HC Deb 31 July 1897 vol 52 cc8-16

Where an Order in Council under this Act authorises the execution of military manœuvres, such persons as are under the authority of Her Majesty engaged in the manœuvres (in the Act referred to as the authorised forces) may, under the direction of the Secretary of State within the specified limits and during the specified period,

  1. (a) pass over, and encamp, construct military works, and execute military manœuvres on any authorised land; and
  2. (b) supply themselves with water from any authorised sources of water, and, for that purpose, dam up any running water. Provided always, that such damming up of water does not interfere with the exercise of any trade or industry, and that nothing in this Act shall authorise the taking of water from any source of supply belonging to a private owner, except subject to the supply shown to be required by such owner.

Provided as follows—

  1. (1.) Nothing in this Act shall authorise entry on or interference with (except for the purpose of using authorised roads) any dwelling-house, farmyard, garden, orchard, pleasure ground or nursery ground, burial ground, ground attached to any place of worship, or school, or any premises enclosed within the curtilage of or attached to any dwelling-house, or any enclosed wood or plantation.
  2. (2.) The officer in command of the authorised forces shall take care that there is no interference with earthworks, ruins, or other remains of antiquarian or historical interest, or with any picturesque or valuable timber, or other natural features of exceptional interest or beauty, and shall cause all lands used under the powers conferred by this Act to be restored as soon and as far as practicable to their previous condition.
  3. (3.) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to—
    1. (a) the closing of roads and footpaths; and
    2. (b) obstruction of or interference with military manœuvres; and
    3. (c) entering or remaining in a camp, nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect any public right or any right of common.

MR. DILLON

moved to leave out "construct military works." What was meant by "military works?" If they gave unlimited control to the military to construct military works they might do an amount of mischief to an ornamental demesne which would take years to remedy, and which it would be difficult to estimate in value. He gathered from the Under Secretary for War that the intention was to construct military works as if troops were engaged in actual battle. If that was so, then there was nothing to protect the ornamental grounds of any residents from destruction and injury which it might take years to efface, and for which it would be impossible for any arbitrator to appraise the fair compensation which should be paid.

* MR. BRODRICK

thought that the hon. Member had forgotten the strong limitation which was embodied in Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause which forbade officers to interfere with a recognised park or the like, and especially safeguarding anything of natural interest and beauty. The officer, first of all was not allowed from the point of view of expense to interfere with these objects, and then there was a safeguard with regard to the expense. Officers were not so foolish as to turn up grounds and spoil them where compensation would necessarily have to be paid. The limitation to five years was a most substantial concession, and the Government could not go any further without completely hampering the utility of the Bill.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

said that the explanation was good so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. Was it meant by military works the erection of buildings or anything of a permanent character?

* MR. BRODRICK

No; nothing of the kind.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

was glad to hear this, for they were all familiar with certain schemes for the erection of fortifications to defend London; and there were people who seemed to have the possibility of invasion on the brain.

MR. MACNEILL

asked the Solicitor-General for an explanation of the phrase—"construction of military works." Did it include the construction of camps, mines, trenches and counter trenches, blockhouses and forts? The clause would give a free hand to officers all over the country. The works should be limited to the erection of a few covered trenches, because the construction of military works as explained would be against popular rights.

* MR. BRODRICK

said that as there was an apprehension on the subject he was ready to make the clause read that the works should not be of "a permanent character."

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

* MR. BRODRICK

moved after "works" to insert "not of a permanent character."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MACNEILL

moved to strikeout the proviso in paragraph (b) permitting the military authorities to dam up running water provided that it did not interfere with any trade or industry. It was needful of course to give the troops a fair supply for their requirements, but the section permitted the diversion of ornamental water and running water.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. Sometimes it was necessary in the course of manœuvres that horses should be watered, and that some running water should be dammed for that purpose. The protection given in the sub-section was ample, but the power was necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALDWELL

moved in paragraph (b) to leave out "exercise," and to insert "carrying on."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. STEPHENS

moved after "owner" to insert "or public authority."

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. BRODRICK

moved to insert at the end of Sub-section (b) that there should be no interference with the water supply of a private owner "or of those entitled to use such water supply." This would cover the case raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark who was anxious to protect the rights of tenants as well as of owners in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FLYNN

moved to leave out the words ("except for the purpose of using authorised roads.") He did not understand the sub-section as it stood, and asked for some explanation. It seemed to imply that for the purpose of using authorised roads the troops might enter on all the kinds of private property specified. At any rate, it was vague and difficult to understand, and he hoped some explanation, would be given.

* MR. BRODRICK

said he thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite appreciated the object of the words. If they were omitted, the military might be entirely barred from the use of long lines of road across country covered in some cases by woods and parks. The provision had been accepted by those who would be most affected by it. The whole value of the manœuvres would be spoilt if the words were taken out.

MR. DILLON

said the explanation showed that the hon. Gentleman had not carefully studied the subsection (which he proceeded to quote). His point was this, that unless they put in words to qualify the sub-section, a man might get troops tramping through his back kitchen—[laughter]—in order to get a short cut. Under this sub-section as it stood, if the troops thought they could get a short cut to one of the authorised roads they would have a perfect right to go in at the back door and out at the front. [Much laughter.] He maintained that that was the meaning of the subsection, and challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove the contrary. Whatever the sub-section forbade might be done under the exception contained in the parenthesis.

* MR. BRODRICK

said if the hon. Member would look at Clause 5 he would see that the Commissioners might determine what were to be authorised lands and roads. They could not determine that which was not a road to be a road.

MR. DILLON

asked what was the meaning of putting in this provision if there was nothing else in the Act authorising interference with dwellings, farmyards, etc. If there was nothing of the kind in the Act the sub-section was absolutely unnecessary. It was perfectly manifest that without the sub-section there was something in the Act giving this power.

* MR. BRODRICK

No.

MR. DILLON

Then why put in the sub-section? It was preposterous. As a layman, he was entitled to some explanation. It appeared to him as clear as daylight. Either the words of the sub-section were silly, absurd, and unnecessary, and ought not to be there, or else they had some meaning. And the meaning to any ordinary man, and he believed the legal meaning too—though he did not profess to be a legal authority—was this, that if the troops saw fit to pass through a dwelling-house or a farmyard, or any other place forbidden by the sub-section, for the purpose of entering upon an authorised road, the words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit specifically authorised them to do so. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] He invited the hon. Gentleman to show on what ground he denied that interpretation.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

I think the hon. Gentleman would see that what he had said was based on a misconception. If he will look at the fifth clause, he will see that the Military Manœuvres Commission had power to make orders to determine what laud, roads, and sources of water shall be "authorised land, roads, and sources of water" within the meaning of the Act. The word "land" is a very general term; and if it is not guarded it might be extended so as to enable the Commissioners to make orders for the use of houses, and gardens attached to them, and so on. I think that after this explanation the hon. Gentleman will see that the epithets he bestowed upon the sub-section as being ridiculous and unnecessary, are not deserved.

MR. DILLON

I did not say it was ridiculous and unnecessary. I said that either it was necessary or it was not. I am content to leave it to any lawyer to say if I am not right. The contention of the Solicitor General was that it was entirely unnecessary, because he said that under Clause 5 the Military Commission had no power to order any interference with roads and houses—h—

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

No. What I said was, that it was necessary in order to restrict the generality of the words in Clause 5.

MR. DILLON

That is my contention.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Then we are agreed—[laughter]—and I do not care to stop to inquire by what process we have come to that agreement. [Laughter.] If you were to leave the general terms of Section 5 unqualified, it might be extended to enable the Commissioners to make orders that land should be considered as "authorised land" which ought to be exempted; and you want this sub-section in order to qualify those general terms. [Mr. DILLON: "Hear, hear!"] To that extent we are in absolute agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman in supposing that he stigmatised the sub-section as ridiculous and unnecessary. Then the hon. Gentleman objects to these words "except for the purpose of using authorised roads." The only application to those words which is intended is in the case specified by my hon. Friend, where you have roads running through the kinds of property described in the sub-section. Suppose you have a wood with roads running across if. It might be said, if you did not introduce this qualification, "You are not entitled to go on a private road which crosses a line of wood, because thereby you are entering the wood." It is perfectly obvious that you must introduce such a qualification, because otherwise if you have a wood 20 miles long only traversed by private roads you might block out a great part of the country from the troops for the purposes of the manœuvres. I don't think hon. Gentlemen need be under any apprehension that under these words a dwelling-house can be construed as a road. [Laughter.]

MR. DILLON

said he was sorry to interrupt. His point was—and he was convinced he was right—that in the place in which the words were inserted they did give the power of passing through a dwelling-house or a yard for the purpose of entering on an authorised road; and if the object of the right hon. Gentleman was only to give power to pass through woods, the only thing he had to do was to transfer the parenthesis containing the words of exception to the end of the sub-section.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

You will have sometimes a road which may pass through other places mentioned here. You might have a road crossing a pleasure ground or running through an orchard. Of course the Commissioners would not use their powers in an unreasonable way. But we are quite prepared to make it perfectly clear; and if it will meet the hon. Gentleman's views we will say "to the extent of using authorised roads."

MR. DILLON

I agree to that.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

That is what the words mean at present; but if it satisfies the hon. Gentleman we will alter the words "for the purpose of using" to "to the extent of using."

MR. DILLON

I accept.

MR. FLYNN

, by leave, withdrew his Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

moved to amend the clause by inserting "to the extent" in the place of "for the purpose."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CALDWELL

moved to amend the clause by inserting after "dwelling house" the words— land attached to any place of worship, school, factory, workshop, store, or premises used for carrying on any business or manufacture.

* MR. BRODRICK

Of course there is not the slightest intention of entering any of these places, but I have no objection to putting in the words.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ELYNN

moved, in Sub-section (2), after "forces" to insert "in any portion thereof."

MR. BRODRICK

resisted the Amendment on the ground that the responsibility imposed by the second proviso of the clause was responsibility which ought to fall on the officer in command. It was he who ought to see that the provisions or clause were carried out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. BRODRICK

moved in Subsection (2) after the word "beauty" to insert— and shall be empowered to prevent trespass or damage to property by persons not belonging to the forces. He explained that the object was to enable the commanding officer to prevent sightseers from doing damage.

* SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said that in 1871 the manœuvres were carried out admirably, and that the only difficulty that arose was due to the fact that the troops were accompanied by sightseers who did a good deal of damage. It was very desirable that after conference between the General Commanding and the county police, practical steps should be taken on such occasions to prevent damage from being done. He was glad to think that this Amendment would call the General's attention to the importance of the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3,—