§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions relating to the Territorial Force—
§ 1. What was the strength of the Force on 1st October, 1912.
§ 2. What was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were present in camp for 15 days or over.
- I. The number who were in camp for 8 days.
- II. The number who were in camp for less than 8 days.
- III. The number who did not attend camp at all.
- IV. The number who were absent from camp with leave.
- V. The number who were absent from camp without leave.
§ 3. What punishments were inflicted on the 41 officers and 6,703 non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911.
§ 4. Of those whose engagements expired on 30th September, 1912, how many re-engaged for further service in the Territorial Force.
988§ 5. What was the number of recruits taken during the four years ended 30th September, 1909, 30th September, 1910, 30th September, 1911, and 30th September, 1912, respectively.
§ 6. What is the number of non-commissioned officers and men whose ages are under 19.
§ What steps are taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force.
§ 7. How many recruits were tested in musketry; how many qualified; how many failed.
§ How many trained men were tested; how many qualified; how many failed.
§ Of those returned as "qualified," how many passed the standard test; how many "qualified" merely to enable the County Associations to draw allowances for them.
§ 8. How many battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing; how many carried out company field firing.
§ 9. What was the number of horses in camp with the Yeomanry. How many of these were (a) the property of officers, non-commissioned officers and men; (b) how many were hired; (c) how many were the property of Government; (d) how many belonged to the Associations.
§ 10. Territorial Horse and Field Batteries: were these batteries marked for "fire tactics" at annual practice; how many batteries carried out annual practice in 1912; what percentage does this represent of the total number of Horse and Field Batteries; did all the Horse and Field Batteries that went to camp have their full complement of horses.
§ 11. What was the total cost of the Territorial Force for the year ended 31st March, 1912.
§ 12. What is the number of officers who have resigned their commissions during the year ended 30th September, 1912, and the number of new officers who have joined the Force during the same period.
§ 13. What is the strength of the Territorial Force Reserve; how many of those who left the Force during the year ended 30th September, 1912, joined the Reserve.
989§ 14. Is the National Reserve part of the Territorial Force; if not, why was it shown under the heading "Territorial Force" in the General Annual Report of the British Army for 1911.
§ 15. Were any regiments of Yeomanry or any batteries of Artillery trained in camp together with the Infantry of the Force; or did these arms train separately.
§ 16. Was not the infantry of the Force put back to "company" training by the orders of the Inspector General of the Forces.
§ 17. What was the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed by the men of the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry of the Force respectively.
§ 18. How many qualified signallers are there in the Territorial Force. Is this an increase or a decrease on the figures of the previous year.
§ Is the signalling in a satisfactory condition.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary that I should trouble your Lordships by reading the list of Questions standing in my name on the Paper, but I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to me to be good enough to answer each Question seriatim. Perhaps I might run through the list, touching upon any Question upon which there may be a point requiring explanation. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are perfectly clear, and I think speak for themselves. They are very similar to those put by me last November to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. As regards Question No. 3, the figures there given of officers and non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911 are the figures that were given to me in November last, and I specially want to know whether those men have been, as they ought to be, properly punished. As regards Question No. 4, I am specially anxious to get an answer in regard to re-engagements, because, as those of your Lordships who are connected with military matters are aware, it is usual in the Regular Army only to allow 10 per cent. to reengage in order that you may maintain a sufficient Reserve. I have no comments to make upon Question No. 5; and in regard to Question No. 6, I ask what steps are taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force. 990 I want to know whether a boy's mere statement is sufficient, or whether any steps are taken to verify the statement. Question No. 7 speaks for itself.
§
As regards Question No. 8, in which I ask how many battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing and how many carried out company field firing, I should like to read to your Lordships a private letter which I have received from a responsible officer. It is a perfectly bona fide letter, although I am not in a position to mention the name of the writer. I think the letter is interesting, as it illustrates how field firing has to be carried out and the great difficulty attending it when you have to deal with semi-trained men. The incidents which this letter describes took place early in August last year on a sandy stretch of sea shore on the coast of England. The general idea was that an invading force had landed or was about to land. A brigade of Infantry (Territorials) who had bivouacked close by during the night were hastily called up to repel the invader. This is the description given by the officer in his letter—
My orders were to weed out of my company, first, all recruits; secondly, all men who had not passed the standard test; thirdly, any men who were such fools as to be unworthy to be trusted with ball ammunition. With these heavy losses my company looked very meagre, for out of some eighty men thirty had to be turned out as unsafe and untrained in the use of a rifle. We were then allowed to advance. When we reached a certain spot we were given plenty of time to extend. In war time all these movements would have had to take place very rapidly. These extensions had to be made under the personal and individual supervision of the officer commanding the company. Owing to the shortage of officers in my battalion we had only one officer per company. When we reached another spot the left and right-hand men had to stand by certain flags. This was to ensure the whole line being absolutely straight, so that one man could not get in front of the other. I cannot imagine flags being placed in position on a modern battlefied! All this time no ammunition had been served out, and, in fact, no ammunition was served out until the men actually reached the firing line. They were then given twenty-five rounds per man, which had to be placed in the pouches, and not in the rifle. The individual company officer could give no commands to his men except on the call of the Brigadier's bugle. Every movement—fire, cease fire and advance—was made by the one bugle belonging to the Brigadier. On the bugle blowing 'Fire,' then, and not till then, were the picked men allowed to load their rifles. Furthermore, although it is a general order that empty cases should be gathered after firing, on this morning the rule was suspended, and no empty cases were allowed to be picked up by the men actually firing. This was to avoid the possibility of an untrained man swinging his rifle round and firing off at his
991
comrade at his side. It was interesting to note the way in which every officer and sergeant kept very well to the rear of his men, even though all these precautions were taken, for we all know that, with men who necessarily had had so little experience of firing, owing to excitement and lack of discipline, there was quite a sporting chance of a stray bullet finding a billet. We all felt that these precautions laid down by the General Staff were wise and necessary precautions, and that if they had not been taken casualties would certainly have occurred. The behaviour of the men on the whole was calm and good, as it ought to be, considering that it took us two hours to advance a mile over the sands. The fact that such precautions were necessary shows clearly in what estimation the Territorial Force is really regarded by those Regular soldiers who are responsible for the annual training.
That, my Lords, is a perfectly bona fide letter, and I think it is very eloquent of the importance of the Question.
§ Question No. 9 is perfectly straightforward and clear, and I have nothing to comment upon it. Neither have I anything to say on Questions Nos. 10 to 15. But when I come to Question No. 16—in which I ask, Was not the Infantry of the Territorial Force put back to "company" training by the orders of the Inspector-General of the Forces—I do feel that if this is so it is very unsatisfactory, because, as noble Lords know, company training is, so to speak, the lowest class of training. It is very unsatisfactory if the Infantry of the Force have to be put to company training after their fifth year in camp. The next Question is perfectly clear and straightforward. I ask Question No. 18, as to how many qualified signallers there are in the Territorial Force, because I am informed, I believe on good authority, that out of the 203 battalions only 95 have officers in possession of the signalling certificate. Everybody knows of what great importance it is that in these days the signalling should be in an efficient condition. I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time at any length. I am really out this evening for information.
§
But before I sit down I feel that I must call attention to a speech delivered by General Bethune, the Director-General of the Territorial Force. It is stated—I do not know for what purpose—that certain persons and associations of persons are actively engaged in disparaging the Territorial Force. That seems to me to be in itself a very inadequate argument, because all that we have to consider is, Is the Territorial Force an efficient military machine? I am bound to say that I have never known any language more tending
992
to disparage the Territorial Force than the language which is being held by the Director-General and which he himself allows to be used in his presence. On October 5 of this year the Director-General went to Edinburgh for the purpose of assisting recruiting and promoting the welfare of the Territorial Force. A luncheon was given by the Lord Provost, and there was a meeting in the evening at which the Lord Provost recommended, among other things to make recruiting easier and to make the Territorial Force more popular, that it should be optional for a man to skip camp each alternate year. That was greeted with great applause. General Bethune, the Director-General of the Territorial Force and a most distinguished officer, as we know, allowed that remark to pass unrebuked; and, following the Lord Provost, he said that he would like to see every country disarm. He thought war was an "old-fashioned thing they had grown out of"—rather an ill-timed remark to make within a few days of the outbreak of the great war in the Near East which is going to change the political map of Europe. But what did General Bethune say specially with regard to the Territorial Force? He used these words—
Why should not they look upon soldiering as a sport, and take it up in the same way as they took up cricket and football and golf?
It is quite evident that General Bethune had not had the controlling spirit or the controlling advice of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Viscount, speaking on January 28 of this year on the occasion of the opening of a new riding school at the headquarters of the 4th Northumbrian Howitzer Brigade at South Shields, said—
There were some people who spoke of the Territorial Force lightly, as if it were a pleasure ground on which people might amuse themselves. He hoped that notion would soon be rooted out of the minds of those who indulged in these light fancies. Defence was a necessity.
That is the language of a responsible Minister. I am bound to say it is in strange and weird contrast to the ill-advised utterances of the Director-General of the Territorial Force. Coining from hint language of the kind I have quoted in reference to the Territorial Force is especially unfortunate, because it gives a sort of official countenance, if I may say so, to the belief which is already far too prevalent and which I maintain is fatal and injurious to the self-respect of the Territorial Force—namely, that invasion
993
being impossible the Territorial is merely a sort of sop thrown to a stupid political antagonist. If reasonable criticism of the Territorial Force is to be twisted into disparagement of that Force it is doubly unfortunate when the Director-General gives the appearance, both in his own language and in what he allows to be said before him, that the Territorial Force is not one which ought to be really seriously considered. I ask these Questions because I think it is reasonable and just that the country should know from time to time exactly how we stand, and I hope that the noble Lord who will answer me will act up to the spirit of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who in November last when Secretary of State for War said that I had touched on many questions affecting the Territorial Force "upon which it was his duty to give me as full information as he could." I beg to put to the Government the Questions which stand in my name, and I again repeat the hope that the noble Lord who will reply will be good enough to answer each Question seriatim.
LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I hardly think that your Lordships will expect me to follow the noble Earl in his remarks as to the Director-General of the Territorial Force, for the matter which he has raised in that connection is entirely extraneous even to the vast number of Questions he has upon the Paper; and in view of the fact that not the smallest notice has been given that that particular question would be raised I think I may be excused from following the noble Earl in that matter. I will now deal seriatim, as the noble Earl has asked me to do, with the Questions of which he has given notice.
Question No. 1. The strength of the Force on October 1 was 9,236 officers and 252,152 non-commissioned officers and men. Question No. 2. The number who were present in camp in 1912 for fifteen days and over were 6,855 officers and. 154,995 non-commissioned officers and men. (1) The number who were present in camp for eight days and less than fifteen was 1,014 officers and 66,366 men. (2) The number present for less than eight days was 47 officers and 314 non-commissioned officers and men. (3) (4) and (5) The total number who failed to attend camp was 1,362 officers and 33,350 non-commissioned officers and men, of whom 1,325 officers and 27,331 non-commissioned officers and men were absent with leave 994 and 37 officers and 6,019 non-commissioned officers and men without leave.
Question No. 3. With regard to the 41 officers and 6,755 non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911, disciplinary action was taken in the case of 20 officers and 2,490 other ranks. Of these officers 16 resigned, one was reported to his General Officer Commanding, and action is still being taken in the case of the remaining three. Disciplinary action was taken against 2,490 of other ranks, of whom 1,012 were struck off the strength under Paragraph 268 of the Territorial Force Regulations, one was discharged on the grounds of unsatisfactory conduct, 895 were prosecuted, 347 were prosecuted and fined, 97 were fined by County Associations, three were allowed to purchase their discharge, 53 were warned, three were reduced, and action is still being taken in the case of 79. Question No. 4. The number whose engagements expired between October 1, 1911, and September 30, 1912, was 80,403, and the number who re-engaged during this period was 39,681. Question No. 5. For the year ended September 30, 1909, 110,020 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1910, 42,239 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1911, 39,086 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1912, 57,946 recruits joined. Question No. 6. The number of non-commissioned officers and men under 19 on October 1, 1912, was 40,684. The steps taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force are laid down in Paragraph 132 of the Territorial Force Regulations.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHWill you kindly explain what steps are taken to verify the ages?
LORD HERSCHELLParagraph 132, to which I have referred, reads as follows—
Should a recruit appear to be under the age standard, inquiries should be made before final approval.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHIs that done?
LORD HERSCHELLI understand that is so. Question No. 7. In the musketry year 1910–11, from the Yeomanry, Field Companies, Royal Engineers, and Infantry 52,590 recruits were tested in musketry; 31,976 qualified, and 20,614 failed; 125,322 trained men were tested, of whom 111,432 qualified, and 13,890 failed. All the men given above as 995 having qualified passed the standard test. In addition to the number I have given as having qualified 17,932 recruits and 12,316 trained men qualified in musketry by attendance at classification 30 yards, or miniature ranges, in accordance with Paragraph 361 (2) or (3), of the Territorial Force Regulations. I presume that this is what the noble Earl means by the latter part of his Question. At the same time it is not for one moment admitted that the object of these Regulations is to enable County Associations to draw allowances. The object of the Regulations is to ensure that those men who are unable, owing to various circumstances, to do the training necessary to pass the standard test shall at any rate be in a position to have some training in the use of the rifle. Question No. 8. Thirty-four battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing. The number of battalions in which all companies have been exercised in company field firing is 92. There are 62 battalions in which some, but not all, companies have been exercised in company field firing, and there are 53 battalions in which no company field firing was performed. Question No. 9. There were 20,817 horses in camp with the Yeomanry. Of these, 8,034 were the property of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, 12,761 were hired, 14 were the property of the Government, and eight were the property of County Associations.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHDid the noble Lord say 14,000 were the property of the Government?
LORD HERSCHELLNo, fourteen. The total number is 20,817 and I had already accounted for 8,034 and 12,761. Question No. 10. Territorial Horse and Field batteries were not marked for "fire tactics" at annual practice. In 1912, 131 batteries carried out annual practice, and, in addition, the eleven batteries of the 1st London Divisional Artillery fired a modified course at Shoeburyness during Summer on Saturday afternoons. For this horses were not required. This represents 78 per cent. of the total number of Horse and Field batteries, not counting the eleven batteries mentioned. Of all the Horse and Field batteries that went to camp, 102 took their full complement of horses. The average deficiency in the remaining 29 batteries was eleven horses, but almost all had sufficient for the personnel who attended camp. Question No. 11. The actual cost of the Territorial Force for the year ended 996 March 31, 1912, cannot be given, but it is estimated at £3,200,000.
Question No. 12. During the period from October 1, 1911, to September 30, 1912, 1,364 officers were appointed to the Territorial Force, including the Unattached List, and 1,184 resigned. These figures do not include the reduction owing to death, transfer to the Reserve, and compulsory retirements. Question No. 13. The strength of the Territorial Force Reserve on October 1, 1912, was, according to the Army List, 313 officers and 865 men. The increase of non-commissioned officers and men in the Reserve during the year has been 375, and this is roughly the number who have joined from the Territorial Force during the period. Question No. 14. The National Reserve is not part of the Territorial Force. As, however, it is administered by County Associations it was considered convenient to record its strength in that part of the General Annual Report which deals with the Territorial Force Reserve which is also administered by the County Associations.
Question No. 15. According to information received from the Commands, in the Eastern Command the Surrey Yeomanry and the 1st Home Counties Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, trained with Territorial Infantry units. In the London District the 3rd County of London Yeomanry trained with the Infantry of the 2nd London Division. The Artillery of the Honourable Artillery Company trained with the Infantry of the same unit. The Artillery of the 1st London Division trained with the Infantry of that division. In the Northern Command no Yeomanry or Artillery units trained with Infantry except the following: The 1st and 2nd North Midland Brigades Royal Field Artillery, and North Midland (Staffs.) Heavy Battery Royal Garrison Artillery trained with their division. The 1st and 2nd East Riding batteries Royal Field Artillery carried out their second week's training at Army manœuvres. In the Scottish Command no regiments of Yeomanry or batteries of Artillery trained with Infantry; these arms trained separately. In the Southern Command the South Midland Royal Garrison Artillery trained with the Infantry of the South Midland Division. The 1st Wessex Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, trained on Salisbury Plain at the same time as two Infantry Brigades of the Wessex Division. The 1st South 997 Western Mounted Brigade took part in Army manœuvres. Other Yeomanry regiments trained separately. In the Western Command no regiments of Yeomanry trained with Infantry. Eight batteries of the West Lancashire Division, five batteries of the East Lancashire Division, and six batteries of the Welsh Division trained with the infantry of their Division.
Question No. 16. The Territorial Infantry was not put back to company training by the orders of the Inspector General of the Home Forces. That officer has, however, had occasion to call attention to the advanced nature of the training carried out by certain units, and the attention of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief has been directed to the principle laid down in Training and Manœuvre Regulations that, as the time available for the training of the Territorial Force is so limited, Squadron, battery, company, and battalion training is all important.
Question No. 17. The information as to the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed by the men of the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry of the Force respectively does not form part of any of the ordinary returns furnished to the War Office. The following figures for the year 1911 have been obtained at the cost of a vast amount of labour for Mr. Hunt, in reply to his Question in the House of Commons, by calling for a special Return and it is hoped that these figures which I am about to give will prove sufficient for the noble Earl, as it would be hardly justifiable to ask the staffs of the Territorial Force units to work out these figures again for 1912. During the year from November 1, 1910, to October 31, 1911, the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed was—By the Yeomanry, officers 11.92, other ranks 16.58; by the Artillery, officers 24.96, other ranks 22.72; by the Infantry, officers 18.19, other ranks 18.35. The average number of working days spent at courses of instruction, including attachment to training centres, was—By the Yeomanry, officers 2.79, other ranks .17; by the Artillery, officers 5.42, other ranks .27; by the Infantry, officers 3.63, other ranks .09. The average number of weekends spent in camp—that is to say, extra training—was: By the Yeomanry, officers .12, other ranks .08; by the Artillery, officers .57, other ranks .24; by the Infantry, officers .48, other ranks .22.
998 Question No. 18. The number of qualified signallers in the Territorial Force is as follows: 257 offcers (instructors), 428 assistant instructors, and 1,444 qualified signallers. These figures are taken from the Report of the Commandant, Army Signal School, for 1911. The numbers in the previous year were 234 officers (instructors), 417 assistant instructors, and 2,635 qualified signallers. It is to be observed that the examination has been made more severe, and this accounts for the large drop in the number of qualified signallers. In conclusion, I may say quite frankly that the signalling in the Territorial Force is not at present in an altogether satisfactory condition, and that the subject is engaging the attention of the Army Council.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the information which the noble Earl behind me has elicited is of the utmost importance, some of it, I am afraid, not of an entirely reassuring character. I do not, however, desire to comment upon it this evening. I rise merely for the purpose of offering a suggestion to the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and it is that it would be for our convenience if he would lay on the Table the figures he has used this evening and let us have them in the form of a War Office Return. It is obviously not easy to follow them when quickly read, and their publication in an official form would be more convenient than that we should rely upon Press reports.
§ THE EARL OF ERROLLWith regard to the noble Lord's answer to Question No. 9, I should like to know whether hired horses are counted two or three times over if they go out with different regiments. If so, it obviously gives a false idea of the number of horses available.
LORD HERSCHELLI will make inquiries into that, and will see that the information is, if possible, put into the Return when laid on the Table.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHWhen will the Government be able to let us have the Return?