Lords Sitting of 26 February 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ancient Monuments*(20); Artizans Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act (1879) Amendment*(21).
Second Reading—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland)* (11).
Select Committee—Employers Liability*(4),nominated.
Third Reading—Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act (1875) Amendment*(8); Seeds (Ireland) (18), and passed.

SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL—(Nos. 10, 18.)
(The Lord President.)
SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL—(Nos. 10, 18.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 3ª"—(The Lord President.)
  LORD MONTEAGLEwished to make a few remarks upon this measure, which was one of very great importance to his country. The object of the Bill was, as the House was aware, to enable the Government to lend money to Boards of Guardians, who, in turn, were to make advances for the purchase of seed potatoes and other seeds to the small farmers who could not afford to buy the seed for themselves. There could be no doubt as to the advisability, owing to the
  1428
  great scarcity of seed in the country, of advancing seed to the tenant occupiers who required it; but the difficulty which arose was, whether the advance should be made in money or in seed? If there was money, seed would, undoubtedly, ccme into the country; but then the question which had to be considered was, whether there was such a great want of money amongst the tenant occupiers as to justify the Government making an especial arrangement of this nature? There could be no doubt whatever that amongst the small farmers in many parts of Ireland there was a great want of money, and that many farmers could not buy seed and pay for it in ready cash; and he was of opinion that Her Majesty's Government deserved the thanks of everyone connected with Ireland for adopting the Bill which had been brought in in the other House of Parliament with the object of meeting the want. But when he came to consider the provisions of the Bill he could not but fear there was a certain amount of danger in carrying them out, and he could not help asking the Government if they could not in any way guard against the danger? Under the Bill loans were to be advanced to the Boards of Guardians of electoral divisions, and the Boards of Guardians would make advances to the small farmers. He wished to know if the Government had pointed out the condition under which the money would be advanced by the Boards of Guardians to the small farmers? He had talked to several persons in Ireland on the subject, and from what he had been informed was inclined to think there was a general idea that the price of seed might not be recovered at all by the Boards of Guardians from the small farmers. There were, undoubtedly, under the Bill powers for the recovery of the seed rate from the ordinary poor's rate; but he feared that unless some notice was taken of the conditions under which the loan was obtained the rate would not be recovered at all in the same manner as the ordinary poor's rate, and that the people might expect, and the Boards of Guardians might expect also, that as to anything that might be advanced by the Government they would not care much as to its ever being repaid. He very much doubted whether that was the view which was entertained by Her Majesty's

  1429
  Government; and, therefore, he begged to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council whether the danger which he feared was a real one?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Lord had given him no Notice of the Question, and if the noble Lord had done so he should have been better able to have given him a satisfactory answer upon the subject to which he had called attention. As he understood, the noble Lord wished to know whether the provisions contained in the Bill would be brought distinctly under the notice of Boards of Guardians? All he could say was that the Boards of Guardians would have full notice of the Bill, and the provisions of the measure would be set before them. The Bill enabled Boards of Guardians to advance seed to persons who applied, and were entitled to apply, for it, and the loans were not intended as a gift, but would have to be repaid in the manner provided.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the noble Duke had not quite understood him, and he wished to explain the point he had referred to. One of the clauses of the Bill provided that the Boards of Guardians might apply for loans to purchase seed subject to certain conditions, and one of the conditions was the limitation which was put upon the valuation of the occupiers who got the loans. The repayment of the loans was to be made by the Boards of Guardians in two equal instalments, and the specified time for the payment of the first instalment was 1881, the second to be paid at a later date. But there was no time specified for the repayment of the loans advanced to the occupiers by the Boards of Guardians. He, therefore, feared that the occupiers might think that as the loans were not to be repaid to the Boards of Guardians in any specified time they were not called upon to repay them; and he thought that the matter ought to be called to the notice of the Boards of Guardians, who should not grant loans without carefully considering whether they would be able to recover the money from the occupiers.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the point to which the noble Lord referred did not come within the scope of the Bill, but was a matter for the consideration of the Boards of Guardians themselves.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, his point was to ask the Irish Government, when issuing instructions to Boards of Guardians, to call their attention to the liability they incurred; because, otherwise, they might or might not realize the full extent of their liabilities.
  Motion agreed to;Bill read 3ª accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed,and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— THE EASTER MONDAY VOLUNTEER REVIEW.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in moving for the despatch of Sir Hope Grant on Easter Monday Volunteer Reviews, said, he did not at all wish to urge Her Majesty's Government to re-consider any step they might have now resolved upon. If they had formed a compact with the Brighton Corporation to hold a field day at the town the Corporation represented upon Easter Monday, there would be but one wish among the friends of the Auxiliary Forces—namely, to secure the best results, and, as far as possible, avert the inconveniences by which such occasions had been formerly attended. With a view to so desirable an object, the letter of Sir Hope Grant ought no w to be exhibited. It was certain to suggest lessons, which everyone who had in his charge a brigade, a regiment, or even a company, ought to keep before him. The noble Viscount the Under Secretary, with singular inaccuracy, had recently adverted to it as being 12 years old. It belonged to the year 1871. It was, therefore, based upon the military lessons which the great campaigns of 1870 had afforded. Nothing had occurred in connection with the Volunteer Force, or Brighton, or the Easter Holidays, to make it less applicable now than at the time when it was issued. He could not but take the present opportunity of touching on an erroneous view which seemed to linger at the War Office, and which, the other day, the Forms of the House prevented him from controverting. It was assumed by the noble Viscount the Under Secretary that the Metropolitan commanders of the Volunteer Force ought to dictate the time and place of annual field days, and that the Government had no function except to act on

  1431
  their conclusions. No doubt, that was the tendency of Governments; but, for the clearest reasons, it ought not to be so. In the first place, the Metropolitan commanders had no authority to represent battalions in the country. Besides that, the Force was not gratuitous; the public spent £500,000 on it annually, which gave an obvious right to the Executive to regulate its movements. If, however, the House more specially considered the larger field days, the grounds of interference were much stronger. They could not exist without co-operation from the Government. The divisional commanders, many brigadiers, and all the brigade-majors were furnished by the State; and thus the State had nothing but its own judgment to defer to, as to the conditions it imposed, when these advantages were granted. Whatever time or place it disapproved it could immediately prohibit. With these remarks, he would move for the despatch of Sir Hope Grant, as he was quite unable to anticipate objections to producing it.
  Moved,That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Despatch of General Sir Hope Grant on the character of Volunteer Easter Monday field days.—(The Lord Campbell.)
  VISCOUNT BURYreminded the noble Lord that, as to the initiation of these reviews, from the earliest days of the Volunteer movement the Government bad allowed the initiative as to the place of meeting and the character of the reviews to rest with the Volunteers themselves. The Regulations on this subject provided that if any force exceeding in the aggregate 2,000 men wished to assemble for exercise, application as to these should be made through the Lords Lieutenant, the nature of the intended reviews to be stated at the same time. The Government had no option but to carry out the Regulations, leaving the initiation and the questions as to the place of meeting and the nature of the manœuvres to the Volunteers themselves. What the War Office had to do in the matter was perfectly plain. They had first to satisfy themselves that the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army entertained no insuperable objections from a military point of view to the proposed field day; also to ascertain that he could, consistently with the other
  1432
  military requirements, detail a competent officer to conduct the manœuvres, and that he had at his disposal a staff of competent military officers to carry out the commanding officer's orders. There the responsibility of the War Office in the matter ceased. He must express his surprise that the noble Lord should have moved for one despatch only, and not for the entire series of despatches written by the gallant officers who had commanded at other reviews since the inauguration of the Volunteer Force. The omission was the more remarkable, as the despatch in question was the only one of an aspect unfavourable to the Volunteers, whereas the others all spoke in high terms of their efficiency. Among others who had so reported of the Force were Sir James Scarlett, Lord William Paulet, Sir Robert Walpole, Sir Robert Garrett, General McCleverty, Sir George Buller, Sir George Ellis, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, and others. Indeed, Sir Hope Grant himself had spoken in 1869 of the excellent discipline of the Force on occasion of the field day at Dover. He now wished to say a word as a Metropolitan commanding officer of some 20 years' standing. The noble Lord who had moved for Sir Hope Grant's despatch had suddenly assumed the attitude of a severe critic of the Volunteer movement, and the other day had spoken of certain fiascoes which he declared had occurred on former Easter Monday field days, as if anticipating some such result on Easter Monday next, and he referred in particular to the meeting of 1869 at Dover, and that of 1871 at Brighton. Now, as to the field day at Dover, the day turned out so exceedingly wet that the review was postponed and the men dismissed. Now, what was likely to be the result of setting from 20,000 to 25,000 Volunteers loose in a garrison town with nothing to do and nowhere to go to for shelter but to the public-houses? The alacrity and discipline, however, which the men showed in getting under arms again for the review when, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge having arrived, the bugle was sounded, were in themselves a sufficient answer to the criticisms of the noble Lord; and Sir Hope Grant himself complimented them on their conduct. The noble Lord had moved for Sir Hope Grant's despatch of 1871; but

  1433
  why move for that unfavourable despatch and say nothing about the favourable one from the same authority, or the many favourable reports of other commanding officers at Easter Monday reviews held both previously and subsequently? To grant what the noble Lord asked for—a single despatch which was unfavourable out of a bundle of despatches which were favourable—nine years after the decision of Sir Hope Grant had been reversed by the concurrent testimony of many other officers, would be to cast what would certainly be taken as a slur, and a very undeserved slur, on a body which since the time referred to had increased very much in numbers, and still more in efficiency, and which at the present moment added to the defensive force of the country 197,400 efficient men. The despatch which the noble Lord asked for had, like others, been published in extenso in The Volunteer Service Gazette,and, indeed, in nearly all the newspapers of the day, so that the noble Lord could hardly require it for his own information, and the only purpose it could serve seemed to be to cast a slur upon the Volunteer Force. In these circumstances, the House would support the Government in declining to produce the despatch. [The noble Viscount subsequently read the titles of the several despatches as they appeared in The Volunteer Service Gazette of February 3, 1872.]
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that if no other noble Lord was going to address the House, since he had made a Motion which the Government resisted, he was bound to offer a few words in answer to them. The noble Yiscount had expatiated widely upon topics which did not bear upon the question of producing the despatch. He had referred to a certain Regulation of the Volunteer force, No. 99, to show that the parades in question could only be initiated by the Volunteers themselves. He (Lord Campbell) had not attempted to dispute it. The State, he well knew, had no power, by a decree of any kind, in time of peace, to muster their battalions. But, almost at the same moment, the noble Viscount had explained that no parade on a large scale could happen without the previous sanction of the illustrious Duke who had the chief command over the Army. It was the exact concession which he (Lord Campbell) wanted. The veto of
  1434
  the State was, therefore, incontestable, while the proposal to assemble came from the Force itself. So far, there was no difference between the noble Viscount and himself. That portion of his speech might have been omitted altogether. When, however, the noble Viscount came to the real question, he had no argument of any kind against producing the despatch, except that it was more censorious than several despatches which in other years the same occasions had elicited. In the opinion of the noble Viscount, an armed Force ought not to be informed of its deficiencies, but only be allowed to contemplate a picture of its merits. "We cannot," he insisted, "produce the letter of Sir Hope Grant, unless others much more full of eulogy are given." It was a good principle—whether or not one was convinced—to humour men in trifles. The despatch in question would not lose its value from any number which accompanied it. He should act as the noble Viscount wished, by withdrawing the Motion, and in a few days renew it, with the addition he referred to. But he could not sit down without noticing his charge, that the Motion had no object but to "cast a slur" on that branch of the Auxiliary Forces with which he (Lord Campbell) was connected, when it was directly calculated to improve and to assist it. To ascribe such a motive was against the Order of the House, even if the imputation were not, as it was, an entirely unfounded one.
  VISCOUNT BURY: I did not suggest to the noble Lord to move for anything; I merely said he should move for all or none.
  LORD CAMPBELLreplied, that he would withdraw his Motion upon the understanding that he would move for the despatches on another occasion.
  Motion (by leave of the House)withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.