Lords Sitting of 14 March 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Mutiny Act (Temporary) Continuance*.
Royal Assent—Exchequer Bonds (No. 1) [42 Vict, c. 3]; Consolidated Fund (No. 1) [42 Vict. C. 2]; Assizes [42 Vict. c. 1].

THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  LORD TRUROrose to move—
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return showing the number of courts of inquiry ordered by the War Office in each year in the Volunteer Force since its establishment; the number of volunteers of all ranks, the number of adjutants, and the number of instructors in each year on whom such were held, and the several offences charged."

  883
  The noble Lord said, he had hoped that the Return would be unopposed; but almost at the last moment the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War (Viscount Bury) had given him to understand that he did not intend to comply with his request. Returns of this character were made annually in the Army, and he thought it desirable that they should have something similar in regard to the Volunteers. Such a Return would search out all the weak points, whatever they might be, of the whole system—with respect to the working of which he intended on a later day to move for a Royal Commission, and for that purpose the Return he now asked for would be available. When Returns were opposed, it was usually on the ground that they were injurious to the public interests or that they would involve considerable expenditure of money or time. In the present instance no such objection could be urged, as letters addressed to the commanding officers of the various corps would elicit all the information he desired. With reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee, he admired the dexterity with which the Government had postponed, if not denied, the grant of any additional public money to the Volunteer Force. It would have been better if they had frankly stated their inability to recommend an increase of the annual grant. Most of the witnesses examined before the Committee were men of what he might call War Office proclivities, who, though they might command respect and consideration, were unable to understand the extreme difficulties that surrounded the Volunteers.
  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Return showing the number of courts of inquiry ordered by the War Office in each year in the Volunteer Force since its establishment; the number of volunteers of all ranks, the number of adjutants, and the number of instructors in each year on whom such were held, and the several offences charged.— (The Lord Truro.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that he would reserve his defence of the Departmental Committee till the noble Lord moved for the Royal Commission. He was sorry that the War Office could not furnish the Return asked for by the noble Lord; but there were no records in the Office from which the information could be
  884
  compiled, as when courts of inquiry were ordered no special note was kept of the order. Nor could the suggestion of the noble Lord that circular letters should be sent to the commanding officers of the corps be efficacious. The courts of inquiry were held, some under the authority of the Crown, and some under that of the commanding officers of the regiments; the former were held on officers, and the latter on the private members of the Force. In many instances corps had ceased to exist, and it was not probable that in all cases their records were complete; but, in any case, the War Office must decline to be responsible for the returns that might be procured. Moreover, in his opinion, the Return would involve serious expense and trouble.
  LORD TRUROasked whether it was the fact that no record had been kept at the War Office of courts of inquiry ordered to be held upon adjutants attached to the Volunteer regiments?
  VISCOUNT BURYreplied, that in the case both of the Volunteers and of the Regular Army the same course had been pursued.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I must repudiate the notion that the military authorities have been opposed to the interests of the Volunteers. Whenever the War Office has had to decide a question of the kind referred to by the noble Lord (Lord Truro), we have taken into our fullest consideration the views of the commanding officers. I do not wish that your Lordships should have the impression that the military authorities are insensible to the interest of Volunteer officers. They are ready at all times to meet the Volunteers more than half way.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

HIGHWAY ACT, 1878.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrose to call attention to the provisions of the Highway Act of last Session, as to the expenses of "main roads," and to ask whether Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce any Bill to amend those provisions? The noble Earl said it would be remembered that the Act enabled the county authorities to declare any road whatever to be a main

  885
  road; and the point he wished to raise was, whether they were empowered by the Act to pay half the expenses connected with such roads? It was argued that all taxing clauses should be precise and clear in their effect, and he was aware that the 18th clause of the Act provided that in the case of
  "Main roads the accounts should be rendered separately by the highway authorities to the county authority, and that in the event of any default in the rendering of those accounts the county authority might refuse to contribute half the expense of maintaining' the roads, as provided by the 13th clause."
  It might, therefore, be said that the whole of the main roads were covered by the Act, and he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government entertained any doubts on the subject, and whether, if so, they intended to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the provisions of the Act?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, no doubt his noble Friend had not put this Question from mere curiosity, because the subject had occupied the attention of several Quarter Sessions during the past year, and especially the Quarter Sessions of the County of Norfolk. He could not share the doubt that had been raised. The 13th section of the Act provided that all the turnpike roads should become main roads, and as such should have half the cost of their maintenance borne by the county rates. Then followed the 15th section, which provided that the highway authority might proclaim a road to be a main road. What, he should like to know, would be the use of that provision, unless something turned upon the fact that they had acquired a right to that name? That being so, the Government were of opinion that the same provision which applied to main roads under Clause 13 equally applied to those under Clause 15. He understood that the same conclusion had been arrived at by an eminent Counsel to whom a case had been submitted by the Justices of Northumberland. He had therefore arrived at the conclusion that it would not be necessary to introduce a declaratory Act during the present Session to remove the doubts as to the interpretation of the Act which had arisen in the minds of some persons. It was possible, however, that in the course of time it might be necessary to consolidate the general
  886
  Highway Acts, in which case, if any doubts on the subject still existed, the opportunity might be taken to obviate them.
  LORD SELBORNEdid not think the matter was so free from doubt as the noble Duke seemed to suppose, and suggested the expediency of making the law clearer.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE DEFEAT AT ISANDULA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD THURLOW: My Lords, in putting this Question, of which I have given Notice, I will not detain your Lordships many moments. On the one hand, I feel it would be very unwise and very unfair to prejudge the causes which led to the disaster at Isandula; but, on the other hand, I feel that it would be still more unwise and still more unfair to shrink from the earliest and the closest and the most minute investigation into a catastrophe that has deprived this country of the lives and services of over 1,500 men. I dread the feeling gaining currency at home and abroad that this House and this country are indifferent to the lives of its soldiers and to the results of this campaign; and I deprecate the growing tendency of the age to accept with philosophical resignation whatever calamity may befall this country, and to seek for consolation in the sorrowful reflection that all displayed the utmost gallantry, that every man did his duty, and that nobody was to blame. I myself will not venture to apportion the blame; but I hold, and I maintain this country holds, that it is impossible to lose 1,500 men in a conflict with savages, however bold or well-armed and disciplined, without serious blame attaching to somebody or to some system of tactics pursued; and it is in the hope of receiving some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that a really competent Court of Inquiry has been appointed to discover where this blame attaches that I ask the first portion of my Question; and it is with a view to derive the utmost advantage from their Report, and to reduce to a minimum the chance of any repetition of the disaster, that I throw it out as a suggestion whether it might not be wise to delay the prosecution of offensive warfare in Zululand

  887
  until the Report of this Court of Inquiry may be received and fully considered. There is only one other point to which I desire to refer. I was yesterday informed by a noble and highly distinguished Earl and General Officer opposite (the Earl of Long ford) that he took exception to the wording of my Question, as liable to give pain and to wound the susceptibilities of the Army; and I then replied to him, and I now repeat it, that I sincerely hoped that such would not be the case, as nothing was further from my wishes than to cast any doubt upon the integrity and honour of the Service; and I will now add, that before placing my Notice on the Paper, I submitted it to another and equally distinguished General Officer, to whom it conveyed no impression of the kind, and I therefore think that he has been somewhat over-sensitive in this matter. It is for all these reasons, my Lords, and in no carping spirit of criticism, and, above all, in no feeling of wanton hostility towards Her Majesty's Government, that I ask the Question that stands in my name—namely, Whether they can give the names of the officers appointed by General Lord Chelmsford to examine and report upon the recent disaster at Isandula; and whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such Court of Inquiry is composed of elements sufficiently independent of their commanding officer to justify the hope that their Report will be as unprejudiced and authoritative as the magnitude of the disaster renders desirable; and whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would not be wise, now that the opportunity of acting before the Zulu harvest has been lost, to delay a further invasion of Zululand until the Report above referred to shall have been received and fully considered?
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Before the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State answers this Question, I request to be heard. This matter concerns others besides the Government. The Government is here to answer for itself. The others are not here; for them I claim to speak. This Notice in itself appears to have come from some pigeon-hole of the Circumlocution Office. It is a pity that it was not allowed to remain there. The noble Lord disclaims any intention of giving offence either to those who may
  888
  be serving abroad, or to their friends here. But his whole Notice is an offence. It imputes to Lord Chelmsford an errorin judgment or more, and its language has been read elsewhere as meaning a great deal more, in having, upon an important occasion, summoned a Court of Inquiry so composed that it could not be expected to make a trustworthy Report; and it imputes to the military officers appointed to conduct that inquiry, who, in such a case as this, would obviously be officers of a certain rank and experience, that they would be so prejudiced, or so dependent, or so weak, that no credit could be attached to any opinion they might express. On behalf of Lord Chelmsford, for whose honour and good faith I will answer with my right hand, and on behalf of the officers of the Army who are insulted by these imputations, I say that there is no sound reason for the suspicions put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Chelmsford's public conduct is, of course, open to challenge, at the proper time, on proper information; but I repeat that the noble Lord is not justified in asking this Question on mere conjecture, nor in suggesting to Parliament and to the public to discredit beforehand a Report which has not yet been written. A French military writer, in describing the difficulties of a General in command, reminds him that after the most careful consideration of his plans, and the issue of his orders with all details, he must be prepared for every possible contrariety of circumstances; for floods in summer, droughts in winter, miscarriage of his combinations, mistakes of his subordinates—here he might have added, and ungenerous criticism at home. I assume that the noble Lord has spoken under a sense of public duty. My view of public duty is altogether different from his. I think that public servants engaged upon an arduous enterprize abroad are entitled to expect the cordial expression of our goodwill and support—certainly, not the discouragement of gratuitous suspicion. I, for one, will raise my voice here or elsewhere to protect those who are not here to speak for themselves from the uncalled-for imputations that this Notice conveys.
  LORD TRURO: My Lords, I think it scarcely conceivable that the noble Earl who has just addressed the House can be serious in what he has said. I appeal

  889
  to your Lordships whether any Notice has ever been presented to the House with more fairness and more modesty? It disclaimed, in the strongest manner, any desire to impute anything either discreditable or dishonourable to any body of men—officers or men—engaged in the service of their country. As I understood the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow), his solo object was to point out the great difficulty that must necessarily arise from appointing officers of inferior rank to Lord Chelmsford to decide upon the conduct of the noble and gallant Lord in this matter. There never has been a man in the position of Lord Chelmsford who, in circumstances similar to those that have occurred, has been visited with less of censure and less of unkind remark than has that noble Lord and gallant Officer. There is no man who is more beloved and popular, or who will command more sympathy, if it should prove that he has made a mistake; and I can see no harm in a Member of your Lordships' House pointing out the possibility of officers appointed as a Court of Inquiry being unduly influenced by their feelings of sympathy and affection for their commanding officer. I have no doubt that if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send out officers of high rank to conduct the inquiry, the fact will be plainly stated to your Lordships. Speaking as one who has had some experience in Courts of Inquiry, I hope I may never have to say of the one which is about to be held that it has been of an unsatisfactory character. I cannot remain silent without protesting against the language in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) has characterized the Question of my noble Friend, and the manner in which it was put to Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I regret that the first part of this Question should have been asked; and all criticism in this House of the commanding officer is to be deprecated, because it is liable to be unjust to him and to discourage him in the midst of his difficulties. Besides, what most concerns the House and the country is to fix the responsibility of this war, which is more important than the disaster of Isandula, which is to be taken as the fortune of war. I desire to support the second part of the Question, which asks for a delay of the invasion of Zululand,
  890
  not until the Report is received, but until the country has been able to express an opinion. There is already a cessation of hostilities, for Cetewayo has not crossed the frontier. There are three reasons for this. The first and most generally received is that he has suffered too much at Isandula, at Rorke's Drift, and in the action with Colonel Pearson's force; the second is that he wants to got in his harvest; and the third, which I have seen mentioned in private letters from Natal from well informed authority, is that he has given orders to the chiefs of his regiments not to cross the Tugela, and only to defend their own country; and that he still relies upon British justice. Her Majesty's Government have instructed Sir Bartle Frere to temporise and not to engage in this war; they have thus shown that they thought it unnecessary, and therefore it was unjust, and should not have been undertaken.
  VISCOUNT BURY: I cannot too highly thank the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Longford) for the manly and outspoken way in which he has given voice to feelings which my mere prosaic duty of answering a Question would render inopportune in me. I think the Question which has been put by the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow) is founded on a radical misapprehension of the real meaning of what a Court of Inquiry is. On reading the Notice, I must confess it struck me as containing an imputation which it would be my duty most energetically to repel—an imputation that the Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in South Africa had seized the occasion of the appointment of this Court of Inquiry to place upon it officers so immediately under his own control that they would be likely, in plain language, to "whitewash" him. There can be no other interpretation placed on the Notice, which the noble Lord did not read to the House, but which, if the House will allow me, I shall read. The noble Lord's Question is as follows:—
  "To ask whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such Court of Inquiry is composed of elements sufficiently independent of their Commanding Officer to justify the hope that their Report will be as unprejudiced and authoritative as the magnitude of the disaster renders desirable?"
  My Lords, in answer to that I have to say, that the only information which the

  891
  Government are possessed of with regard to the constitution of that Court is one paragraph in the despatch of Lord Chelmsford, in -which he mentions that he has not received from Colonel Hassard, commanding the Royal Engineers, the Report of the Court upon which he sat. We only know this indirectly—that Colonel Hassard was the President of that Court; but we conclude, from. Lord Chelmsford's despatch, that such was the case. Now, Colonel Hassard is the second officer in command. He is a man highly distinguished and highly respected in his profession, and, as a British officer, he ought, I should think, to be shielded from such imputations as are conveyed in this Question. But I have another and a more complete answer to the imputation conveyed—and that is, that by the very nature of a Court of Inquiry, any kind of collusion between Lord Chelmsford and those composing the Court is rendered absolutely out of the question. A Court of Inquiry such as this is held under the Prerogative and not by Statute. It is a Court which can call before it witnesses subject to military law, but only by virtue of their position as military persons. It cannot take any evidence on oath. I will read from the Queen's Regulations the conditions under which the Court sits—
  "A Court of Inquiry may be assembled by any officer in command to assist him in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject on which it may be expedient for him to be thoroughly informed. With this object in view, such Court may be directed to investigate and report upon any matter that may be brought before it; but it has no power (except when convened to record the illegal absence of soldiers as provided for in the Articles of War) to administer an oath, nor to compel the attendance of witnesses not military.
  "A Court of Inquiry is not to be considered in any light as a judicial body. It may be employed at the discretion of the convening officer to collect and record information only."
  Now, My Lords, Lord Chelmsford was absent from Isandula at the moment of the disaster. He could not from his own personal observation send home an entirely satisfactory account to the authorities in this country. There was but one course open to him—to order the assembly of such a Court of Inquiry to inquire merely into matters of fact and not into matters of opinion. If that Court of Inquiry had been directed, or if it were directed, to express an opinion,
  892
  then it would be open to anyone to question the motives on which that opinion rested. But, as it is, it was appointed simply to collect facts for the information of the Commander-in-Chief, which he might employ as he thought best and send home to the authorities on his own responsibility. The terms in which the noble Lord has been pleased to couch his Question, therefore, makes it fall to the ground, and it loses that unfortunate significance with which it is now invested. I wish it were now my proud duty to follow the noble Lord in the first few word of his remarks, and to offer a panegyric upon those brave men who fell at Isandula, and those who distinguished themselves at Rorke's Drift. It is not my duty to do that—I must confine myself to the Question—but no Englishman, in speaking upon this subject, can resist a passing tribute of admiration to their courage. In answer to the second part of the nobleLord'sQuestion—Whether it would not be better to delay a further invasion of Zululand until the Report above referred to shall have been received and fully considered?—I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are giving their best consideration to the state of affairs, and will take that course which circumstances induce them to believe is best for the public interest.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.