§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Under-Secretary for War how Mr. Arnold-Forster's statement that the intended "allocation of the Volunteer forces in view of the policy that has been laid before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister; and in view of the present strength and disposition of the Fleet" is to be reconciled with the Resolution on home defence accepted by the Government and passed unanimously by this House on July 10th last.
The noble Earl said, My Lords, I am sorry to trouble my noble friend again, but your Lordships will recollect that on the 10th of last month this House passed a Resolution to the following effect—
That, in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence, and, inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee 588 us against so-called hostile 'raids,' it is the more needful that our land forces should, at all times, be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores.That Motion was accepted by my noble friend, Lord Donoughmore, on behalf of the Government. Yet, to my surprise, I read in the newspapers a few days ago a statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. Arnold-Forster, in which the Secretary of State said—We have to consider the allocation of the Volunteer forces in view of the policy which has been laid before the House by the Prime.Minister. That is a very delicate and difficult matter, and I am not sure that it is advisable to set out the whole strategical disposition of the British Army in a public document.Then Mr. Ormsby-Gore asked—Is it not the fact that there have been very specific mobilisation orders issued to these Volunteer corps?This is Mr. Arnold-Forster's reply to that—I am perfectly aware of that; but there must be a change. A large number of Volunteer artillery corps were appropriated to the fixed defences of London; but the whole of that scheme is now considered to be unnecessary.And at this, we are informed in The Times report, there were Opposition ironical cheers and laughter.In view of the present strength and disposition of the Fleet that arrangement is considered unnecessary, and therefore it is necessary to have a reallocation of Volunteer artillery corps.What was the policy of the Prime Minister to which Mr. Arnold-Forster here referred? It is contained in these words—Serious invasion of these islands is not a possibility which we need consider.It was on the strength of that statement that I moved my Resolution. I ventured to traverse that view altogether. I gave reasons for so doing, and the House accepted those reasons and agreed that it would be contrary to the interests of the Empire to trust to the Navy alone, and that, beyond that, we should always be at all times in such a state of defence at home that no nation would ever think of a hostile landing in any form on our shores. Here is an instance of inconsistency on the part of the War Office. They accepted my Resolution on the 10th of last month, and yet you have 589 the Secretary of State for War going back, only a few days ago, to Mr. Balfour's policy and allocating the troops, not according to the Resolution of your Lordships' House which was accepted by the Government and generally approved, but according to the speech of Mr. Balfour, which, I must say, on the whole has not been generally approved by the nation or by anyone, and certainly not by Lord Roberts. I should like to see the matter set right, otherwise it may be thought that the War Office is now a sort of autocracy, which ignores absolutely what takes place in your Lordships' House and also the action of the Government in relation thereto, because the noble Marquess the Leader of this House also accepted my Resolution, and thus we have this House playing the part of the Russian Zemstov to Mr. Arnold-Forster's Tzar. I hope my noble friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give some explanation of what at the present moment looks inexplicable.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUHHMORE)My Lords, the noble Earl asks me to explain what he considers an inconsistency between the Resolution which he persuaded your Lordships to pass unanimously a month ago and some remarks by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in another place the other day. I think the noble Earl's Resolution and the remarks of my right hon. friend, based on the speech of the Prime Minister on May 11th, are absolutely consistent with each other. The noble Earl lays great stress upon the fact that the Auxiliary Forces should be organised. We agree with him in the necessity for that organisation. I regret that the noble Earl, in making the quotation which he read from the speech of the Prime Minister on the subject of serious invasion, did not carry the quotation a little further. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that this is what the Prime Minister said—
We assume land defences; we assume Volunteers; we assume Militia; we assume a residue of Regulars.… The difficulty of invasion is primarily naval; the magnitude of the naval difficulty depends largely upon the size of the invading army which has to be con- 590 veyed to our shores and protected during disembarkation; the size of the invading army depends chiefly on the resistance it will meet with when it comes to be landed; the resistance it will meet with depends on the number and efficiency of the troops who will be called on to resist it; so that an effective home force is assumed in the very statement of the problem we are attempting to solve.I think that rather lengthy extract from the Prime Minister's speech completely answers the contention of the noble Earl. I do not deny that after the consideration the subject has received, the scheme for the utilisation of the forces at home has been modified, and that it is not considered necessary to put all our trust in the detailed and complicated scheme for the defence of London which was drawn up I do not know how many years ago. To that extent, as I have already on more than one occasion explained to your Lordships, it is necessary to modify the scheme for the mobilisation of the Auxiliary Forces in the United Kingdom, and that is, undoubtedly, what my right hon. friend the Secretary of State was referring to in the Answer he gave to supplementary Questions the other day. I claim that there was nothing in any way inconsistent with the Resolution which was moved by the noble Earl in this House, and I can assure the noble Earl that no discourtesy either to himself or to the House was meant in the Answers referred to.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSMr. Arnold -Forster gives as his excuse for the change in the allocation of the forces the fact that there is no occasion to defend London, and he gives as his reason for that conclusion the policy of the Prime Minister and the present strength and disposition of the Fleet.