§ LORD RATHCREEDAN asked His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that the main reason why the 5th Lancers, although senior to the 18th Hussars, has been selected for disbandment is in order to maintain the linked regiment system, this trivial administrative difficulty cannot be overcome, and a gross injustice coupled with a departure from the dominant principle avoided by converting the 15th Hussars into Lancers, whereby six Lancer and eight Hussar Reginents would be available for continuing the linked system.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for re-introducing this Question, because it is a matter of a gross injustice being done to a most distinguished regiment. When the Government declared their intention of reducing the Cavalry they stated that they would be reduced upon the principle that four junior regiments should be taken. The four junior regiments were not taken; the Government now acknowledge that. It was pointed out that an Order made by Queen Victoria had certainly not been observed, and the Goverment declared that there was no specific reason for abiding by that Order. When it was proved that the regiment in question, the 5th Lancers, had by half a century longer service than the regiment which ought to have been reduced, the 18th Hussars, the Government then shifted their ground, and said it was not the total length of service which had to be taken into consideration, but the time from which both the regiments had been re-raised.
§ It was then conclusively proved, and acknowledged by the Government, that the 5th Lancers was distinctly senior to the 18th Hussars. Now we are told that the reason is some administrative difficulty in connection with the linked system. The linked system has never been in complete operation in the British Army. In days gone by the system was observed of having about half the number of our Cavalry regiments abroad, chiefly in India. Some fourteen regiments of the Cavalry line in India fed some fourteen regiments at home. This was done by means of a troop of each regiment abroad being quartered at the Cavalry depot at Canterbury. Even in those days regiments naturally relieved each other, and it was immaterial whether they were Lancers, or Dragoons, or Hussars.
197§ In 1897 what was known as this linked system was introduced. That is to say, the regiments at home prepared recruits and sent out drafts to the regiments abroad. When the South African War took place this system broke down, and the depot system was reverted to. Then the linked system was reintroduced, hut still four Cavalry regiments were fed by the depot at Canterbury. Then the great war came, and it was found desirable to have reserve regiments of Cavalry. These reserve regiments then fed the regiments abroad. And now the linked system is again in partial, bat not in perfect, operation, and I wish to learn from whichever member of the Government replies to me what the difficulty is in connection with this linked system; why a gross injustice should be done to one particular regiment; why it should be taken out of its proper place when it is senior to another regiment; and. why this junior regiment should be preferred before it.
§ It is said that there is some difficulty in connection with carrying out the linked system. There is no difficulty whatever; at least, if there is, I shall be glad to know it. It may be said there is a difficulty with reference to the training of the men, but I venture to assert—and. I have acted in almost every capacity in connection with the staff of a regiment—that you can convert a Lancer regiment into a Hussar regiment, or a Hussar regiment into a Lancer regiment, with the greatest ease. For example, if a Lancer regiment is required, now that the 21st Lancers have been reduced, to link with the other 5th Lancer regiment, there is no difficulty whatever in converting what will then be the junior Hussar regiment —namely, the 15th Hussars—into Lancers. You have simply to give them the lances of the 21st Lancers which you are reducing and in the space of a couple of months train them to the use of that weapon, and you have a Lancer regiment ready made and no gross injustice is done to the senior Lancer regiment in the Service. If, on the other hand, you wish to have a Lancer regiment less and a Hussar regiment more, there is no difficulty whatever in converting the 5th Lancers into Hussars by removing their lances and linking them up with the 10th Hussars. Therefore, I am anxious to learn from the noble Viscount the nature of the great administrative difficulty in connection with the linked system.
198§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend on the sleepless energy with which lie has returned to the charge on behalf of the 5th Lancers for the fourth time during the last three or four weeks. I can only regret that his energy and the variety of the tactics which lie has pursued did not lead him to remain in the Army and thus continue a military career instead of exchanging it for a political one. With all the good will in the world I cannot add to what I have already said more than once in your Lordships' House. The suggestion is that the 18th, 19th and 20th Hussars and the 21st Lancers should be disbanded and that to restore the balance in the linked system the 15th Hussars should be converted into Lancers. My noble friend has come forward with the definite proposal that the 15th Hussars should be converted into Lancers and the 18th Hussars should he disbanded instead of the 5th Lancers.
My noble friend has poured a good deal of ridicule, I think, upon the linked system, but the War Office do not consider it at all trivial. They regard it as a very important factor indeed in matters affecting administration and problems of recruiting and drafting. In regard to selection for disbandment, there was so little difference—some three weeks, as I think my noble friend admits—between the continued service, after re-raising, of the 18th Hussars and the 5th Lancers, that in the interests of the Service it was impossible to overlook the importance of the administrative difficulties. I should like to say that there has been no inconsistency whatever in the attitude of the War Office towards the question of re-raising. They have always maintained that for this purpose a regiment must be dated from the time of the last re-raising. That principle was applied in the case of Yeomanry regiments. It is essential that for every regiment abroad there should be a regiment of the same Corps at home, and this necessitates an even number of regiments of the same Corps existing in the aria of the Service. Two Lancer and two Hussar regiments were, therefore, selected for disbandment.
Let me turn to the specific proposition of my noble friend. To change the 15th Hussars into Lancers and retain the 5th Lancers while disbanding the 18th Hussars would certainly produce this equality of numbers of similar Corps regiments, but, 199 as has been pointed out on previous occasions, it would introduce a number of difficulties. I may add that under my noble friend's scheme, though the number of Lancer regiments would remain the same, the Hussar Corps would be reduced by no less than four different regiments; so that the whole weight of the disbandment would really fall on the Corps of Hussars.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANUnder my scheme it would be one only.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI repeat that there would be a reduction of the Hussar corps by four regiments. The 18th, 19th and 20th Hussars are to lie disbanded and it is proposed to convert the 15th Hussars into Lancers, reducing the Corps of Hussars, therefore, by no less than four regiments.
In the first place, though my noble friend is inclined to think that the matter is so easy of accomplishment it requires an Act of Parliament to authorise the compulsory transfer of a man in a Hussar regiment to a Lancer regiment, and the result of such action would be to create a feeling of insecurity throughout the whole Army, because no man would know to what Corps he belonged if, in consequence of sonic controversy, legislation were resorted to in order to break his contract. It must be remembered, too, that if such a. transfer were authorised it would affect not only the men who were serving at the moment in the 15th Hussars, but also the reservists of the 15th Hussars, who, of course, are scattered all over the world.
In the second place, the conversion of a Hussar regiment into a Lancer regiment involves certain financial expenditure, in that as Lancers the men have to be rearmed, retrained, and, as regards full dress, reclothed. In addition, considerable expense would fall upon the officers.
I do not know whether my noble friend has examined the record of the 15th Hussars very carefully, but they have an unbroken record of service dating hack to 1759, which he, as I understand, wishes ruthlessly to destroy by altering the Corps to which they belong. They have held the title of Hussars since 1806. It would be very difficult to justify the conversion of this regiment into Lancers in order to prevent the disbandment of the 5th Lancers, a course which does not involve 200 any administrative difficulty or expense. I am afraid, therefore, that as at present advised the War Office must stand by the original decision, and, though I admire the courage of my noble friend, his forces are hardly adequate to converting the War Office to his views.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANI must thank the noble Viscount for his answer, which is completely and entirely unsatisfactory. I purpose taking other steps to endeavour to prevent this gross injustice being done.