Lords Sitting of 28 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks)* (133); Coroners (Ireland)* (134); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (135); Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* (136).
Second Reading—Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment (118); Summary Jurisdiction (Process) (124).
Committee—Veterinary Surgeons* (127–137).

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL, [H.L.]
(The Lord Aberdare.)
VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL, [H.L.]

  (NO. 137.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provisions as to register of veterinary surgeons).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he proposed that the period of practice which should qualify a man to exercise
  1460
  the profession of veterinary surgeon without examination should be reduced from five years to three years.
  Moved, In page 1, line 28, after ("College") insert ("or unless he has been in practice as a veterinary surgeon for three years at the time of the passing of this Act.")
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that the object of the Bill was to prevent persons from practising who were utterly unfitted to do so. Many suggestions had been made to him, and some persons thought that five or even ten years' practice should be required.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought five years ought to be retained, though he had no great objection to the proposal of the noble Marquess.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in moving the insertion of the following new Clause after Clause 3:—
  "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall be bound to make provision in the manner permitted by their charters for the examination in Scotland of the students attending the several Scotch Veterinary Colleges, and to admit and register such students as have passed the examination as members of the said Royal College under the provisions of such-charters and this Act,"
  said, that the object of the clause was very simple, being merely to compel the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to do by statute that which they now did of themselves in one of their bye-laws. Students were permitted to be examined in Scotland; and if that were discontinued, it would be a great disadvantage to students, and as the Bill proposed to give the monopoly of granting licences to the College, it would only be fair that it should be compelled by statute to hold examinations in Scotland.
  New Clause moved, to follow Clause 3:
  (Provision for examination of students in Scotland.)
  "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall be bound to make provision in the manner permitted by their charters for the examination in Scotland of the students attending the several Scotch Veterinary Colleges, and to admit and register such students as have passed the examination as members of the said Royal College under the provisions of such charters and this Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment, and would, therefore, accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 14, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he begged to propose a new clause for the purpose of exempting all veterinary surgeons who had been placed on the register from serving on juries and other public offices, in the same manner as dentists were exempted. He contended that as the services of veterinary surgeons were urgently required they should not be obliged to attend as jurors at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, or be called upon to serve on Local Boards and in other Public Departments.
  Moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Every person registered under this Act shall be exempt, if he so desires, from serving on all juries and inquests whatsoever, and from serving all corporate, parochial, ward, hundred, and township offices, and from serving in the militia; and the name of any registered person shall not be returned in any list of persons liable to serve in the militia or in any such office as aforesaid."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sorry to differ in opinion on this subject with his noble Friend; but he hoped this Amendment would not be agreed to. The number of exemptions led now to much inconvenience, as all those who had to attend the Assizes and Quarter Sessions well knew. Besides, a Judge had always the power to excuse any person from serving on the jury if it were shown that his services were required on an important matter. He greatly objected to all veterinary surgeons who were well qualified to serve as jurors being exempted by statute.
  LORD DENMANsaid, no doubt a Judge or Chairman could abstain from fining or excuse a fine in the case of any veterinary surgeon who had been detained by a case; but he should support the Amendment, on the ground that it was important to have the services of a veterinary surgeon the first moment he was sent for. He had asked if farriers, without calling themselves veterinary surgeons, would be fined? Some people employed cow-leeches for the euro of their horses and cattle. He remembered a case of a practitioner in Notts pronouncing a horse ill of symtanic fever, which he defined to be "mutual sensations;" and on that opinion the Earl of
  1462
  Surrey returned a horse for which he had paid £400. But the opinion was worthless, and a return of the horse to the purchaser and payment of costs ensued. If a veterinary surgeon were at a county town for Assizes or Sessions, he could not save the life of cattle almost choked, or young animals seized with inflammation.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that in some counties it was the practice not to summon veterinary surgeons to serve on any jury; but in other counties they were required to serve. It would be only reasonable that the law and practice should be uniform. If dentists were exempted, he thought veterinary surgeons ought also to be exempted.
  On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 51: Majority 19.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Denman, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Lathom, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Morton, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Melville, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Colchester, L.

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Powis, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Yarhorough, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Derby, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclench and Queens-berry.)

  Abinger, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  1463

  Brabourne, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Mount Temple, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Digby, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Dorchester, L.

  Foley, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Harlech, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Resolved in the negative.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 137.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 118.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to provide that whenever it was lawful to kill birds it should also be lawful to sell them. At present, wood pigeons and certain other birds might be killed all the year round; but they could only be sold at certain seasons.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS) BILL.—(No. 124.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it contained a clause dealing with the Law of Bastardy, and to enable the English and Scotch decrees of bastardy and aliment to be effective in either country.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS—THE BUFFS OR EAST KENT REGIMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTER,in rising, pursuant to Notice, to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the proposed change of the title and facings of the 3rd Regiment of Infantry (Buffs) has been approved by Her most Gracious Majesty; and whether that approval is signified under Her Majesty's sign-manual: also, whether any reason other than that it was recommended by the (so-called)"territorial Committee," has been assigned for this alteration of title and the abolition of time-honoured and distinctive facings borne by a distinguished regiment and their ancestors during a period of over two hundred years? said, that he rose to address the House upon a Question of Privilege. There was no class of persons in the Kingdom who valued them and their titles more than did the officers and men of Her Majesty's Army. Those privileges had necessarily, by the recent amalgamation and the introduction of new general measures for the Army, been, in some degree, trenched upon. But he thought there were occasions when needless changes had been made. In advocating the cause which had been placed in his hands on very short notice, he trusted that he should not unduly trespass on their Lordships' patience. When the Army was first constituted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth—for our Army could hardly before that time be called a standing Army—the patriotic spirit which prevailed amongst the men induced the adoption of certain titles and colours for their clothing. The facings of the regiments were derived from the liveries or colours of those raising them. The sober colour ashen or buff, no doubt, was derived from the buff jerkins then worn by sober citizens. The facings and reverses of the uniform often represented the original colours when red was adopted. But a most absurd reason had been given by

  1465
  the Secretary of State for War, or those who advised him, that buff became white; if so, buff should not be allowed if it was a valid objection. But, if so, why were no less than six battalions by the new regulation to receive buff? But buff was, to say the least, as easily kept bright as white or the washy blues and greens of various regiments of their original colours. But the Secretary of State for War might have some knowledge from the past of the varied shades that the funnels of Her Majesty's ships bore, each shade the special vanity of a commander. The right hon. Gentleman had not much experience of the Army, but might have seen Gendarmerie abroad with bright primrose belts and the uniforms of foreign troops. Each regiment took pardonable pride in such trifles, and in their various badges transmitted from generation to generation. He hardly could expect the buff facing would be disallowed by a Member of a Party who for so long hung out the buff and blue as their insignia, and that in a London regiment, where their colours had been as many years hung out. Had the noble Lords opposite done that, it might have surprised us less. No one who had not served could know the advantage old corps derived from such petty insignia, and the proper pride taken in them. Soldiers tried to be smart, and did not like being ticketed as convicts, or as bullocks were marked when taken to market. He should be told, perhaps, the officers and men had no feeling on this subject. That, he fearlessly asserted from his knowledge, and he was ready to afford the evidence if required, was not the case. A very strong and sad feeling existed throughout the old officers, and throughout those at present serving, on the matter. What would have been easier than to consult them? The same clanship did not exist—the pride of tartans, as in Scotch regiments. The Buffs of all the Army, save, perhaps, the Blues, clung most to their colour. The Buffs were 300 years old, and were continued from Morgan's Regiment, by Special Warrant from among the citizens and 'prentice lads of the City of London. The 7th Fusiliers were raised 100 years later by James II., not from among the citizens, but to keep them in subjection by that unconstitutional Monarch. It was true that where territorial and not municipal titles were in favour 100 years
  1466
  ago, the appellation of East Kent was given to the 3rd Buffs; but, at the same time, the 7th were designated East Derbyshire. If any regiment had a claim to a name it was the Buffs. Their very flag was proof of this. Was Mr. Childers prepared to do away with this, or to deny their claim? Was it not their privilege alone of all regiments of the Line to march through the City, drums beating and colours flying? Why was this? And why, without one jot or tittle of reason, were the 7th Fusiliers, who did not seek for it, given the title? In asking the Question on the Paper, he ventured further to ask whether this change met with the approval of Her Majesty; whether the change with others had been signed, as invariably used to be the case, as could be shown on all such occasions in past years, by the Sovereign, whose name in Royal Warrants had been more than once strained, more than the quality of mercy? Civilians in that House might, perhaps, not fully appreciate the altered feelings of a regiment which a change in their facings might cause. He could not comprehend what object would be gained in taking away the buff facings of this regiment. It was a remarkable fact that while the buff facings of this regiment were taken away, they were retained in the case of eight other Infantry and two Cavalry regiments. He appealed forcibly to Her Majesty's Government, he appealed to their Lordships, not to suffer such needless changes to take place, which, although trifles in themselves, created a painful feeling, without the least just cause or reason, to a gallant body of men under a Liberal Government. He was aware of the hard task entailed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War by his Predecessor. He gave him every credit for the manner in which he had got over great difficulties; he appealed to him not to allow this blot to remain. The Buffs had far more claim to the title of City of London Regiment than any other corps. Their facings were of more ancient date than almost any other corps; they had just right to expect that their claim to both title and their facings should be duly considered. Her Majesty had expressed her desire that all justice should be done, and that all ancient privileges should be respected as far as could be. In the name of that justice, he asked their Lordships

  1467
  to uphold such privileges so long as they were permitted to retain their own titles and armorial bearings. He asked for no new privilege; he asked for nothing that would be a departure from the new system; he asked them to do that which would not enrich others, but which would leave the Buffs poor indeed—rob them of their old name. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to deprive an old corps of their title and adornment in favour of a new creation, and he appealed for justice to their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would not follow the noble and gallant Lord into this somewhat long argument; but he assured him that the title of Buffs, which was so highly prized with a feeling worthy of the high reputation of the regiment, would still be maintained in the new organization, and that its title would be "The Buffs—East Kent Regiment." That was the name which the regiment had borne for the last 100 years, and under which they had achieved great success and victories in many parts of the world. Therefore, that part of the noble and gallant Lord's speech which related to the title of the regiment came to nothing at all.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked whether the regiment was to retain its facings?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that, with regard to the facings of the regiment, it was, no doubt, the intention of the War Office that they should be changed from buff to white. If the noble and gallant Lord would study the Report of the Committee, presided over with great ability by the Adjutant General of the Forces, he would learn the whole of the reasons given by that Committee for the proposed change in the facings. In consequence of the new Organization of the Army, it had become necessary, in many cases, to alter the facings of regiments, and the opportunity was then taken of simplifying the facings of the regiments generally, and of giving to those that were not Royal Regiments, which retained their old facings, in the case of English regiments white, of Scotch yellow, and of Irish green facings. The proposed change would conduce to greater uniformity, and would consequently be attended by a considerable saving of labour and expense in the clothing of the Army. The greatest pains had been taken in carry-
  1468
  ing those alterations into effect to do as little violence as possible to any associations attaching to regiments; yet it was necessary in some cases, as he had explained, to alter the facings, and among them this change from buff to white had been made. There were some regiments which had suffered even more violent changes in their facings than this particular regiment had done. He felt sure, however, that this change would in no way effect the esprit de corps of the different regiments.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not think the answer of the noble Earl altogether satisfactory. He had stated before that the principal motive for the alteration adopted was economy, and if that was so, it would be interesting to learn what amount of saving was effected in the Army by the alteration in the facings under the new system. He thought it was most unfortunate that, by the arrangements which were now to be carried out, the only regiment which was known to all military men by the colour of its facings should have been one of the regiments selected for the alteration of the facings. It should be remembered the facings of a regiment were mixed up with the great actions they had performed, and were really part of their distinctions. The regiment in question was now to be known as the "Buff Regiment" instead of by its old name of "The Buffs." He could only express his regret that it had been found necessary to make these alterations.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that when a general alteration in the organization of the Army was made, it was found that a great many changes were necessary. He was not going to discuss the question that night, because there appeared to be so much feeling upon it that he thought it better to put it all on one side. He agreed, however, that it was right that a fixed principle should be adopted, and that one colour should be adopted for English, one for Scotch, and one for Irish regiments, with one exception—namely, the Royal Regiments, which were to be dark blue. He thought that was a proper distinction to be made in the case of Royal Regiments, and they did not make it in any others; as a fact it would not make much difference. There was no wish to put one regiment before another, and cer-

  1469
  tainly no wish to make changes distasteful to the regiments themselves; but when such changes were necessary they must make some difference, and the explanation was that they desired to organize the Army on one fixed principle. No doubt there was much to be said against any change in this particular case; but if they were to yield to the feelings of this regiment, they would have found it difficult to resist other demands of a similar character. He did not, however, think that the alterations in the facings had been made with the view of saving expense. He should be sorry, at the same time, to do anything to offend the esprit de corps for which the various regiments were distinguished.
  After a few words from Lord STRATH-NAIRN,
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that he had heard with satisfaction that the regiment in question was to retain the name of "Buffs;" but he wanted to know whether, under the new system, they would, when on parade, still be allowed to call themselves "The Buffs," and not be obliged to use their county designation?
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought the whole scheme must have emanated from Bedlam. The territorial arrangement of regiments was entirely out of harmony with the circumstances of the military system of this country. The recruiting for the Army was not territorial; large districts supply no recruits at all. The scheme required to be very nicely adjusted to work at all, and was liable to be deranged by a sudden demand for extra forces for any emergency.
  LORD ABINGERexpressed a hope that the Government would even yet reconsider their decision.
  LORD WAVENEYurged the importance of the Militia regiments retaining their distinctive facings and colours.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Militia regiments would come under the general rule. In reply to the question of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Chelmsford), he might say that there was no intention to alter the title of the regiment, which would remain as before—The Buffs, East Kent Regiment.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the reply of the noble Earl did not answer his question, which was as to the title which
  1470
  the regiment was to be allowed to use when on parade.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that was a purely military question which he could not answer.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, the last reply of the noble Earl showed the danger of intrusting the management of the Army to civilians. This miserable disorganization scheme had caused great dissatisfaction—with very few exceptions—in every rank of the Army. He believed it was only adopted for the gratification of a very few persons. He strongly objected to the Edinburgh regiments being sent to the City of York.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished to ask whether he was or was not in error in supposing that the noble Duke was a Member of the Committee appointed in 1876 which recommended the adoption of the system of territorial regiments?
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH,said he was a Member of the Committee, and found himself obliged, as many other persons had before and since, to acquiesce in many things of which he did not approve. One soon found out whether he was in a minority, and whether there was any use of fighting against the others. From what he had seen since, his opinion was that the territorial system might be a very fine one in theory, but would be an ultimate failure in practice.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE REVISED MEMORANDUM—GENERAL OFFI CERS—THE FIVE YEARS' RULE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in rising to call attention to paragraph 48 of the revised Memorandum on Army Organization, so far as it relates to what is known as the "five years non-employment rule," as applied to general officers; and to ask, Whether the Secretary of State for War will give orders to omit from the warrant which comes into force on the 1st of July 1881, the words "general officers after five years subsequent promotion to major-general," in order to afford time for the said words to be further considered? said, that he was sorry to trouble their Lordships with another military matter; but he would do it very briefly. He should not have done it at all had it

  1471
  not been that the Warrant would come in force for the re-organization of the Army on the 1st of July, and he hoped he should convince his noble Friend that it would bear very hard upon young general officers in the Army, and that he should not be too late to induce him to promise on the part of the Government that some modification should be made in the Warrant before it was issued. He was not going to argue the question on the basis of injury to the junior general officers alone; but it was a very great grievance generally, and a number of general officers felt that it fatally concerned their military prospects and the professional future of their relatives entering the Army. This was not wholly a pecuniary question. He freely confessed that the retiring pensions which were about to be established by the new Warrant were very fair and liberal in their character, and if this was a pecuniary question alone he did not know that he should have troubled their Lordships at the last moment. But it was not a pecuniary question, but a grievance affecting the professional status of distinguished officers, and, if they liked to call it so, a sentimental grievance, which could not be measured by an actuary and compensated for by pounds, shillings, and pence. General officers under the new Regulations were to be compulsorily retired either at 62 or 57, according to whether they were major generals, lieutenant generals, or generals. He did not object to that, because he knew how necessary it was to provide for a rapid flow of promotion, and it was necessary that officers of 60 or 65 should be removed from the active service list. He did not complain of that, nor did the officers who were affected by it; but Clause 48 provided that in addition to the compulsory retirement from age, the non-employment of officers for five years should also involve compulsory retirement at earlier ages, and that was very repugnant to the feelings of the general officers to whom he had alluded. The rule was laid down that if there was a continuance of non-employment for five years from their attaining the rank of major general they must retire; and their Lordships would see that in such a case it must lead to the country being deprived of the services of young, efficient, and trustworthy officers at a very early age, and, indeed, there would be
  1472
  many cases of retirement at a comparatively early age. Where an officer, by his talents and bravery, had greatly distinguished himself, and consequently advanced rapidly in his profession, he would become a major general before he was 50, so that such an officer would be retired at an early age—by reason of non-employment for five years subsequently—solely in consequence of his distinguished services. However desirable it might be to retain the services of distinguished officers as long as possible, he did not think that his noble Friend would say that that was insured under the new system. If the Under Secretary of State for War could assure him that in future, in consequence of the reduction of the number of general officers, those who should be retained on the active list would be certain to obtain employment, his objections must fall to the ground. But he did not think his noble Friend would give him any such assurance, as there were not more than 50 or 60 posts which general officers could fill. It was all very well to say that they would have better pensions, but, as he had said, it was not a question of price; but looking at it financially they must remember that when an officer became a major general he sacrificed £4,500 regulation money, and he did it to obtain a fair chance, which he did under the old system, of getting access to the higher ranks of the Army and their increased emoluments, and of obtaining higher employments—higher distinction, together with the honours and rewards paid for distinguished services. In addition to the sacrifice of £4,500 regulation money, they also sacrificed a large sum of over-regulation money, about which he should say nothing; and then, being compulsorily retired after five years' non-employment, they found that they had not fulfilled the promise of their youth, it was no consolation for them to be told that the retired pension was larger than it was before. There were two classes of officers, one composed of those who having passed through with distinction the lower ranks, and even the higher regimental ranks, having become generals, felt that they had done with military service, and married and had children, or, perhaps, succeeded to their patrimony and had nothing to complain of; and there was another class

  1473
  who, being independent from their youth upward, entered the Army as a career, and looked forward to obtaining the highest employments and honours, and to distinguish themselves in the field in the highest ranks of the Army. On that class these regulations would fall very heavily. He did not wish to cite any instances; but he had received a letter from an old brother officer of his own, who, having become major general nearly six years ago, complained that he would have compulsorily to retire in 1882 unless he could obtain some employment, and this general officer, being only 55 years of age, felt that he was as good a soldier as ever he was, and he found that he had sacrificed his £4,500 regulation money for a moderate pension and the reversion to a colonelcy of a regiment, which would be worth, perhaps, £1,000 a-year. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to say that this non-employment clause would be modified, so that young men possessing health and strength and energy would be induced to adopt a military career. He did not know that it was right to refer to individuals; but he might point out that if his noble and gallant Friend behind him (Lord Chelmsford) continued unemployed for three years longer, he would be compelled compulsorily to retire—of course, he would be employed—but he asked whether it was advantageous to the country that they should lose the valuable services of so young a general? A man who retired at the age of from 62 to 67 had nothing to complain of; but an officer who was compelled to retire at 58 was in a very different position, and if the War Office could find no chance to employ him, he had no option but compulsory retirement. That brought him to what was the alternative. There was another clause of the Warrant (74), which had reference to lieutenant generals and major generals being allowed an option under the rules, which required some explanation. The new rules would be better in some respects, because the pensions would be higher; but what would be the use of telling a man that he might remain with a smaller pension and the chance of obtaining a colonelcy if, at the same time, they said he must be employed within five years? The old system permitted generals to remain on the list, no matter how many there were of them.
  1474
  But under the new rules the field of selection would be considerably narrowed, though the cost to the country would be much more. He now came to what he thought ought to be done. He would suggest that the words in the Warrant, "general officers after five years subsequent to promotion to major general," be omitted, or at least that they should not be in the Warrant for some time, so that the authorities might have further opportunities of re-considering the matter. If it should be thought that his suggestion came too late, he would submit this alternative—that, instead of five years, the Warrant should say 10 years, or at least seven years, and that would give the Government time to see how the new rules were likely to work in regard to the 63, or thereabouts, employments which could be held by general officers. He would prefer that the term should be 10 years, as that would be ample time to absorb all those who could hope for employment, and the younger officers would be benefited by this change. If this suggestion should be thought not to be a good solution, he would exempt those who chose to remain under the old scale of pension and allow them to go on in the old way as under Clause 74, until they came to the time for compulsory retirement. Many generals had applied over and over again to the Government and could not obtain employment. The Government could not find it for them within the limit of five years. He should like an explanation of the term "employment." A Staff appointment for two years, or in the discretion of the Secretary for State for a shorter period, constituted "employment." But he wished to know whether an appointment to watch manœuvres in some foreign country on behalf of the Government would be considered as being continuously employed, so that the time should count in his two years? He would also be glad if his noble Friend would explain what was the meaning of the words in reference to the five years and seven years as connected with employment as colonel, and then promotion to major general rank. Would such a man be retired at the end of five or seven years? If his noble Friend could give some assurance that there would be a reasonable probability that all these officers would be employed within the limits of five years

  1475
  before they would be compulsorily retired, he should be satisfied. But he feared his noble Friend could not do that, as there was not a sufficient number of employments. That being so, he sincerely trusted that his noble Friend would not hastily reject the suggestions which he had offered—on the contrary, that he would adopt one of them, and thus remove the grievance which weighed so heavily upon these officers.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he would like to ask the Government whether it was desirable that they should deprive themselves of the power of selecting men for service who were still in the vigour of age? The most disadvantageous results would have followed in times past if such rules had then prevailed as were now to be made. In that case, the services, for instance, of Lord Hill and of Lord Hardinge would to a large extent have been lost to the country. Neither of them could have filled the office of Commander-in-Chief. Would not this, in each case, have been a great national loss? Besides, it would be a great misfortune if officers of a certain age should not be able to be in the House of Commons. This was not a question of expense to the country. If non-employment was to be a reason for paying higher pensions, then he thought that the suggestion of putting 10 years instead of five years in the Warrant as the limit would be much more reasonable—at all events, it would be a much safer thing to do, and it would be easy to make a further alteration after experience had been gained by the Government.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that the apprehensions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) that the House of Commons would be deprived of the services of those who were officers in the Army had already been realized, for it was in consequence of the proposed Memorandum that Parliament had lost the services of the late Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). He had to resign his seat in order that he might accept employment. He (Lord Waveney) would suggest that the Secretary of State for War should reserve to himself the power of exempting certain officers from the operation of the new rules.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he fully understood the object of his noble Friend
  1476
  in bringing this matter forward; but he could not assent to his noble Friend's proposal. He thought he should be able to show to their Lordships sufficient reasons why the suggestions put forward could not be accepted, which, perhaps, his noble Friend would admit, even if he did not think that the Government were justified in the course which they had taken. He would answer first the questions which his noble Friend put at the end of his speech as to employment. He wished to point out that it was a Memorandum that was on the Table of their Lordship's House, and not a Warrant. It showed the principles on which the Warrant would be based; but it was not so precise in language as the Warrant would be. He believed the Warrant was now in the printer's hands, and he hoped that by Thursday next it would be issued to to the public.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked when the Warrant would come into operation?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Warrant would come into force on the 1st of July. As to employment, he might state that the time occupied in attending any foreign manœuvres would not count as field service. It was not likely that the Government could make any exception in the rules of that kind. The question of his noble Friend as to the number of employments for general officers must be answered thus—that the number varied from time to time; but he thought he would not be far wrong in saying about 64 or 65. The next question was as to the term of seven years of combined service as colonel and general. He would answer this question by giving an illustration of the working of this rule. Assume an officer retired from employment as colonel at the age of 47 years, and did not get his promotion until he was 50 years; he would then be retired after four years' non-employment as a general officer, or seven years of non-employment in the two ranks of colonel and general combined. His noble Friend admitted that the rates of pay on retirement were fixed upon a liberal scale; but he would not discuss that matter further. He would confine himself to the point of the retirement of general officers. The greater part of his noble Friend's speech was based upon an assumption, which could not be justified, that the young

  1477
  general officers would, as a rule, be retired. But those would be the very officers who would obtain employment; for the fact of the reaching the rank of general at an early age was at any rate a presumption that they had shown ability, or had distinguished themselves in the field. No doubt, there were instances where officers would be compulsorily retired; but the great point which they had to consider was the efficiency of the Service generally. He spoke most positively when he said that these rules had been framed on that ground, and not based on motives of economy at all; for it was clearly cheaper to keep an officer on the active list than to retire him on a pension of £200 a-year more than his general's pay. When his noble Friend referred to the case of younger general officers, in whom he seemed to take so much interest, he must consider what effect his suggestions would have upon the list of colonels, because it was of the greatest possible importance that all officers below the rank of general should have their fair chance of promotion. There were about 400 generals upon the active list, and only a little over 60 employments for them. Now, after the retirements had taken effect under the Warrant, there would remain about 56 or 57 generals supernumerary to the new establishment. Until these were absorbed there could be few chances for colonels to move up, every other vacancy only giving promotion to a colonel. The Government were bound, in dealing with the higher ranks, to consider the question of the colonels. He would not say that five years non-employment made a general unfitted for employment; but there was a certain presumption that after five years of non-employment an officer was less likely to be fit for, or less likely to desire, employment than one who had been recently employed, and if there was a smaller list there would be, of course, the greater chance of employment. His noble Friend had made some suggestions as to the omission from the Warrant of all mention of five years' non-employment at present. For the reasons he (the Earl of Morley) had given, and especially on account of the disastrous effect it would have on the colonels, and because it would seriously interfere with the whole scheme of promotion which would come into force on the 1st of July, it would be
  1478
  impossible to accede to that suggestion. Then his noble Friend suggested an extension of the five years to ten, or, at least, to seven. He could assure their Lordships that the question as between seven and five years had been most carefully considered both by the military authorities and by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers); and he thought the illustrious Duke would confirm him in what he said when he stated that it was generally admitted that the advantage which would be given by an extra two years would not counterbalance the disadvantage which would arise in other directions. It had been said that the period in the Navy was 10 years; but when the time was fixed in the first instance for flag officers it was done experimentally; and, moreover, it was not merely service, as in the Army, but sea service, which was much less liberally interpreted than military service. The distinction between ordinary service and sea service made the whole difference, and vitiated the comparison which had been made between the cases of the Army and the Navy on that point. His noble Friend had suggested another alternative—namely, that all general officers who elected to remain under the existing terms should be exempted from the non-employment clause until their compulsory retirement by age. He ventured, however, to think that that would exactly exclude the class of officers whom the noble Lord was most anxious to save to the Army, because the officers who would be most likely to remain under the existing terms would be those high on the list of generals, who had the best chances of obtaining regiments. Therefore, they would save by that means the older and not the younger officers. The suggestion would not be feasible; neither would it have the effect of saving those efficient young officers who, in common with his noble Friend, he should be sorry to see compulsorily retired from the Service. His noble Friend had asked him for an assurance that under that scheme no officer who was fit for employment or who desired it should be compulsorily retired. It would be quite impossible for him to give such an assurance as that. If he did so, he should be practically stating a proposition which many officers would at once challenge—namely, that all those who were com-

  1479
  pulsorily retired on the 1st of July were unfit for employment, or that they did not desire employment. He should be sorry to say that any general officer was unfit for employment, and he had no means of knowing what their desires as to employment were. Those officers who saw that they had no chance of employment would take the higher rate of pension granted by the Warrant as being of greater advantage to them, and thus the number would be diminished. Those who remained would have greatly improved chances of employment if they were efficient officers; at any rate, there would be a greater chance than now, when there were about 400 on the active list. He did not think he should be justified in detaining their Lordships any longer. The scheme had received the most careful and anxious consideration of the Government, in the great hope that it would tend to the efficiency of the Service generally.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, it was clear that the five years' non-employment rule had come with surprise upon the Service. The five years should be extended, at least experimentally, and some other and less objectionable means should be adopted for providing for the proper flow of promotion which was promised when purchase was abolished in the Army.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, with reference to a remark of the noble Lord the Undersecretary of State for War, that sea service had nothing to do with the retirement of flag officers. It had to do with maximum pension; but, according to the system adopted in the Navy, a flag officer was not compulsorily retired until 10 years after hauling down his flag—that was to say, "continuous non-employment." Then, and then only, would a flag officer be retired on his pension. Therefore, by taking away their good-service pension, and by fixing on five years' non-employment, instead of 10 years, as the condition of compulsory retirement, officers of the Army would be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with those of the Navy under the present scheme. He contended that the Memorandum was an infringement of the promise made to officers upon the abolition of purchase, and it would be a great hardship on those who had sunk the sum of £4,500 to gain a general officer's position. They did not
  1480
  object to retire for age, but they did for non-employment, and this Warrant was a breach of the promise made by the Government to those officers who were eligible for employment. He hoped that some other arrangement would be made, as the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) would be read with dismay by all those who would be affected by that harsh rule of five years' non-employment, and consequent compulsory retirement.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend for a period not exceeding three years the term fixed for the repayment of loans granted by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the Poor Clergy to incumbents of benefices—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 136.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.