THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR AND THE VOLUNTEERS IN

SOUTH AFRICA.

I.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT TO MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER.

House of Commons, St. David's Day, March 1st, 1905.

MY DEAR ARNOLD-FORSTER, (1) Your observations in the House of Commons on February 23rd with regard to the Volunteers in South Africa have not only caused considerable pain to the Members connected with the Volunteer Force, but to the entire body. Had there been opportunity I should at once have called attention thereto. As it was, I withheld my vote. I extract from the Times what you said :—

" It has been suggested that the Volunteer Force is by itself an immense contribution to the Army in the field. That is a delusion. I am not blaming the Volunteers, who have other calls and duties to meet. I would remind hon. Members what took place during the South African War. There were three calls for Volunteers. We obtained, first, 11,000 men; then we obtained 5,300. The war still went on, and the whole Army Reserve was called out and men were brought from every part of the world. We then obtained 2,580 Volunteers. What had happened in the meanwhile ? The Volunteers had increased by 40,000 men. I do not blame the Volunteers for a moment ; they are enlisted for work in this country; but it is an absolute delusion to suppose that they can be relied on for furnishing those great additions which war would certainly demand for the Regular Army.

Sir H. Vincent.—Does the right hon. gentleman include the Volunteers who joined the Yeomanry to the number of many thousands and the number who joined the Regular Army?

Mr. Arnold-Forster.—I have not included those who joined the Yeomanry, because many joined merely for the purpose of going out at 5s. a day. The number of Yeomanry was 6,209."

(2) In the first place, you must let me say that the figures you quoted are not identical with those furnished me by the Auxiliary Forces Branch of the War Office, before giving evidence to the Royal Commission on the War, or those quoted by the Inspector-General of the Auxiliary Forces in his evidence

on November 25th, 1902. These figures were

1900. Officers, City Imperial Volunteers ... 59 68 Companies to Regular Battalions 255 •••

Engineer Detachments ... 22 ••• 1901.

58 Companies 19 and Detachments ... 178 ••• 02.

49 Detachments ... ... 68 •••

582

:—

N astis°1. 8,484 434 6,035 2,446

tal. Total.

8.739 456 6,213 2,514 19,066 1 19,648

(3) This total in round numbers 20,000, were all trained men, marksmen, and nearly all bachelors. General Sir Thos. Kelly- Kenny, lately Adjutant-General to the Forces, and who com- manded the Sixth Army Corps, deposed before the Royal Commission :- " The Volunteers joined their Line battalions with extra- ordinary quickness, assimilated all that was good in our regimental system, and contributed to it with their many fine qualities. They were intelligent and patriotic, and fell into disciplinary order at once."

(4) I found them myself throughout the area of the campaign held in universal approval by the Generals, Brigadiers, and commanding officers under whom they served, who frequently by reason of their training, their intelligence, their physique, and their marksmanship placed them in advanced positions demanding special individuality.

(5) The General Orders regarding them I have collated in a pamphlet entitled "The Volunteers in South Africa : what they did and how they did it,"—copy of which I beg to enclose. They are without exception favourable.

(6) These 20,000 were about one fourth of the number of Volunteers who offered their services, and indeed pressed them on the Government from July, 1899, down to their acceptance after the defeats of Magersfontein and Coleus° in Cape Colony and Natal and of Stormberg.

(7) These Volunteers—trained and expert shots as they were— received only Regular soldiers' pay, allowances, and rations, and were subject in all respects to the same discipline. (8) The 40,000 of the civil population who at once joined the Volunteer Force enabled the authorities to practically denude the United Kingdom of Regular troops, and in large measure of Militia and Yeomanry.

(9) Were such services, as you suggest, "no contribution to the Army in the field" P

(10) I now turn to the aspersion on the Volunteers joining the Imperial Yeomanry, 6,209, whom you did not include, " because many," you say, "joined merely for the purpose of going out at 5s. a day."

(11) I feel sure that upon reflection you will be glad of the opportunity to withdraw so unjust a charge.

(12) Many of the 6,209 Volunteers joined the first or 1900 levy of the Imperial Yeomanry. It received but soldiers' pay, allow- ances, and rations. (14) The Regular Army, the Militia (which sent 1,691 officers and 43,875 men to South Africa), the Volunteer service com- panies, and the Volunteer Force were naturally indignant at such differentiation. Although Volunteers as such obtained no privilege, some (headed by the Duke of Norfolk, E.M., K.G., then Postmaster-General) joined tho new levies. But is it fair or. sight, after having profited by their services—services which practically saved the Imperial situation, and which were well reported on to Lord Kitchener by the commanders of the flying columns under whom they served—that the Secretary of State for War should say in the House of Commons that "they joined merely for the purpose of going out at 5s. a day," forgetful of those who died and received wounds in their country's service? To quote only Colonel de Rongomont, D.S.O., RA., "they wore extremely good and as brave as lions " ; while Colonel Hickie, of the Royal Fusiliers, said "he was intimately acquainted with 18 regiments of Regulars and Irregulars, and would not change his Volunteer Yeomen for an equal number of any corps in South Africa."

(15) I might also remind you that some 5,000 or 6,000 Volun- teers joined the Regular Army as ordinary recruits on the approach and outbreak of war, and brought thereto their training and intelligence, greatly modifying thereby the disastrous result attending the rejection of over 36 per cent. of the Army for the field. (16) You will, I am sure, permit me to make known your reply to the Force, which feels in the observations in question some modification of the announcement at Liverpool on January 21st, 1901 :—" Whether I am in this office a short or a long time, the Volunteers will find in me a most sympathetic person."

(17) It is on this ground that I have appealed to you publicly and privately, by letter, interview, and speech, to terminate quickly and for good a state of suspense fatal to the Force, and which is adding daily to the present deficiency of 2,800 officers, and the reluctance of the most eligible young men in the com- munity to enter upon a three or four years' engagement as Volunteers, without knowing definitely what it is they bind themselves to, and how it will affect their civil employment.—

Yours sincerely, C. E. HOWARD VINCENT.

2 The Abbey Garden, Westminster, 4th March, 1905. DEAR SIR HOWARD VINCENT,

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd inst. You are, however, under an entire misapprehension respecting my attitude towards the Volunteer Force. I should have thought it was quite unnecessary for mo to explain that I made no " aspersion " whatever upon the Volunteers. I pointed out in illustration of my argument that a considerable number of men who went to South Africa were attracted out of the Volunteer Force into the Yeomanry by the high pay given to that Force. This is a simple statement of fact, and I mentioned it to explain why I had not included these men in my total. They did not go as Volunteers, but as Yeomanry. Thousands of men who had never been in the Volunteers at all did the same thing, and would have gone if there had never been any Volunteer Force in existence.

With all you say as to the excellent service rendered by the Volunteers in South Africa I readily agree. No one has ever doubted the value of these men. I have often said that in my opinion the Volunteers contain some of the bast material in our armed forces. I am not quite sure, however, that much is gained by drawing comparisons between the value of the service rendered by the various contingents who fought for us in South Africa.

All these matters, however, are relatively unimportant com- pared with the main issue. I have always held that the principal military need of this country is an adequate force of well-trained men, capable of forming and reinforcing an Army abroad, in case we are involved in war across the sea. I rather gather that you now regard the Volunteers as a valuable contribution for this purpose. This, I think, is a somewhat new point of view, and I am glad to know that you entertain it. If, however, we are to accept it, we must accept its inevitable consequences. If the Volunteers are intended for service abroad, they should be organised and trained for that purpose, and, above all, the element of uncertainty should be eliminated. Organisation for war is impossible if the number and character of the troops likely to be available is an unknown quantity.

I have always regarded you as a most distinguished repre- sentative of a very famous and well-organised Metropolitan Volunteer regiment; but I fear I cannot with the same certainty regard you as a representative of the entire Volunteer Force. On the contrary, I believe that the great majority of Volunteer officers know well that I have but one aim, and that is to make the Force more efficient and more capable of serving the nation than it is at present. I have given an earnest of the truth of my intentions; and if I am allowed to carry out my policy, I believe that in a couple of years the Volunteers, both officers and men, will be in possession of advantages which they have hoped for for years, but which no previous Administration has been able to confer upon them. I know that on one important issue there is a clear difference of opinion between you and myself. I believe that if it be true that the Volunteer Force is in excess of any possible military requirement, that if it be true that as at present organised it is not fit to take the field, it is the positive duty of those who are responsible for the defence of the country and for the expenditure of the public funds to reduce the number of the Force and to increase its efficiency. I cannot find any naval or military authority in favour of the proposition that the maintenance of the Volunteer Force at its present strength is necessary for the defence of these islands. I have the recorded opinion • of a powerful Commission to tho effect that tho Volunteer Force, as at present constituted, is not effective for war. tinder these circumstances the policy which I have laid down seems to me the only one consonant with common-sense and reason. I believe that is the view of the vast majority of those who have time and inclination to think of our national problems as a whole, and as I know well that the majority of Volunteer officers may be included in this category, I am confident that they too share my

views.—Believe me, yours truly, H. 0. Amman-Fos:sum Sir Howard Vincent, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.P.

IlL Thank you for your letter of March 4th.

I am only sorry that you have not frankly withdrawn the statement :—" I have not included those who joined the Yeomanry because many joined merely for the purpose of going out at 5s. a day." It will necessitate my recurring thereto in the House of Commons.

I have never pretended to be a representative of the entire Volunteer Force, or more than one who, in thirty years' close and active connection with it, knows something of its value and its needs, and has zealously advocated them.

You express a belief that the great majority of Volunteer officers are in accord with you. Why then have the vacant com- missions doubled since 1898, and why does every Gazette add to the deficiency ? What view does the Institute of Commanding Officers of Volunteers take ?

You say that, " above all, the element of uncertainty should be eliminated."

It is that " uncertainty " you maintain in defiance of all appeals.—Yours faithfully, C. E. HOWARD VINCENT.