Lords Sitting of 16 February 1880

MINUTES.
SESSIONAL COMMITTEES—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Pod; Committee of Selection on Opposed Private Bills; Standing Orders Committee on Private Bills,appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act (1875) Amendment*(8).

ARMY—PURCHASE OFFICERS' WIDOWS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, If it is their intention to return to the widows or children of officers killed in action during the late wars, and who had purchased their commissions, any part of the money so laid out by them under the past rules of the service? said, the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) brought forward this question in "another place" last Session after these wars had lasted 18 months. Now that they had lasted six months longer, it was only right to bring it under the notice of their Lordships. It had reference entirely to officers who purchased their commissions before the Rules of the Service in respect of commissions were altered to their present form. Officers were then obliged to purchase their commissions, or they could not receive due promotion and their juniors were promoted over their heads. This was a hard thing to boar to men who wanted to rise in their Profession, and many officers, therefore, spent all their means to purchase their commissions. Every possible excuse should be made for officers under these
  670
  circumstances. He would not go into the question whether the old system was a good or a bad one. Many anomalies worked well in practice, and British officers, under the purchase system, nobly did their duty; but the system of retirement offered to the purchase officers made England a gambling table, at which the Government were the croupiers and the officers were the victims. With officers who had entered the Army since the Rules were changed the present question had nothing to do. Considering the enemies to whom they had been opposed in the late wars, and the number of battles in which they had been engaged, there had been an extraordinary number of officers killed. That circumstance it was for military men to explain; but there was this to be said—that they had shown the courage habitual to their race, and had proved it in every case. Parliament had abolished the old system and established a new one, and ought to take care that under the latter no injustice was suffered of the nature to which the Question referred. Under that system those who had purchased their commissions lost to their families the money so invested. It was on behalf of the widows and orphans, therefore, that he pressed the subject on the attention of their Lordships. They ought to have returned to them in such, an event a portion of the money, or have the benefit of interest upon it. The noble Earl concluded by asking his Question.
  VISCOUNT BURYobserved, that the noble Earl who had put the Question to the Government had expressed the opinion that Her Majesty's Government ought to adopt a certain course in regard to the widows and orphans of officers who had fallen in action. He must remind the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government could not exercise a discretion in this matter, and that all they could do was to act on the Royal Warrants which had been issued, and on the Code of Regulations in force. Their Lordships would remember that previous to the Crimean War the families of purchase officers killed in action lost the value of their commissions. In 1855, however, under Lord Panmure, a Royal Warrant was brought in, providing that if an officer was killed in action his widow should receive the purchase value of his commission, providing she was not

  671
  in what might be called affluent circumstances; and, of course, the word "affluent" was distinctly defined for the information of the War Office, and a certain scale of income was laid down, within which a widow might receive the regulation money. Then, when the system of purchase was abolished, Lord Cardwell laid it down, in a very distinct manner, that officers should be placed in the same position after the abolition of purchase as they were in before that abolition—that they should be in no worse and in no better position in consequence of the abolition of purchase; and that the State and not the next senior officer succeeded to the vacant position. That canon, so laid down, had been acted on in several Royal Warrants issued since that time. Under those Warrants, when an officer was killed in action, and his widow was in indigent circumstances, she received either the regulation compensation for her husband's commission or a pension; but if her circumstances were such that she would not be eligible for a pension, then she would not be entitled to claim the value of her husband's commission. He quite admitted, with the noble Earl, that very great hardships frequently arose under those circumstances; but it was not a hardship which had been created by the present Government. They succeeded to it from their Predecessors, and their Predecessors also succeeded to it from former Governments. No substantial alteration had been made since Lord Panmure's Regulation in 1855, which was still in force. A great many cases had been already decided in accordance with the Regulation promulgated in that year; and if there were to be any modification now, it must be not only prospective, but retrospective, and cause considerable inconvenience. The question had been before his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley), and he had consulted some of his financial Colleagues to see whether anything further could be done. Further than that he could not say; but there was every disposition to construe the law laid down for the guidance of the War Office in a manner that would afford the greatest consideration to the claims of the widows and children of officers.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHpointed out that it was a great anomaly, now that purchase was abolished, that, in the same regiment, one officer should be
  672
  serving, having purchased, and the other not having done so. Thus the death of one officer might cause a great pecuniary loss; whilst, in other circumstances, the officer just having purchased, the widow and children of an officer killed in action might, in a pecuniary point, be benefited to the extent of the allowance or pension granted them. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would eventually see the way to, in some measure, modify this injustice.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, the Question I have given Notice of was put down in some degree to enable me to offer an opinion on a point—although it may not seem a very grave one—which much concerns a large branch of the Auxiliary Forces. The opinion has been based on long and personal experience, and it will not require many minutes to support it. As regards the great annual field days of the Volunteers, with which society is thoroughly familiar, we stand apparently in this way—For a few years, from different causes, they have gone into abeyance. It is now intended to revive them. There is a fresh departure on the subject. Different projects have been mooted. The Government are not committed yet to any. They are on the point, however, of declaring themselves. It is stated, in the ordinary channels of intelligence, that the local board of Aldershot have strongly urged the advantage of a field day at that place, in connection with the Aldershot Division. On the other hand, the Brighton Corporation, with a highly laudable regard to the gain of every publican in that considerable watering-place, are moving heaven and earth—at least, the Government and the Volunteer commanders—to restore the very thing which used to happen, and at the very time which used to be allotted to it. Before protesting, individually, against the gratuitous relapse, I wish to take advantage of the shelter which an eminent authority has given. General Sir Hope Grant, not many years back, presiding upon one of these occasions, reported to the Government against them. So great a soldier, and so eminent a character,

  673
  officially explained to the Government that they ought not to be continued, because their inconveniences were greater than the benefit resulting from them. The exact view which swayed General Sir Hope Grant is beyond my recollection, as it is a long while since the document was promulgated. On this point, no doubt, the War Office are ready to enlighten us. But having myself been present as an auxiliary officer at nearly all of these parades, I can put before the House in a few words some grounds which justify a verdict so authoritative. One is that, at such an early time as Easter, parades on the sea-coast are threatened by the gravest interruption from the stormy weather which is not unlikely to prevail. A striking illustration of the hazard took place at Dover a few years back, and of course it might happen equally at Brighton, since Dover, although a favoured spot, has no monopoly of tempests. The brigades were formed on the sea-walk, and in a quarter of an hour the violence of the gale was such that they were actually dispersed by order. Had it not been for the activity of the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, who in the afternoon rode over, I believe, from Walmer Castle, some 20,000 men, at great expense to every regiment, would have come down from points much more remote than the Metropolis, for nothing but the spray which fell upon their uniforms. As it was, even the effort of the illustrious Duke, with all his aides-decamp to back him, could only reassemble some half of the Force which had been scattered. There were commanders without regiments, field officers without horses, and horses without field officers. At that time the unanimous conclusion was that these annual parades, however excellent, ought never to be held again under such circumstances; that if they took place at Easter it ought not to be at the sea-coast; that if they took place on the sea-coast it ought not to be at Easter. If I am not mistaken, it was further on in time that General Sir Hope Grant explained the disadvantages of Brighton. One of them—whether it struck him or not—is absolutely fatal. You cannot keep the ground when you are followed for only two or three miles by so great a population. Discipline is lost and movements are confounded. I have seen under my own
  674
  eyes, when forced to take a regiment there, the crowd pressing so close to the rear of the line, that there was no space to form a quarter distance, or, as it is now termed, a quarter column, when in order to return to Brighton such a movement was essential. There is another serious objection, which may have possibly escaped Sir Hope Grant, who went there rather as a critic of manœuvres. It is the bad effect on men in the ranks of loitering for many days without restraint or influence of any kind in a town so large and so accessible as Brighton; and where, indeed, the Railway Company allures them for a sojourn wholly irrespective of any military duty. It is a fact which often came before me that on the Easter Monday men who had been wearing uniforms for days before actually absented themselves—their zeal having evaporated in too long a holiday—while the burden of the day was borne by those who left their beds in the Metropolis at 4 or 5 o'clock, and thus showed that they were not in all respects unworthy of campaigning. But there is a grave objection to Easter Monday field days wherever you may hold them. No battalion drills precede them, because the season is too early for them. The Force is therefore unprepared. The excitement they involve makes it very difficult to get men to attend battalion drills for some weeks after they have happened. This objection would partly cease if a parade at Whitsuntide was allowed to follow that of Easter; while that of Easter took place in the interior and not upon the sea-coast. But we start at present from the given axiom that only one of any magnitude is contemplated. In that case, the conclusion I have long ago arrived at is that it ought to take place at Aldershot in combination with the Regulars, during the Whitsuntide Recess, when it is much easier to assemble men from different parts of the United Kingdom than at Easter. Some might think Shorncliffe more desirable. But where all may thoroughly unite is in deprecating the revival of what Sir Hope Grant officially condemned, partly on the grounds that gallant officer advanced, partly upon those which I have touched, without, of course, attempting to exhaust them. I will conclude by asking, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to sanction a Volunteer

  675
  Field Day at Brighton on Easter Monday?
  VISCOUNT BURY: I need hardly remind your Lordships that the initiative with regard to these Reviews has by custom been long left to the commanders of the Volunteer Force themselves. The eloquent speech of my noble Friend ought, therefore, to have been addressed to the meeting of commanding officers, he himself being one, assembled to arrange for the Review. We have not at the War Office yet received any official intimation of the wish of the Volunteers to hold a Review this year at Brighton, although I believe it is their intention. After consultation with the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, it appears to the War Office that there is no sufficient reason, if they should ask, why they should not receive permission. With regard to the opinion of General Sir Hope Grant, quoted by my noble Friend, we do not think that a partial failure of a Review 12 years ago would be a sufficient reason for preventing the Volunteers mustering at Brighton. The choice of location is limited by two considerations—the first is, whether transport can be obtained; and the second, whether a suitable ground in connection with it can be had? Since Easter Monday became a Bank Holiday, the railway authorities have found it very difficult to transport a numerous body of Volunteers in addition to their holiday traffic; but, on this occasion, Mr. Knight, the officer at the head of the Brighton and South Coast Railway, has made great exertions to provide adequate means of transport; and I have reason to believe he will be able to overcome all difficulties if the Volunteers desire to be taken to Brighton. I am not aware of any other place where that could be the case; and the War Office does not feel in a position to refuse its consent if it is asked, as I hope it will be, and I trust that we shall see this year a Review on Easter Monday at Brighton.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  M. Salisbury.

  Ld. President.

  M. Bath.

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  Ld. Steward.

  D. Saint Albans.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  M. Lansdowne.

  E. Devon.

  676

  E. Doncaster.

  V. Hawarden.

  E. Tankerville.

  V. Hardinge.

  E. Carnarvon.

  V. Eversley.

  E. Bradford.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Granville.

  L. Monson.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  E. Redesdale.

  L. Aveland.

  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
  The Lords following; viz.,

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Boyle.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Orders Committee appointed; The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Winchester.

  V. Halifax.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Camoys.

  M. Bath.

  L. Saye and Sele.

  M. Hertford.

  L. Balfour of Burley.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Monson.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Digby.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Powis.

  L. De Tabley.

  E. Verulam.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  E. Morley.

  L. Sudeley.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Belper.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Ebury.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Egerton.

  V. Hawarden.

  L. Hartismere.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Penrhyn.

  V. Hardinge.

  L. Wolverton.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.