HL Deb 10 April 1919 vol 34 cc259-84

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Power to prolong period of naval, military, or air force service.

1.—(1) If the competent authority is of opinion that, as respects any men to whom this section applies or any class of such men. they cannot consistently with the public interest he released from actual service at the time when in pursuance of the terms of their service they would be entitled to be discharged, any such man may be retained and his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty, as the competent authority may order, but at the expiration of that period, or at any earlier date at which the competent authority considers that he can be released, he shall be discharged with all convenient speed, but in no case later than three months after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty.

(2) The men to whom this section applies are men (not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation) who at the termination of the present war are in actual service in the naval, military, or air forces of His Majesty and whose term of actual service expires at the termination of the present war or before the said thirtieth day of April.

EARL STANHOPE moved to omit from subsection (2) the words in parentheses—namely, "not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation"

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that when the noble Viscount introduced this Bill last Tuesday he explained that it was in order to retain in the Army men who would otherwise be discharged when the ratifications of the Peace Conference were exchanged, and he pointed out that the Bill would not refer to soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation. I should like to read what he said— The question has been raised why these Regular soldiers should obtain this measure of exemption, while civilians who had been taken from their civilian occupation and have served as long as two or three years with the Colours are retained. Then he made an eloquent reference to the services rendered by the Regular soldiers, and went on to say— I hope your Lordships will feel that they have 'done their bit,' and have earned their release. I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that members of the Territorial Force had also deserved well of their country, and that those who were serving in the Territorial Force at the outbreak of war should also obtain their release. The noble Viscount, when he answered me, said that "they would be released under the Army Order of January 29." He said— It is clear that all those who joined up till 1916 are to be demobilised, and are now being rapidly demobilised under the Army Order; consequently no Amendment is necessary. That Army Order refers to soldiers of the Regular forces every bit as much as to soldiers of the Territorial Force, and there-for if it is necessary in the one case to exclude soldiers of the Regular Army from the operations of this Bill it is equally neces- sary, if you wish to save the men of the Territorial Force from the operation of the Bill, to exclude them also.

What I propose is that we should leave out the words "not being soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation," and insert at the end of subsection (2) the words which appear on the Paper. I would like to alter them a little so that the words should run: "Provided that before an Order under this section is made applicable to soldiers," and so on. I should like to emphasise this point. It seems a long time ago, but I remember taking part in a march of the Home Counties Division from the south of Aldershot to Salisbury Plain. We arrived there on the Saturday and Sunday before the outbreak of war—on what is known as "Black Sunday." These men were sent straight back home by train, and when they arrived they found telegrams waiting for them announcing that they had been re-mobilised and had to go to their war stations forthwith. Many of these battalions, amongst them the battalion to which I belonged, were sent out to India early in 1914—in September or October—and they have been there ever since, and are there now The Territorials went to camp expecting to be away for a fortnight. Practically none of them expected an outbreak of war between this country and Germany. They had a few hours at home, and were then sent to their war stations, and afterwards to distant parts of the Empire, without any chance whatever of winding up their own affairs in civil life. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a considerable case of hardship. I therefore suggest that these men of the Territorial Force who joined before the commencement of the war should now be excluded from the operations of this Bill.

I have two further points to make. The Army Order is worded it, this way: if the competent military authority is of opinion, they "are to be demobilised as soon as the exigencies of the service permit." That is a very wide phrase. I know a case, which was brought to my notice only yesterday, of a man serving in France, with over four years service and forty-three years of age, who should be demobilised under the terms of the Army Order—and I have no doubt he will be. But at the present moment the competent authority, in the shape of his commanding officer, informs him that he is required for demobilisation purposes, and cannot go. He is a driver in the motor transport section, and if there is one man who I should have thought was not necessary for demobilisation purposes it would be a driver in the motor transport section. I give that as an illustration of the wide I power which is open to the authorities to retain men in the Army in spite of the general terms of the Army Order.

The other point is this. Your Lordships will see that in my Amendment I speak of men who were in the Army prior to August 4, 1914. The wording, as it appears in the Bill—" serving on a pre-war attestation"—applies, I understand, to any man who joined the Army under the ordinary terms of service—that is to say, either seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve, or any of the ordinary terms of enlistment which were in existence in the Army before the war. Amongst other terms of enlistment that this phrase will cover is the system of enlistment for the Brigade of Guards, which happens to be in many cases three years with the Colours and nine years with the Reserve. Therefore you will get men who joined the Army at the end of 1915 being demobilised under this Bill, but you will get men who joined the Territorial Force before the outbreak of war and have served with the Army since the outbreak of war being held wider this Bill. I suggest, therefore, that perhaps my wording is preferable to that in the Bill. If the noble Viscount opposite is prepared to exclude from the operation of this Bill those who joined the Army at a later date than August 4, 1914, I shall be only too glad to do so. Why I have only made such a small exception to the Bill is because I did not want to see a large number of men excluded from its operation and the authorities having then to come down and say, "It is necessary to have an Order to retain them in the Army." I want the exceptions to the Bill to be few enough for us to make quite certain that those exceptions shall be made effective.

The only argument that I can see against these Amendments—because the two must be really considered together—is that peace may be ratified, say, this summer, and it will not then be possible to get men back from India, because the troop season will not have begun owing to the weather being too hot in the Red Sea and elsewhere. I think that I have covered that point by my Amendment, because where the autho- rities can show that there is reasonable cause they have only to place an Order on the Table of both Houses, and no doubt neither House would object to that Order being made effective. It is most unlikely, particularly in view of the very large amount of work that has been put before us by the Leader of the House, that this House will not be sitting throughout the whole of the summer, and probably well into the autumn. Therefore there can be no difficulty that this House will not be sitting, and that ten days could not be got during which the Order should remain on the Table of the House. I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 to 20, leave out ("not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation").—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Before the noble Viscount replies I should like to draw his attention to the very great hardships of this case. I think that there is a great deal in what the noble Earl has said. I know what the difficulties of the War Office must be—they must be very great—in finding troops; but after all, the Regulars enlisted on a professional basis and the Army was their profession. The Territorials did not enlist for service abroad at all. There was an honourable understanding among them—it was very widely spread—that they would agree to go abroad. It was supposed that they might have to extend the Expeditionary Force, and therefore, after that Expeditionary Force was called into action, they were proud to say as an obligation of honour that they would go abroad. But they were not professional soldiers, and the reason why they have gone so far is due to one cause, a very honourable one—their response to Lord Kitchener.

The magnetism of Lord Kitchener's personality was very great, and very early in the war he made an appeal to the Territorials. He did not think that they were fit to go and fight in France straight off, and so he persuaded India and Egypt to give back Regular battalions and batteries and to take Territorial battalions and batteries in their place. It was a great feat of personality to be able to do so much, and I do not think that anybody but Lord Kitchener could have persuaded the Territorial Force to do it. But they did it, and the result was that Territorials went abroad to take the place of Regular battalions which were in India, in Egypt, and various parts of the world. They did this without grumbling and without complaint, but it is obvious that the hardship upon them was very much greater than on the Regulars, whose profession it was to serve in those parts of the world.

But the unfortunate Territorials have had no release. The very reason for which they were selected, which was that they were to take the place of long-service soldiers in these distant places, has magnified the hardships under which they are at the present time. Now that peace is at any rate in sight, the obvious course is to replace Territorial regiments at a distance by Regular units. That may be difficult. I know too much about the difficulties to wish to press the matter to an extreme; still it is the proper course, and I do not think that we ought here to leave out of sight the enormity of the hardship which is inflicted upon the Territorials by keeping them in very distant places, which are wholly outside their legal obligation, for this very prolonged period, and I think therefore that the noble Earl was justified in moving the Amendment if only upon that ground.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I should like to say a word to enforce and press upon the noble Viscount the argument which has just fallen from the noble and learned Viscount behind me. I believe, if the noble Viscount should decide to carry this Bill in the form in which it stands at this moment, he will have done the very worst service towards the future recruitment of Territorials that could possibly be performed by any Minister of the Crown. Look at the position as it stands at the present moment. You have several brigades of Territorials moved from England who were serving on a pre-war engagement. They were moved -to India in October and November, 1914. They included battalions from the county to which I belong, which were moved on to Mesopotamia in March and April and May, 1915, and have been, I believe I am right in saying, in one of the most trying climates, if not the most trying, in the world for four years. Others have been on garrison duty in the plains of India for a similar period. Most of these men left England four and a half years ago. To say, "I am unable to bring you away because I have not the transport," is an argument which every one must listen to with respect. But to say to them what you virtually do say in the terms of this Bill is to inflict upon them a great hardship.

At this moment I could tell the noble Viscount of a particular regiment which, having been out for the whole of this period, was due to come home, and was at Basra awaiting shipment, and nearly 300 men were taken out of that regiment at almost the last moment and put into another regiment which has not been so long in Mesopotamia and will have to remain there. Of course, the feelings of these men are most acute. I will not suggest that it is a breach of faith by the Government, nor do I suggest that the Government have ignored in any way their liabilities to these men. What I do say is that it ought not to be at the option of the Government to decide whether these men should be transferred from one regiment to another and kept there, without making an absolute case before Parliament for doing so. I appeal to the noble Viscount to give these men the same rights as the Regular Army, and I think we may assure him that Parliament will listen with the greatest regard to any changes, by Order in Council or otherwise, which may be necessary in order to enable the public service to be carried on.

LORD ST. LEVAN

I should like to acid my support to the proposal made by the noble Earl. At the beginning of the war, I was serving with the Wessex Territorial Division. In October they sent out a complete division to India, and in December we were again asked to send out a division. The brigadiers and commanding officers were sent for to London and received a message from Lord Kitchener asking if they would send out another division, and undertook to do so. These men, except those who have been transferred from India to Mesopotamia and Palestine, have been out ever since. At the time I remember very well it was distinctly stated that they would be brought home at the first opportunity. They have done their duty well, and I think they have a claim to the consideration of the country. And I think we must consider their relations and families at home as well, who have been deprived of them for all that time and are most anxious to see them back. There are numbers of people in the West country who have had to do without their relations all that time, and while I know that these men are perfectly willing to do all they can for their country if the necessities of the country demand it, I think they do expect, after what they have done, that the Government will take the first opportunity to extend to them the consideration which is offered by the Amendment of my noble friend.

VISCOUNT PEEL

From many quarters of the House and from those most competent to speak on behalf of the Territorial Force very strong appeals have come to me, as representing the War Office in this matter, to do what is possible for the Territorials, I think the discussion has mainly turned on the question of the Territorials in India.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

And Mesopotamia.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I used the word "India" because there has been a good deal of interchange between Mesopotamia and India, and I think there are no Territorials who have had the full term in Mesopotamia, apart from India. But the two cases are really very largely parallel. I expressed a very strong opinion and made a strong statement on behalf of the Army Council the other day when this question was raised by my noble friend Lord Harris, that the Army Council fully recognised the unfortunate fact that the Territorials had had to be kept for so long a period in India. It recognised their great patriotism in coming forward so early in the war, and the great services rendered by them to the country by allowing the Regular soldiers to be set free from those garrisons, thereby strengthening our Army in France and other parts of the world.

The Army Council has the very greatest sympathy with the general view that has been expressed by noble Lords this evening. But we are not dealing now with this general question but with a specific Amendment. I will deal with the details in a moment, but at present I make this statement, that, if this Amendment were passed, not one single Territorial more would be brought back to this country than would be brought hack without it. It can have no effect whatever on the Territorials in India or in Mesopotamia, because these Territorials are not kept there because they are being treated less well than Regulars. They are all, under the administrative order, freed for demobilisation. The Army Council wants to demobilise them, and there is only one reason why they cannot be demobilised, and that is that during the hot weather it is impossible to bring these troops home, and before the hot weather there was no Army which could take their place. Therefore if this Amendment were passed (quite apart from the difficulties) it would be completely inoperative and would do no good whatever to the Territorials.

Let me deal with the specific proposal of my noble friend, and then, if necessary, I can return to the general point that I have now made. My noble friend first suggested that I have been guilty of some inconsistency. That is a matter of complete unimportance, but I think I ought to justify what I said, because there is no inconsistency in what I did say. My noble friend is making a confusion between two classes of men. In the opening statement I made I was comparing the case of the Regular soldier with the case of the man who was called up since 1916, and I was arguing whether or not there was possibly a case for retaining the Regular as against the post-1916 man. The subsequent statement quoted by my noble friend was made with regard to the pre-1916 man, who is in a totally different category, and whom the Army Council is doing its best to demobilise as fast as possible.

I think I ought to say also that Army Order 55 does not deal with the Regular soldiers, because they are on a special active station, and it does not affect them. What does my noble friend want to do? First of all, the Regulars are exempted from the provisions of the. Bill. The Army Council does not want to retain those Regulars. There is a good deal of criticism on the size of the Army which is retained, hut my noble friend wants to put those Regulars into the Bill. He wants deliberately to put back under the operation of this Bill the men whom the Army Council and the Government have decided are not wanted, who can be allowed to go to the Reserve in order to build up a Reserve for the people. He is trying to establish some sort of parity or disparity between the Territorials and the Regulars, as if there were some kind of unfairness of treatment as between the two. All the difference that there is is due merely to the fact that the engagements are different, that the one is for seven and five years and the other is for four years.

How would this be applied to the Regulars I take those who enlisted in different years. Those who enlisted in 1913 would clearly not be affected, because their regular period for serving would not have elapsed during the currency of this Bill. Therefore we are driven back really to the 1911 men, because, of course, my noble friend knows well that, quite apart front this Act, it is possible to retain these men for the other year—the eighth year. And therefore, before you reach a class which will be affected by the changes which my noble friend suggests you have to go back to men who enlisted as far back as 1911.

EARL STANHOPE

It is only true of the men who enlisted for seven or nine years service.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is broadly true that you have to go back to the men who enlisted as far aback as 1911, and who exhypothesi have been right through the war. The application therefore of the Amendment, even if it put We Regulars back in the Bill, would have very little effect; and, again, would not apply to those who enlisted at, such a period that their time of service did not elapse until subsequent to the date of this Bill. It is not that my noble friend is anxious to bring these Regulars back into the Bill but that he really wants to deal with the Territorials. I think I am right in saying that is his object. What then would be the effect? The noble Earl's Amendment is to provide that before an Order is made applicable to soldiers of the Regular or Territorial Forces, the draft shall be laid upon the Table of Parliament for fourteen days before it has any application. As I have said, under an administrative Order all these men are demobilisable—that is to say, those whom my noble friend wishes to affect. Everybody who enlisted before 1914, and, indeed, even those who enlisted during 1914 and 1915, the Army Council is trying to demobilise as fast as possible; and the only reason why they are not being brought back home is because it is impossible to bring them back.

My noble friend suggests that the draft Order should lay upon the Table of Parliament before any period is fixed for which the men should be retained. It is clear that the draft could not be laid after the peace because it would have no effect until fourteen Parliamentary days had elapsed. That means more than a month—if we are sitting only three days a week in this House—whatever may be the necessities, whatever may be the military situation at the time. If it is done, of course, after the peace is signed it would be too late. You will have to make the Order at once; because as the peace might come within three or four weeks it would be necessary immediately the Bill is passed at once to make the Order retaining these troops. But that is clone by the Act. As there would be no discipline amongst the troops concerned if the Amendment is carried it is incredible that your Lordships should agree to it. There is a further danger. Supposing this Order were made to con tinge for three or four months. The Orders must be made when Parliament is sitting. Your Lordships are not sitting as a rule in August and September; therefore what the Amendment contemplates is that Parliament should be called together for the sole purpose of agreeing to or disagreeing with an Order about Territorials which would have no effect whatever, because what is required could be done very easily under the Bill.

Great as is the sympathy everyone must feel with the Territorials, I strongly urge your Lordships not to press an Amendment of this kind. I should like to repeat what I have already stated about the Territorials and what has been stated also by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War—namely, that the. Army Council regard it as an absolute duty at the first opportunity to remove these Territorials from India and to replace them with men of the New Army. When the hot weather comes to an end those Territorials will be withdrawn at the first opportunity from India and Mesopotamia. Does not that entirely cover their case? If you want to put in an Order of this kind which is to be done administratively you will have to fill up your Bill with administrative Orders. Take the Army Order under which these men are demobilised—men over thirty seven, men with so many wound stripes, and so on, this is done not under an Act of Parliament but, under Orders issued by the Arm Council; and if you are going to make a selection in favour of one particular administration Order you will have to put the whole of them into the Act of Parliament. I urge your Lordships not to do such a thing, or to cumber the Bill with an unnecessary Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not received this Amendment more favourably. I think he is quite wrong. He did not seem, to appreciate the real spirit in which this Amendment has been moved. Upon the face of the drafting of this Amendment there is a distinction drawn between the Regular Forces and the Territorials. I am sure that my noble friend must admit that that is very offensive to the Territorials. With his customary courtesy and feeling for the susceptibilities of the Territorials he has said a great deal to show what view the Government take; but upon its face it is not right that there should be this distinction drawn between the treatment of the Regular Army and the treatment of Territorials.

It is not merely that it requires a great deal of explanation to show that they should be differently treated in the Bill, but because it will be profoundly misunderstood by the Territorial Forces them-selves. That is one of the points which the noble Viscount does not seem to have taken account of at all. The particular Territorials of whom we are thinking have been placed in a position of very great hardship indeed—such hardship as was testified to in your Lordships' House on a recent occasion, at which time the Government expressed every kind of sympathy with them. But when it comes to action apart from words, when we come to the actual drafting of a Bill, the first thing the Territorials find is that, so far from there being any sympathy with them, they are going to be treated expressly in a harsher way than the Regular Forces. I want the Government to realise the impression that produces.

On the Second Reading the noble Viscount said that, after all, the Regulars contemplated in this clause—the pre-war Regular Army—had gone through the terrible fighting of the early part of the war. Yes they did, and all honour to them; but the Territorials also took part in the early fighting—a Territorial battalion of my own county was in the fighting in France in the early days—and besides that you have to consider the difference of the conditions under which they enlisted. That point was very strongly put by my noble friend who moved the Amendment. The noble Viscount seems to think that there really is on the face of it no greater hardship in a Territorial enlisted before the war having to go on serving, than there is in the case of a Regular soldier.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I never contended that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, he did not, but the contention of my noble friend who moved the Amendment was that it is the business of the Regular soldier to fight, and the fact that he has to go on longer is relatively less a hardship. The Territorial is a civilian primarily, driven on by a great patriotism, and he stands in a position to be released rather sooner than later as compared with the regular soldier, and therefore I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not accept the Amendment. Let me deal with his argument. He said, "Your Amendment will have no effect because we have issued an Army Order, and it is the intention of the Army Council…" He seems to think that an expression of intention on the part of the Government has the same effect as an Act of Parliament.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I said an Army Order had been issued.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

An Army Order can be altered at any moment by the Secretary of State and the Army Council. An Act of Parliament depends for its sanction upon the assent of both Houses of Parliament.

VISCOUNT PEEL

An Act of Parliament cannot bring a man back from India in the hot weather.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am going to deal with that in a moment. The noble Viscount seems to think there is no distinction between an Act of Parliament and an intention of the Government.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I never said so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I said he seemed to think so. If I had wanted to say that he said a thing I should say so. There is every distinction in the world. He thinks an engagement on the part of the Government is quite certain to be fulfilled. Is he quite sure? Have all the engagements of the Government always been fulfilled? Have they never changed their minds? Why, my Lords, it is not that we bring any charge of breach of faith on the part of the Government, but they are always being put in circumstances of difficulty, and then pressure is put upon them, all sorts of representations are made to them by military officers, and they give way. It is a different thing with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament cannot be varied except by the consent of both Houses. Then you have something like security, and the thing is entirely different. Therefore I do not think I can accept at all his answer to my noble friend's argument—namely, that the Army Council have expressed a wish, and put it into an Army Order, that these Territorials shall be demobilised as soon as possible.

Then my noble friend says that they cannot be demobilised during the hot weather. There is going to be no ratification of the Treaty of Peace before the hot weather, and therefore we need not trouble about the hot weather. He said that peace might come with something like the rapidity of a thunderstorm. Peace does not seem to me to be moving with the rapidity of a thunderstorm. After the signature of peace there will, of course, be a very long interval between that and ratification, and the end of the war does not come till ratification. If after peace is signed it appears that the ratification is likely to take place before the end of the hot weather, then he will be in a position to lay an Order before both Houses, as is provided in the Amendment. It is perfectly simple. He will be able to say: "Peace is signed, it is clear the ratification will take place, and I do not know when the hot weather will end, and therefore we must have a little time and we will lay the Order before both Houses." If, on the other hand, there is no such chance and ratification is going to be after the hot weather then he will have no excuse for keeping these troops in India, and he does not want this clause, and there is no reason why he should not accept at once that the moment the cool weather comes, these men should come home like Regulars. Therefore if the ratification is going to take place later there will be no difficulty whatever. If it takes place when Parliament is not sitting it will be in the cold weather, and the troops ought to come home, in all the spirit of equity. Therefore I think it is only fair that the. Amendment should be accepted. I do not mean to say that a little modification of dates may be necessary. My noble friend (Viscount Peel) made a great deal of play about that, but if he wants to alter the number of clays let him say so. But taking the Amendment broadly as it stands it seems fair, and I see no reason why your Lordships should not assent to it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

There are only two points to which I think it necessary to give an answer. I do not know what I seemed to suggest at all, but of course I never intended to, and I rather doubt if I did, suggest that an Act of Parliament is on the same basis as an Army Order. I was saying that an Act of Parliament could not do impossibilities, and that it was no

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The proposed proviso, I take it, is consequential?

EARL STANHOPE

Yes.

Amendment moved—

Clause 1, page 1, line 24, after subsection (2) insert: Provided that, before an order under this section is made applicable to soldiers of the

use putting into an Act of Parliament, provisions which would be entirely inoperative, and that therefore it was much better to deal with the Army Order as it stood. Of course, if my noble friend's rather gloomy anticipation is true, and there is to be no ratification of the peace treaty till after the hot weather, then of course I agree that so far as the Territorials in India are concerned, not only the Amendment but this Bill will be unnecessary, because of course until such ratification these troops are kept under the Compulsory Service Acts, and this Bill only comes into operation at the ratification. Therefore if the hypothesis on which he rested his argument be true, then neither the Amendment nor the Bill is necessary and these men will be brought back before this Bill comes into effect or becomes an Act of Parliament.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided—Contents, 27; Not-Contents,32.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.) Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.) Grimthorpe, L.
Peel, V. Hylton, L.
Argyll, D. Lawrence, L,
Annesley, L. Newton, L.
Bradford, E. Armaghdale, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Chesterfield, E. Atkinson, L. Rothschild, L.
Eldon, E. Cheylesmore, L. Saltoun, L.
Howe, E. Colebrooke, L. Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]
Jersey, E. Ernle, L. Stanmore, L.[Teller.]
Russell, E. Gisborough, L. Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D. Strafford, E. Denman, L.
Waldegrave, E. Erskine, L.[Teller.]
Crewe, M. Harris, L.
Lansdowne, M. Finlay, V. Hindlip, L.
Salisbury, M. Haldane, V. Ludlow, L.
Harcourt, V. Manners, L.
Brassey, E. Hardinge, V. Monk Bretton, L.
Harewood, E. Knollys, V. Roe, L.
Lindsey, E. St. Levan, L.
Onslow, E. Balfour, L. Sydenham, L.
Selborne, E. Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.) Willoughby de Broke, L.
Stanhope, E. [Teller.] Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) Wynford, L.

regular or territorial forces of the Crown who had enlisted prior to the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days, during which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those fourteen days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft order."—(Earl Stanhope.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Continuation of certain provisions relating to terms of service.

2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, a soldier who in pursuance of that section has been transferred from one corps to another shall not until the said thirtieth day of April be entitled to be retransferred to the corps in which he was serving at the time when he was so transferred.

(2) Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of corps of that force, and the liability of officers and men of that force to serve outside the United Kingdom, shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April.

The Army (Suspension of Sentences) Acts, 1915 and 1916, both as originally enacted and as applied to the Air Force, shall, from the passing of this Act and until the said thirtieth day of April, apply to soldiers and airmen whether employed on active service or not, and whether employed beyond the seas or not, and shall have effect as if references to imprisonment and prison included references to detention and detention barracks.

EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of subsection (1), the insertion of the following proviso: "Provided that, where a soldier's retransfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt."

The noble Earl said: This is a small point. Under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, power is taken to transfer a man from one corps to another, and when he is transferred from a corps which is more highly paid to one which receives lower pay, his higher pay is retained by him. But in the Army (Transfer) Act there are the words "where, for the purposes of the present war," a man is transferred, and so on. The Act gives the power of transfer and it gives the soldier the pay which he received in a more highly paid corps. This Bill enables a man to be retained in the corps to which he has been transferred and prevents him from being retransferred to the corps which he originally joined. It is not quite clear whether the man might not have time higher pay taken away from him under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, owing to the words "where, for the purposes of the present war." Therefore, I propose in my Amendment to make the case clear and to say that, where the soldier's retransfer is delayed by this Bill, he shall not be deprived of his higher pay. I am sure your Lordships will agree with this Amendment. I think it might be necessary. In any case it merely makes assurance doubly sure, and those who have to deal with the financial Regulations of the War Office are only too anxious to get those Regulations made, safe.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after ("transferred") insert ("Provided that, where a soldier's re-transfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt").—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has raised a point as to the pay of the soldier on retransfer—that is to say, that he should retain on retransfer the higher pay or emoluments, or whatever it was, which he received when in his original corps. He suggests that there is some doubt whether the soldier, if he is retained and not re-transferred as the result of this measure, may still receive his higher emolument.

EARL STANHOPE

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have been advised on this point, and I am advised that it will have no affect—I mean that the fact of a man being still transferred will not affect his position and that he will still net his emoluments. If that were not so it would be, I think, beyond the competence of this House, because it would be proposing that the man should get a higher emolument than that to which he was otherwise entitled, and it would constitute a breach of the privileges of another place. But I am told that is not so and I do not think the Amendment is necessary. I have very grave doubts as to whether it is in order.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If my noble friend says it is not necessary, that is quite sufficient, and I hope my noble friend will not press it. But if the noble Viscount says it is out of order I venture to say, with great respect, that it would be wiser if members of the Government would use language which is more apt. It is not out of order, even if it is a breach of privilege. It may be unconstitutional, but that is a totally different thing. It is not out of order for your Lordships to break any privileges of the House of Commons, although I hope your Lordships will not do it. The question of privilege, so far as your Lordships are concerned, ought to be closely scrutinised. It is not right that we should admit they are breaches of privilege which are only inferentially so. When we lay a direct charge on the taxpayer, that, no doubt, is a breach of privilege, and one which your Lordships never desire to commit But where in vindicating a general principle of justice an increased charge falls upon the taxpayer it is always a question of doubt whether it is a breach of privilege or not, and the noble Viscount knows very well that the House of Commons have power to waive their privileges. I hope they will waive their privileges on suitable occasions. As your Lordships know, there is a recent occasion when they would have done far better to have waived their privilege. The only result of what they did was to injure their own Bill. I only say this because I think it would be a great mistake if it became known in your Lordships' House that passing Amendments of this kind is in any degree out of order, and even if it were a breach of privilege it follows that the House of Commons would not agree to them. If my noble friend says the Amendment is unnecessary, that is quite sufficient.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I should be extremely glad, after the advice of the noble Marquess, to substitute the word "unconstitutional," for "out of order."

EARL STANHOPE

If the noble Viscount says the Amendment is not necessary, I do not wish to press it. I wanted to be quite certain on the point, because I have suffered more than once by thinking things were right as to the financial regulations of the Army, which, after all, was not the case.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have taken the best advice open to me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), after the words "territorial force," to insert, "within the corps to which they belong." The noble Earl said: This Amendment opens up the question of transfers. Under the Army Transfer Act power has been taken to transfer men from one corps to another, and in this particular case there is a reference to the Military Service Act; of 1916 in regard to the Territorial Force, What I propose by my Amendment is that men in the Territorial Force may be transferred to any battalion in the same regiment, but that power should not be kept to transfer men from one regiment to another. For instance, a man might be in the Hampshire Territorial battalion; under my Amendment the War Office would be able to transfer him to the Hampshire Regular battalion, but they would not be able to transfer him to the Sussex regiment, or to the King's Liverpool.

I said nearly everything that is necessary to be said on this question on the Second Reading of the Bill. The point really is that the unpopularity of transfers in the Army is very considerable and cannot be overrated. I am convinced that nothing is a greater block to satisfactory voluntary recruiting than the power to transfer a man from the unit he chooses to enter. That operates throughout the whole Army, and I am quite certain the feeling against it is very strong. I know that the authorities at the War Office are anxious to retain the power to transfer men from one regiment to another. It is much simpler, of course, to have a perfectly "fluid" Army, and when one regiment gets below establishment to build up from men who belong to an entirely different part of the Army. It is rather the system on which a certain number of country clergymen manage their parish accounts. It is not business-like nor satisfactory, and it certainly is not satisfactory from the Army man's point of view. I hope your Lordships will agree to this and the following Amendment.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Which is the following Amendment?

EARL STANHOPE

The new subsection (3).

VISCOUNT PEEL

They are totally different subjects, and I hope the noble Earl will not take them together.

EARL STANHOPE

Certainly, I will keep them separate. This Amendment merely points out that a man in the Territorials should only be transferred within his own regiment, and not transferred to anything outside. If you really want to keep comradship and good feeling, and maintain the spirit of the battalion and the spirit of the county regiments, you must put a stop to the transfers which at present you wish to legalise under this Bill.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after ("force") insert ("within the corps to which they belong").—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

No one will contest, I think, the general statement of my noble friend, that transfers are unpopular, more especially from one corps to another, and particularly from arm to arm. He knows quite well that during the war this necessity did arise, and that it was absolutely essential to build up certain units from other corps and from other arms. We are not, however, dealing with that general question. The other Amendment of the noble Earl comes later, and I do not want these subjects, which stand on rather a different footing, to be treated together.

I understand quite clearly the point of my noble friend, but I really am unable to understand his Amendment. He proposes to insert, after the word "force," the words "within the corps to which they belong." The Amendment would not have the effect he desires. Let me read the subsection— Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916, which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of the corps of that force,… shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April. The words, therefore, are merely reciting what is in that Act; merely saying that they "shall continue in force until the said 30th day of April." My noble friend would say: "Sections 14, 15, and 16… which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, within the corps to which they belong…" The only effect of the Amendment is to make a misstatement about what is said in Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Military Service Act. This Amendment would really have no effect except to insert a recitation in an Act of Parliament which is a false recitation, and which mis-describes what is stated in a previous Act.

EARL STANHOPE

Surely that is not the case. The point of my Amendment is this. Parts of Sections 14, 15, and 16 which relate to the subjects appearing in Clause 2, will be retained until April 30; but other subjects, which are not referred to, will not be retained until April 30. Why I put in this particular Amendment is that you will be allowed, under this Amendment, to transfer men in the Territorial Force within the corps to which they belong.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am afraid that would not have the effect my noble friend thinks, because I do not believe that he can bisect in that particular way a particular section. This subsection only really recited Sections 14, 15, and 16, and says that they shall continue in force until April 30. I am afraid that what he suggests would not be valid.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree that the noble Viscount has pointed out a fault in the drafting, but that could be amended if we knew what the Government's opinion was on the substance. As far as drafting is concerned, I think that it would read all right if after the words "so far as they relate to officers and men of the Territorial Force," there came the words of my noble friend. If we knew the Government's opinion on the substance there would be, no difficulty in regard to drafting. It is the word "which" that makes it wrong. The question really is the substance, and to that matter the noble Viscount did not reply.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I should be glad to reply on that point, though it is a little difficult to do so on this specific matter, because, though connected with the other, it is separate. Let me put it in this way. The fact that demobilisation has taken place not by units, as my noble friend knows, but by men who have seemed to come under specific categories, makes it very difficult. Men have been withdrawn not because they belonged to any particular unit, but because they belonged to some industrial category. It is obvious that you have to fill up the broken gaps that are left in the different units.

But the case is even more difficult when you come to demobilisation under the Service system. Then you withdraw from all these units the men who were serving before 1916. Men are drawn from these particular units according to length of service, and therefore in the reconstitution of the Army of Occupation it is absolutely essential to have this power of transfer. It would be wholly uneconomical if you did not have it. If you did not have it, you would have certain units with perhaps only thirty or forty men. That would be an impossible way of conducting your military business.

It is even worse than that, because some arms of the service are so depleted that they would not have a sufficient estab- lishment to carry on the work for the rest of the Army. Therefore we must transfer very often men from the Infantry to the Army Service Corps or the Medical Corps in order to produce some balance between the different arms. On the general principle, therefore, I am afraid the Government are averse to the suggestion of my noble friend, because it would involve very great difficulties in the reorganisation of the Army. I suppose that it is no good my saying that the Army Council do no desire to do this further than is necessary, because I should then be told by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this is a statement which can be altered the next day and is of very little value. Therefore I abstain from making it, though it is actually the fact.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am in great sympathy with the object that my noble friend opposite has in view. I can bear witness to the feeling that there is in regard to these transfers. I recall at this moment one case of the transfer of 300 or more men from a county regiment with which I had some connection to an Irish battalion. That caused an immense amount of feeling not only amongst the men transferred. Nevertheless, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that there is a very great danger in tying the hands of the military authorities too tightly. On the particular occasion to which I have referred I expostulated with the late Lord Kitchener, and I remember his argument very well. He said, "I entirely sympathise with you, but I have to beat the Germans, and that must come before everything else." That is an argument difficult to resist. I myself should be inclined to be content with an assurance which I am sure the noble Viscount will give, that this power of transfer will be exercised as fairly as possible, and only when the urgent necessity of the case justifies it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am quite prepared to give that assurance.

EARL STANHOPE

I suggest that the noble Viscount might go a little further. I fully appreciate what he has said as to the difficulty in the reorganisation of the Rhine Army, and the Armies elsewhere. But I suggest that we should have some definite limit in regard to how long these transfers should go on. After all, de- mobilisation on a general scale will shortly come to an end, and we should then be able to reorganise our Army on a proper Territorial or county basis, whichever you prefer to describe it. Then these transfers should cease.

The difficulty has been throughout the whole war that once the Army Transfer Act came into operation it has been the first thing that was used and not the last. I have in mind a case at this moment in which a brigade had very serious casualties and a very large draft of men was sent up to it. There were four battalions in the brigade, and it happened that the reinforcements consisted mostly of four regiments, and they were told they should go so many to this regiment and so many to that. What actually happened was this. I do not remember the name of the regiments, but it worked out something like this: 200 men say of the Gordon Highlanders were sent up to join a battalion of the Suffolk Regiment, and 200 men of the Suffolk Regiment were sent up to join a battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. The Brigadier, being a very strong supporter of the regimental system of esprit de corps, quite rightly kept the men in their own regiments. The Gordon Highlanders went to the Gordon Highlanders, and the Suffolk men went to the Suffolks. But that is what was happening over and over again. I suggest that any esprit de corps under these conditions is really almost impossible.

If you go to a man in hospital or any-where else and ask him what regiment he belongs to he will say, "I belong to so-and-so." But you say, "It is not the badge of that regiment you are wearing." "Oh," he will say, "I was transferred somewhere else." But he will al ways claim to belong to the regiment to which he was first attached. That is a curious coincidence, and it is one which I cannot explain. Men were not long at their depots yet they got there enough esprit de corps to make them feel that they had a sort of connection with the regiment to which they were first attached, and that connection was one which they personally retained throughout the whole war. In many ways I am not very strong about this Amendment. Like the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, I am a supporter of compulsory service. This deals with voluntary enlistment, and I am quite sure that if you do not stop these transfers at an early date you can whistle for your volunteers, because they simply will not come. I suggest to the noble Viscount opposite that perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, even if he cannot accept this and the next Amendment, he should accept some Amendment laying down a definite date at which transfer from one corps to another should come to an end.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think, after what has been said, that probably enough has been put before your Lordships to impress the Government with the very strong feeling which exists in the House against these transfers. All of us who have served at all know how very unpopular they are. The Government, I know, are fully alive to the fact that we shall have to rely very shortly no longer upon a compulsory system but upon a voluntary system. The success of that voluntary system largely turns upon the attitude which the military authorities take during these last few months. If the military authorities show themselves sympathetic to the susceptibilities of the soldiers and the Territorials then they may get their volunteers, but, if an impression gets abroad that they are likely to treat them without regard to their feelings, then they will not get them, or not so many of them. Therefore, it is very important in the interests of the country that a sympathetic attitude should be adopted, and these transfers are profoundly unpopular.

I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that it would make it difficult for the Government at the present moment to prevent any sort of adjustment which he suggested might be necessary. What he said about the difficulties of demobilisation seems to me quite true. And therefore I am glad to think that my noble friend is not going to press the Amendment for the moment, but it would be a good thing before the Bill passes into law to tell us whether they think that these transfers will come to an end as soon as demobilisation is over, and whether they can assure the country that there will not be any more transfers and that they will go back to the old system under which a man enlists in a particular corps and remains in that corps. If some such assurance could be given before your Lordships part with the Bill I think it would probably do some good.

VISCOUNT PEEL

There is no doubt that the Army Council thoroughly appre ciates the unpopularity of transfers. But, as my noble friend Lord Stanhope knows, it is rather difficult to fix a specific date. Demobilisation goes on, and these regiments are telescoped together and reformed, and I suggest to him that it might be rather unwise to tie the hands of the Army authorities by giving them a fixed date after which no more transfers could be made. It might militate against the redistribution of men. I take the case of the Army Service Corps: there happens at the present moment to be a shortage of men there. It might be rather difficult if there were a specific date.

As regards the desire of the Army Council to preserve the regimental and territorial systems, which are connected together, perhaps I might refer again to a point which I mentioned in my opening statement, that these ten divisions which form the Army of Occupation on the Rhine have been organised after really great effort on the territorial basis, so far at least as the infantry is concerned. The noble Marquess understands the great difficulty of organising the more technical arms on the territorial basis. But that is a valid proof in fact of the great anxiety which the Army Council have to preserve the regimental and territorial system.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to