VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—(1) What is the total (a) combatant (b) non-combatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; what number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available will be included in this force; (2) what number of officers and men will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; (3) 856 what number of men, if any, will be sent abroad under twenty years of age; (4) what number of officers and men over twenty years of ago at present on the strength of the Regular Army will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; (5) what force could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these Forces.
In putting these questions on the Paper I did not think that I was asking for information the publication of which could possibly be considered inconsistent with national interests. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to receive a communication from the noble Lord stating that he could not answer my questions in public, but would do so confidentially. I trust, however, that the noble Lord will be able to give us some of the information for which we ask, or tell us the reasons why he cannot do so.
The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, the Questions which the noble Viscount has placed on the Paper have been considered most carefully, and it has been decided that in so far as the answers to the Questions reveal to a certain extent our mobilisation plans it is impossible for us to give the answers in public. In adopting that position, we are doing only what is done by every country—for no country reveals in public their mobilisation plans—and it is, I believe, strictly according to the precedents in this country. But I would like to repeat what I said a few days ago, that we do not in the least wish to conceal what the position of the Regular Army is with regard to mobilisation. Although it is not in the public interest to make these figures public, if the noble Viscount will do us the honour of visiting the War Office I will endeavour to satisfy him to the fullest degree. I extend that invitation also to the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Midleton), who has always taken great interest in this question, and to other noble Lords. We are not afraid to show the figures We are perfectly ready and anxious to satisfy noble Lords, as I believe we can, on this matter, but we cannot, I regret to say, make the information public.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not going to be contented with the extraordinary answer which he has just elicited. We are to understand this from the noble Lord, that in the interests of the public it is not desirable that this information should be disclosed, but that if anybody here, however ignorant or however inquisitive he may be, chooses to take the trouble to go to the War Office he will be supplied with these particulars. I know this old dodge. The excuse of "public interest" is always put forward when there is something the Government wish to keep back. If the noble Lord had a million men up his sleeve and could produce them at a moment's notice there would be some reason for adopting this attitude. Considering that his chief has been going up and down the country boasting and bragging that the military position of this country is better now than it has ever been, and that we possess a finer Expeditionary Force not only than we have ever had before but than any other country has got, we are entitled to the information asked for. I do not know what my noble and gallant friend proposes to do, but I know that if I were in his place I should keep on pressing for an answer until I eventually succeeded in getting a public statement from the noble Lord.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI am quite certain that the noble Lord desires to give us all the information which he thinks can legitimately be given in the public interest, but I must remind your Lordships that we have been placed in a most unconscionably difficult position in this matter. Actually at this moment we have before us a Return which had to do with the first of January and which was so long under consideration at the War Office that it was only produced to your Lordships just before the Easter recess and a few days after the discussions in the House of Commons on the Estimates had ceased. Therefore we were unable to take advantage of the facts with which we were favoured for any discussion in the House of Commons. Now, when my noble friend brings the matter before your Lordships by Questions we are told that it is contrary to the public interest to give the facts necessary to elucidate these very unsatisfactory papers. Is there a single one of these facts which is not to be found in War Office documents if it were in our power to collate them? The total num 858 bers, combatant and non-combatant, have been given over and over again, as also have the number of officers and men to be drawn from the Special Reserve. But what we want to know is the practical strength on which we are working. Then, again, the numbers over-twenty years of age who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war can be established from War Office figures which have been laid. But there is and always will be very great doubt as regards the actual numbers, and I do not think much would be gained by our forming an estimate and throwing it across the Table at the noble Lord to be told that the estimate was incorrect. What we wish to arrive at is the number remaining in this country on the present strength, not establishment, after the Expeditionary Force has sailed, and the military value of that force. It is unworthy of the Secretary of State at every public meeting he attends, to throw at us the challenges alluded to by Lord Newton, and then to refuse information to make good his boast. It is, too late to-night to attempt to go into all the points, but I would say this, that when the noble Lord appeals to precedent he should cite precedent. I will give two precedents which occur to me on the spur of the moment. I heard Lord Lansdowne when he was Secretary of State for War state, in the middle of the South African War, in answer to a Question in your Lordships' House, exactly the number of Regular troops which then remained in the country after we had sent out I forget what number. That was at a moment of crisis. I myself, as Secretary of State for War, was asked for in 1902, and I laid on the Table of the House of Commons, the establishment, the strength, and the ages of the whole of the troops forming the three Army Corps which we proposed to send out, together with the numbers here in this country and every detail from which such figures could be made out. Therefore I hope that the noble Viscount will put these Questions again in some pertinent form, and the noble Lord must not complan if we endeavour, by whatever means are left to us since we have not the handling of the Estimates in this House, to obtain what is to us important information—namely, the military value of the force which will remain in this country after the Expeditionary Force has left—and for which we have every right to ask.
LORD LUCASThe Questions on the Paper go a good deal further than merely an interrogation arising out of statements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in any of his speeches. To answer the Questions in full would be to reveal to a great extent our mobilisation plans, and I adhere to my statement that there is no precedent for that. I do not in the least admit that there is any analogy between the two cases quoted by the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite and the revealing of our mobilisation plans. With regard to the views expressed by Lord Newton, I can only say that had the noble Lord studied more carefully before he made those remarks what the invariable policy of all Governments has been with regard to mobilisation plans he would not have spoken as he did.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONWhat precedent can the noble Lord cite for the refusal of the information asked for which is not mobilisation information?
LORD LUCASI believe that information of this kind has never been given, and I should be surprised if the noble Vis 860 count could quote any instance where it had been given.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for War, I give notice that I shall put the Questions again a week hence. I am deeply interested in the Special Reserve, a force to which I belong, and I fail to see what harm could be done by giving the information asked for in regard to it. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able next week to answer some, if not all, of the Questions.