HL Deb 17 July 1905 vol 149 cc833-6
THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I rise "To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the presentdistrictor divisional organisation of the Army, Militia, and Volunteers in the matter of commands, transport, and armaments, including big moveable guns of position, and as regards their readiness in all ways to take the field and be transported at shortest notice, and within what time, to the point on the east coast nearest to their district or divisional headquarters."

A very few words will explain the reason why I have placed this notice on the Paper. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that a week ago to-day a Resolution which I had the privilege of submitting to the House was accepted by the Government and adopted unanimously by your Lordships. The latter part of that Resolution declared that— It is needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile lauding on our shores. The Question I am asking follows, as a matter of course, from the adoption of that Resolution. "At all times" naturally includes the present time, and I think your Lordships must feel, especially after the speech of Lord Lovat, that we ought to know exactly the present state of matters as regards home defence. That is my reason for putting down this notice. I have no doubt that the Answer which I shall receive will not be satisfactory, and as the Question is so important I reserve to myself the right, in that event, of bringing the subject again before your Lordships at a later date.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, I confess at once that I have had some difficulty in understanding this Question, but I gather that the noble Earl wishes a great deal of detailed information as to our present mobilisation scheme. It is obvious that it would not be in the public interest that we should give details of our mobilisation scheme. All the information concerning the organisation of the military forces at home and abroad which it is considered desirable to make public is contained in the monthly Army List. There are six main commands in the United Kingdom and five in India, including the Burmah command. In peace, eight field Army divisions are organised at home and ten in India. Four cavalry brigades are formed in the United Kingdom. There are, in addition, in the United Kingdom ten coast defence commands and thirteen territorial districts, whose commanders and staffs are additional to the divisional and brigade commands. Details regarding the mobilisation of the field army and of defences are confidential, and no information can be published regarding the arrangements for organising in war at home or abroad bodies of troops other than those which are shown in the Army List. Questions of armament are also treated as confidential.

*LORD HARRIS

My Lords, I did not gather that the Question addressed to the noble Earl referred only to mobilisation, and I would suggest that information should be given as to the altered conditions of the various commands. Under the old arrangement the general officer commanding a district commanded all branches of the Army—Regular, Auxiliary, cavalry, artillery, engineers, infantry, and supply. I am told that all that has been changed, and that the general officer commanding a district may have nothing whatever to do with cavalry quartered in his district, nothing whatever to do with artillery quartered in his district, and nothing whatever to do, I suppose, with engineers, but certainly nothing whatever to do with Yeomanry or Militia artillery. I can understand that the divisional commander may have a good deal to do with all these, but the officer who used to be the general officer commanding a district may now be only an officer commanding an infantry division. This appears to me to be a very remarkable change. I do not suggest for a moment that it is not an advisable one. I have the greatest confidence in the military authorities devising a good scheme; but it seemed to me that the noble Earl's reply was not very complete, and referred only to mobilisation, and not to the subject of organisation.

I am told that in one divisional command there is a fortress, and the general officer who has been commanding in the local military area, having at one time had command of cavalry and artillery as well as other branches, has now no control in that fortress over certain garrison batteries that are there. For instance, the canteen is under his command, but if the garrison gunners kick up a row in the canteen he has no control over them. If a Militia artillery regiment is assembled in the neighbourhood for its month's training, and if some of the men are arrested by his picket he has no authority over them. There is now, I suppose, a fortress commander, a special commander of engineers, a special commander of Yeomanry, and all those will be responsible, I take it, to a divisional commander. But the officer who was commanding in the local military area has now nothing like the combined command he once had. It seems that the number of general officers who are now exercising command over several branches of the service must be very limited indeed. I have only ventured to interpose these few remarks because it seemed to me that the reply of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary did not deal with the whole of the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Earl.

The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, I am afraid I do not recognise in the Question addressed to me any request that I should enter into the details of reorganisation of command. If the noble Lord will put the Questions on the Paper to which he desires an Answer I shall be happy to look into the matter and give him the information.

The EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I consider the Answer I have received unsatisfactory, because it evaded altogether the direct Question which I put to the noble Earl, who rode off on the question of secrecy. I do not desire in- formation as to secret arrangements. His Majesty's Government have undertaken to be always and at all times in that state of home defence that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores. I only desire to be assured that the arrangements are such as would fulfil those conditions. Does the noble Earl imagine that the Military Attachés do not know all the War Office secrets, and how many guns and men they have got? Of course they do; and it is nothing but throwing dust in the eyes of the nation to give an Answer such as the noble Earl has given to-day. I shall take an early opportunity of recurring to the question.