THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, with reference to the six days annual musketry training proposed for the Infantry Militia, in pursuance of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill—(1) What pay officers, non-commissioned officers, and men will receive during the six days; (2) Will officers, non-commissioned officers, and men receive travelling allowances when travelling between their homes and the range; (3) Whether musketry training will at all times be carried out under the superintendence of an officer; (4) Whether similar penalties will be en- forced for non-attendance at musketry as are enforced for non-attendance at annual trainings; (5) Whether officers, non- commissioned officers, and men failing to attend for musketry will be retained on the strength of their battalion. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any remarks in putting these Questions, which explain themselves. They are an amplification of certain Questions which I placed on the Paper some days ago, and which I postponed at the request of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary. I have thought it right to put them down to-day, as the Report stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill comes on to-morrow, and I hope I shall not be thought unreasonable in pressing for Answers now.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTS-MOUTH)My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have no complaint to make with regard to the course he has taken, and I thank him for his courtesy in postponing the Questions. As regards the first Question, when the Infantry Militia become the Special Contingent the pay during the six days will be at Army rates, and officers will receive, in addition, the Militia mess allowance of 4s. a day. The Answer to the second Question is in the affirmative. Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men will receive travelling expenses in such cases. As to the third Question, musketry training will be carried out under the 652 superintendence of an officer except in exceptional circumstances, where for some reason or other an officer is not available. There may be such cases, but we do not think they will be frequent. With regard to the fourth Question, men will be liable to penalties, but whether they will be precisely similar has not yet been decided. The general conditions of annual training are not exactly the same as those attaching to the proposed musketry training, and as the enforcement of penalties will usually rest with the commanding officer, I hope your Lordships will understand that certain discretionary power must be allowed him to deal with each case on its merits. As to the fifth Question, such men will be retained on the strength of their battalion, otherwise if a man wished to get his discharge before the completion of his engagement he would only have to absent himself from musketry.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am a little puzzled at the last Answer of the noble Earl. I presume that a man not attending musketry will be treated like a man failing to appear at the place of parade on any other occasion. He will, I presume, be subject to military law and brought before the commanding officer and duly punished. The Answer which the noble Earl has given seems to open up a vista of want of military discipline which would be deplorable. I would like to ask whether we are to understand that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to disunite as a general rule the musketry and the annual training? The noble Earl spoke as if musketry training was to be looked upon as something wholly distinct from annual training. That may be so in exceptional cases, but I trust that in general cases musketry training will form part of the annual training just as it does in the cases of the Militia at the present moment.
§ EARL BATHURSTArising out of the noble Earl's Answer to Lord Donoughmore's first Question, may I ask whether the six days include Sunday? If so, the number of days on which the men can shoot may be reduced to a ridiculously small number. One day will be taken up by the men assembling at camp, and if Sunday intervenes there would be only 653 four days left. Up to this year the Militia have always had three days preliminary musketry drill before they fired a shot. This year it has been increased to six days, and in the course of the training it took rather over three weeks before the shooting was concluded. According to this scheme, however, we may have only four days in all for shooting. It is obviously impossible for musketry to be improved in that short time.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHTo a certain extent I appreciate the point which the noble Earl has just raised, but I think it would be better if he would put the Question on the Paper. I could then give him the exact Information.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYCan the noble Earl throw any light on the point as to whether the annual and the musketry training are always to be treated as separate matters?
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHI did not lay it down as a general rule, but there may be exceptions.
*LORD LOVATMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) What is to be the establishment of the Territorial Army; (2) What will be the total strength of the Territorial Army available as a mobile force for Home defence after the troops allocated to permanent garrisons and coast defence areas have been deducted; (3) What powers will exist under the Territorial, etc., Forces Act for the enforcement of the Ballot Act; and to move for Papers regarding the strength, composition, and training of the mobile force for Home defence. These are very simple Questions which I hope the noble Earl will do me the honour of answering. I wish to arrive at the exact number of men who will be available for a mobile Army for Home defence. This is not an altogether unimportant subject, as the whole question of the defence of the Empire depends upon it. It would appear obvious unless we have an adequate Army for Home defence it is doubtful whether the Expeditionary Force would ever start for service abroad. I need hardly quote the historical analogy of 1803 when with 718,000 men under arms in Britain we were unable to reinforce the Indian Army by a battalion in a time of crisis. Now, my Lords, His Majesty's Govern- 654 ment have defined very clearly the exact number of the Expeditionary Force, but the actual number of men for Home defence has not been stated. At the end of last year the Secretary of State for War talked about a "nation in arms,'' and he afterwards spoke of 900,000 men. As far as we can make out, the number has now been boiled down to 313,000 in all for Home defence. The art of a War Minister is not entirely different from that of the gentleman on the racecourse who juggles with two hats and three guinea-pigs. If you ask the prestige at or how many guinea-pigs he has under one hat he will show you three, and if you ask how many remain under the other he will show you a not less number. If you say to him, "If I take one of your guinea-pigs away can you still produce three out of each hat?" he will probably reply in the negative; but if you ask a War Minister whether, if he takes away nine battalions from the Regular Army, twenty-three battalions from the Militia, and sixty-eight battalions from the Volunteers, he can still produce as many men for Home service and abroad, he would probably reply, "Yes, certainly, many more than my predecessor, also they will be more efficient." Being conscious that there have been reductions, and that there are to be more in the future, and knowing, moreover, that the Government assure us that we are to have more men for service abroad, I should like to ask the noble Earl to give us information as to the exact number we are going to have for Home defence. We have at present for Home defence an establishment of 470,000 men, and a strength of 336,000 men, the strength being about three-fourths of the establishment. If 313,000 men are enlisted under the new Act, and we allow for three-fourths of them, we shall have 230,000 or 240,000 men in all. It is contended by the Government that the proportion of strength to establishment will be larger under the new Act than it is at present. But it is absolutely impossible for many reasons to keep a Volunteer Army up to war strength, owing to sickness, in efficients, emigration, change of residence, lack of control. If it is admitted that we shall have only three-fourths of this reduced number, or about 240,000 men, for the defence of the country, is that enough? The strong 655 places, which must be held, would claim up from 150,000 to 200,000 men. An authority in The Times stated the number at 170,000. Taking that figure, and deducting it, that will leave a mobile Army for Home defence of 60,000 or 70,000 men. That is not enough. These being the circumstances, I question very much whether this is the right time for withdrawing the whole of the powers which now exist for the enforcement of the Ballot Act. I hope we shall have Papers regarding the strength, composition, and training of the mobile force for Home defence. The Home defence force as at present existing—the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers—are absolutely unable to move in the country, there is as yet no definite undertaking that the Territorial Army will be mobile, and I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give us information as to the main steps they intend taking to render even the small force of 60,000 or 70,000 capable of moving about and fulfilling their functions.
§ Moved, "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty for Papers regarding the strength, composition, and training of the mobile force for Home defence."—(Lord Lovat.)
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHMy Lords, I am afraid my Answers will not be considered altogether satisfactory. My noble friend has made an interesting speech, in the course of which he alluded to a good many questions that are not on the Paper. I would point out that the expression "mobile force" is itself a very controversial phrase. As to the Ballot Act, that Act, in my opinion, is of very little value now, whether the Territorial Forces Bill passes or not. In answer to the first Question, the exact establishments of the various arms has not yet been fixed, but they will be considered immediately by a Committee which has already been appointed, and of which the Secretary of State is to be the Chairman. As to the second Question, I am afraid it is impossible for me to give the information desired. The military advisers of the War Office are strongly of opinion that it would be contrary to the public-interest to publish it. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that this important matter has not been lost sight of, and a Return has been prepared, in accordance 656 with a draft scheme, which is to be most carefully examined and referred to a Committee of experts. For the reason I have given I am unable to lay on the Table the Papers asked for.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHI am not in a position to give the figures, and I think, after the noble Lord's extremely amusing allusion to juggling with figures, I had better be very careful that the figures I do give are absolutely accurate. As to the last Question, no powers will exist, under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act for the enforcement of the Ballot Act.
§ LORD NEWTONCannot the noble Earl state approximately which is the more correct figure—900,000 or 300,000;. I was almost going to say, can he tell us to half a million or so? As for its being contrary to the interests of State to publish these figures, did anyone ever hear such rubbish? This is always the reason given by Ministers when they want to prevent unpleasant truths coming to light. Does anyone in his senses believe that it will not be possible for any person who can read and write, a year hence, to know how many men we can rely upon? If we are to take the opinion of my noble friend Lord Lovat as that of an expert we have arrived at this fact, that the "nation in arms" is boiled down to practically 60,000 or 70,000 men; and the noble Lord opposite absolutely refuses to throw any further light on the question. I hope before we adjourn this afternoon some additional light will be thrown on this obscure point by some noble Lord on the Ministerial Bench.
§ No Minister rising to reply,
*LORD LOVAT saidI think your Lordships will agree that the Questions I have asked are very reasonable ones. We have already spent a considerable time in debating the Army Bill, but we are still uncertain as to how many men His Majesty's Government wishes to provide. I really think we ought to have this information.
§ LORD NEWTONMight I venture to make an appeal to the noble Viscount on the cross benches, Lord Esher, to enlighten us?
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe appeal of my noble friend behind me (Lord Lovat) does not appear to meet with success this evening, but I hope that, if not to-night, at any rate upon some future occasion, he and those who act with him will press for more information than has been vouchsafed to us. If the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, will pardon me for saying so, he seems to me to have carried official reticence this evening to a point leagues beyond any exhibition of the same kind at which I have ever been present. Of course, we all must admit that there is a great deal of information bearing upon questions of Imperial defence which cannot be given to the public. It is impossible that the public should have revealed to it the whole of the details of the arrangements for the disposition of the military and naval forces of the Crown. But on some occasions figures have been given to Parliament. The imposing figure of 900,000 was freely mentioned as the grand total of the force which would be available for the defence of these islands, and I think we are entitled to know whether that figure, or any figure approaching it, holds the field. Then, again, surely we might be told even approximately something as to the. strength of that portion of the Territorial Army which will be available as a mobile force for home defence. After all, we have be on told, almost to a man, what the strength of the Expeditionary Force is to be; why should Ministers be so liberal with that information and so niggardly in regard to the information they give to us as to the Home defence force? I sympathise with the position of the noble Earl, for I have myself represented the War Office in your Lordships' House. I do not know whether I have ever taken part in those feats of dexterity to which Lord Lovat referred, but I do recognise that it is sometimes difficult to answer all the questions put to one across the Table. Some of the questions which have been put to the noble Earl this evening, however, seem to me eminently reasonable, and I do trust that, if not to-night, upon some future occasion we shall be given the information desired.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHI can assure your Lordships that I have no desire to conceal information. The noble Marquess used the term "mobile force." I am told by those who are experts in that matter that the term is rather a controversial one, and may be said to apply to one or two things. As regards the figures, the question is how many men we shall get.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMay I explain? What I understood Lord Lovat to ask for was a statement of the number of men who would remain available after the obligatory points had been occupied in sufficient strength.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHThat was not the question, but no doubt if the noble Lord will put that Question on the Paper—
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe Question is on the Paper in those terms. My noble friend asks in his second Question—
What will be the total strength of the Territorial Array available as a mobile force for Home defence after the troops allocated to permanent garrisons and coast defence areas have been deducted?
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHMy point was that it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by the term "mobile force."
*LORD LOVATI beg to give the noble Earl notice that I shall raise this question at a later date, when I hope it will be more fully answered.
§ Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.