army is not very popular now. There is difficulty in securing enlistment, and I do not think it will conduce to the increased popularity of the Army if a man on joining knows that when he goes into the Reserve, and is called out on active service, he may be compelled to go into some branch of the Army in which he did not wish to serve. I think this clause in one direction goes too far, and in another does not go far enough. It says that this repeal of the power of a man to choose whether he will go into a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served shall not, without his consent, affect any man belonging to the Army Reserve at the date of the passing of this Act. I think your Lordships should go a good deal further than that if you do not want to get into difficulties with men already in the Army. Take the case of a man who has enlisted under the impression that when he got into the Army Reserve he would be able to remain in the same branch of the service in which he had enlisted, if he chose to do so. Now you take away that choice, and he may 7 say he has been enlisted under false pretences. If Clause 2 is to pass at all, it should only be made to affect persons who enlist after the passing of the Act. The clause itself seems to me to be injudicious, except in so far as it may be absolutely necessary, because it will tend, I am afraid, to make the Army unpopular. I hope that when the Bill gets into Committee, the noble Earl in charge of it will consider my objections to Clause 2.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
I am glad my noble friend recognises that the points he has raised are obviously Committee points. I certainly shall be very glad to discuss them in Committee with him. The main point that has compelled us to bring forward the Bill is that the present system is too inelastic, and we want to remedy that.