§ House in Committee (according to order).
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2.
LORD MONKSWELLin moving the first of his Amendments to Clause 2, said he wished to point out the very serious change that the clause introduced into the conditions of service in the Army. What Clause 2 did was to take away absolutely the power that the Reservist now possessed of saying whether he would or would not consent to serve in any other arm or branch of the service than that in which he had enlisted and served with the colours. It was a very serious thing to deprive Reservists of that right, and in the present condition of recruiting it was a very unwise measure, unless it was absolutely necessary for military efficiency. Service in the various branches of the Army differed very greatly in its conditions. It differed also in pay. He did not doubt for a moment that it would be convenient to the War Office to deprive the Reservist of any voice as to what branch of the Army he was to serve in, but a good many things might be convenient for 959 the War Office which, under a voluntary system of enlistment, could not possibly be allowed. No doubt conscription itself would be very convenient for the War Office.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he was glad to hear the noble Earl deny that. He knew there were a good many people who contended that it would be convenient, and he was delighted to have got that answer from the noble Earl. If the noble Earl told him that it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the service, that the War Office should have the power of deciding for themselves, without reference to the wishes of the Reservist, in what branch of the Army he should be placed, he would suggest that the War Office should seriously consider what was the least amount of interference with the liberty of the Reservist that they could possibly do with. Under the proposal in the Bill the War Office could do anything. They could make a Reservist in the cavalry serve in the infantry, and an infantry Reservist serve in the cavalry. The noble Earl had, on behalf of the War Office, disclaimed any such intention. If that was so, why did they take powers greater than those they intended to exercise—powers that were almost certain to be very injurious to recruiting? There were an enormous number of men who enlisted in the cavalry because they were fond of horses, and there was very little difficulty generally in getting cavalry recruits; but if cavalry recruits knew that under this new system they might be compelled, if called out as Reservists, to serve in any branch that the War Office might think proper, they would think twice before, enlisting. There were, on the other hand, many who enlisted as foot soldiers who would not enlist in a mounted branch. The noble Earl had said that the great object of the War Office was to prevent delay. If that was their object, it appeared to him, having regard to Clause 1, that they were straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, because in Clause 1 960 it was suggested that Reservists might be entitled to reside in Australia.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREAustralia is especially exempted. The self-governing Colonies mentioned in the Bill are exempted from the operation of Clause 1.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid that was so as regarded direct enlistment into the Reserve. But under Clause 1 regulations might be made which permitted a Reservist to live in Australia.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid that obviously it took much less time to get a man's consent in England than to bring him back from Australia. What he asked was that the War Office should not put any conditions that were not absolutely necessary in the way of recruiting, and that they should only ask for the powers they intended to exercise.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 8, after the word 'repealed' to insert the words 'provided that no cavalry Reservist shall, without his consent, be appointed or transferred to any unmounted branch of the service except the Remount Department, and that no Reservist in any unmounted branch of the service shall, without his consent, be appointed or transferred to any mounted branch of the service.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that as the law at present stood the War Office could, if they liked, "attach" a cavalry Reservist to an infantry battation. They did not do it more than they could help, and it was obvious that it was a very objectionable thing to have to do, though it was done on several occasions during the late war. As regarded the Amendment, he could assure the noble Lord that it was not a new proposal. Indeed, the Amendment the noble Lord had put down was drafted in the War Office and proposed to be inserted in the Bill some six or eight months ago, and was only cut out because they found it would be absolutely unworkable in practice. In theory he confessed he thought it excellent, but in 961 practice it would be unworkable for this reason, that they could not define what was a mounted and what was an unmounted branch. The difficulty occurred, for instance, in the Royal Field Artillery, the Army Service Corps, the Army Veterinary Department, and in other branches where some of the men were mounted and some unmounted; and if the Amendment were adopted it would lead to endless confusion. Again, it might even be held, if the Amendment was incorporated in the Bill, that it would be illegal to use an infantry Reservist in a mounted infantry unit, which, of course, was very far from the object his noble friend had in view. He had a number of other examples, all of which went to show that, excellent as was the intention of the noble Lord, the Amendment would be unworkable. The prime object in re-employment of a cavalry Reservist was to use him as a cavalryman, but cavalry Reservists were only human. On joining the Reserve they very often put on flesh, and when they came back on mobilisation were too fat to ride, and it was necessary to use them for some unmounted work. The military authorities could, of course, primarily use them in the Remount Department, but there were other departments, such as the Veterinary Department, in which they would be very useful; but he was afraid that if the Amendment was accepted the services of the fat cavalry Reservist would be lost to the nation. What was aimed at in this Bill was to give more elasticity. If a man was fitted to serve in any particular branch he did not think any harm would be done by asking him to serve in that branch. As regarded the point referred to of different branches getting different pay, he was informed that provision could be made in the pay warrant that no man should suffer pecuniarily, if, for national interests, he should be used in a different regiment. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he would not press the Amendment after what the noble Earl had said. He thought, however, that Clause 2 would have such a disastrous effect on recruiting that if he 962 could get any support he would divide the House against it.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD MONKSWELLmoved to omit the words "without his consent." He contended that a man who was now enlisted should not have his status in any way interfered with. He had enlisted under certain terms, and it was clearly unjust that those terms should be altered. The effect of retaining these words would be that while a man was serving with the colours pressure would be brought to get him to consent to be transferred.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words 'without his consent.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not quite see the practical use of the Amendment. If they deleted the words "without his consent," it was still open to him to give his consent, and he would be no better off in the event of pressure being brought upon him. He did not think it was necessary to assume that pressure would be brought. After all, they were not legislating for the present but for the future, and he did not think that commanding officers, with a view to some future eventuality, were going to join in a great plot to try and obtain this consent from men when they were joining the Reserve.
§ LORD HENEAGEthought the discussion had taken place on a wrong issue. The real question was not whether an infantryman should be compelled to serve in a cavalry regiment, or vice versa, but whether any man who had enlisted in the Army and afterwards gone into the Reserve should be compelled to serve in any other arm or branch of the service than that in which he originally enlisted. As the law now stood, no man without his consent could be compelled, on rejoining the standard, to serve in any other branch than that in which he served originally. The Amendment which had just been withdrawn would not have met the case, because even if it had been inserted in the Bill, an artilleryman might still be called upon to serve as a cavalryman or infantryman, and an engineer might be called upon to serve in any other 963 branch of the service. He thought it was distinctly unfair that men who had joined a scientific corps should be transferred to any other branch, the pay of which was less and the drill of which they probably did not know. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary had said, fairly enough, that nobody would wish to put a man into a regiment in which he did not wish to serve. But let them remember what took place only three or four years ago in the excitement of mobilisation. Chief officers of districts did not know who the men were, and in the hurry men might be put into branches of the service which it would be extremely unfair to place them in. He objected to the clause altogether. He believed it was an unfair and mischievous alteration of the law, and one which would do a great deal to injure recruiting and to render the service extremely unpopular. At the present moment there was difficulty in getting recruits, and he did not want to see a clause pass which would make recruiting worse and which was unfair to the old soldier.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Lord's observations were, I understand, directed to showing that the whole clause was bad, and he would like it expunged from the Bill. But I thought the point we were discussing was the particular Amendment moved by Lord Monkswell, to strike out the words "without his consent" from the penultimate line of the clause. The presence of the words in that part of the clause seems to me to be harmless and easily accounted for. We are making a change in the law, a change which is desirable in order to give the War Office an amount of freedom in posting these Reservists which they do not at present possess, and it is very properly provided that this change shall not apply to men who are how serving. That seems to me to be a necessary exception, and the exception to that again is that in cases where men now serving give their consent to transfer of the sort contemplated by the clause, the transfer may take place. That seems to be a common-sense and business-like arrangement.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid his point was that if the words "without his consent" were left in, the military authori- 964 ties would be able to ask a soldier whether he would or would not contract himself out of the power he possessed. He wanted to prevent that.
§ THF MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWhere does the noble Lord find words suggestive of the idea that while a man is serving, and before the time comes for him to go to the Reserve, the military authorities are to be in a position to coerce him into contracting himself out of his right? That seems to me to be a far-fetched interpretation.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the time at which men would be asked for their consent would be when they were called up for mobilisation.
LORD MONKSWELLthought it would be better to leave the law exactly as it was rather than introduce words which might be a source of difficulty.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONagreed with his noble friend Lord Monkswell on this point. It seemed to him very important not to make any change in regard to the term of service of men who had actually entered the Army. Even the insertion of the words "without his consent" did make a change in the terms under which the men were at present serving, and he suggested to the Government that it would be safer not to change the existing law.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEPerhaps noble Lords opposite will allow us to consider the matter between now and the time when the Bill comes up again. There may be an inwardness about the words which we do not quite understand.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD MONKSWELLthen moved to leave out the words "belonging to the Army Reserve" and to insert "enlisted." He believed the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was prepared to accept that Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'belonging to the Army Reserve' and to insert the word 'enlisted.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas mot prepared to accept the Amendment. He said it was the old, old story that the War Office were not to be allowed to do anything for a number of years. It was simply putting off the time. He would much prefer that the clause should remain as it was.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid it appeared to him to be a gross breach of faith to tell a man who had served a few years with the colours that he would be transferred to the Reserve under totally different conditions from those which he understood when he enlisted. He would certainly divide the House if the noble Earl did not accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would consider the point if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ LORD HENEAGEmoved to delete Clause 2. He did so for the reasons he had already given.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, to leave out Clause 2."—(Lord Heneage.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the War Office could already do everything that they were now asking power to do. They could do it by "attaching" men, and they did it repeatedly during the war. He thought it better, however, that a thing of this sort, which was obviously in the interests of the public, should be allowed to be done legally rather than by a legal fiction.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.