Lords Sitting of 28 April 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Land Law (Ireland).
PUBLIC BILLS—Royal Assent—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) [45 Vict. c. 6];
Army (Annual) [45 Vict. c. 7]; Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order [45 Vict. c. ii]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental [45 Vict. c. iii].

EGYPT—ASSAB.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him private Notice. He desired to know, Whether the noble Earl had any information to communicate to the House with regard to the truth of a Reuter's telegram declaring that Sir Augustus Paget, Her Majesty's Minister at Rome, had signed a protocol assenting to the fortification of Assab by the Italians?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, there is now a very laudable competition to afford the public early informa-

1637
tion. The only inconvenience is that the information is not always of a perfectly accurate character. The report to which the noble Earl has alluded is absolutely without foundation.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE RETURN, TO DECEMBER 31, 1881.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether, in the return of evictions for the year ending 31st December 1881, the number of families and persons stated to have been re-admitted as tenants was not confined to those cases where the persons evicted were re-admitted at the time of the eviction; if so, whether a supplementary return could be furnished showing the number of those evicted during the first three quarters of the year 1881 who were re-admitted as tenants before the 31st of March 1882? He said that the Returns recently presented were ambiguous in not distinguishing the number of tenants who were reinstated at the time of the eviction and those who were reinstated before the six months had expired during which they had the right of redemption. The number of those reinstated as tenants appeared to be very small, whereas the number of those who went back as caretakers was comparatively large. He wished to know whether the Return which had been issued included those who had taken advantage of the equity of redemption they possessed and been readmitted within six months, or whether it did not? If it did not, he desired to know whether there was any objection to a supplementary return up to the 31st of March last being issued which would include such cases?
  LORD CARLINGFORD,in reply, said, he found on inquiry that the Return included all cases where the tenant had been re-admitted up to the date when the report of the eviction had been made to head-quarters in Dublin. But he believed that in point of fact the Return was confined to those cases where persons evicted had been re-admitted at the time of the eviction, and therefore he had no objection to a supplementary Return being made as the noble Lord desired.
  LORD ORANMORE and BROWNEsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord
  1638
  (Lord Monteagle of Brandon) that these Returns were most ambiguous, and he took that opportunity to refer to the unfair and injurious statements with regard to evictions which appeared in the newspapers from time to time. A noble Lord, a friend of his, saw in the papers that he had evicted 60 tenants, whereas he had only evicted one, though he might have had a number of under tenants not known to the landlord, and whom he had no idea of evicting. Tenants in many cases would not pay their rents unless they were evicted, or proceedings for the purpose of eviction were commenced against them. They were, in fact, afraid to pay their rents; and yet he saw the Prime Minister expressing sympathy with those who had induced them not to do so, and the tenants were now in this condition—that they knew not what further changes would be made in the law, and unless they were very honest men they would refrain from paying their rents. He would like to see Returns made of ejectments in the City of London for the same period of time as in Ireland. Unless there were a law that tenants should not pay their rent there must be evictions, whether the property they rented belonged to landlords or to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to put down crime; but they had had crime constantly increasing in Ireland during the whole time the present Government had been in Office; and, with the exception of the Coercion Act, which had not succeeded in repressing crime, and a remedial measure which had also been unsuccessful, nothing further had been done, and there were no indications of what the Government were going to do. Unless, however, something more were not done in regard to the Land League crime would increase, and go on increasing, until the Government were determined to enforce law and order. No man could say what would be the result either in this country or Ireland if the present state of things continued. The country and the Press had expected that some definite declaration of policy would be made on Wednesday last; but instead of that they had only a sort of sympathizing speech with a Gentleman who had brought forward a Bill, the object of which was further spoliation of the landlord.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE EASTER VOLUNTEER REVIEW.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State for War to the report of a recent answer given by him in that House respecting the eligibility of Volunteer officers to brigade commands. He took that course because he thought the report of the noble Lord's answer did not accurately represent the principle on which the selections were in former years made, or, indeed, the principle on which they were made now. The matter was one so important to the Volunteer Service generally that no apology was needed for calling attention to it. His object was to obtain an authoritative declaration from the noble Lord as to the policy of the War Office in this particular. The custom for over 20 years had been that Volunteer officers in the senior ranks, who were duly qualified by proper acquaintance with their duties, should be eligible for brigade commands on field days, such as that held at Portsmouth on Easter Monday. As a matter of fact, numbers of such officers were not only eligible, but had actually held such commands. The noble Lord was reported to have said, in answer to a Question of his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) which had reference to the Portsmouth Review, that the principle of the appointments was that officers commanding regimental districts were appointed to the command of brigades with two exceptions; and that owing to the absence of Regular officers the commands had been bestowed upon two distinguished Volunteer officers—namely, Lord Bury and Lord Ranelagh. Now, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War whether there had been any new decision, and whether Volunteer officers were no longer eligible for brigade commands; and whether he was not incorrectly reported on the occasion referred to? He quite admitted that, under ordinary circumstances, when a Regular officer had under him three or four Volunteer regiments which were affiliated to his command and naturally followed his brigade, he would be appointed as the brigadier; but where such was not the case he had always understood that a Volunteer officer, properly qualified, was
  1640
  eligible to receive the command. He hoped that, considering the importance of the subject to Volunteer officers generally, the answer of the noble Lord would be of a satisfactory nature.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he thought he expressed the feelings of Volunteer officers generally when he said they were much indebted to the noble Viscount for asking this Question; and the noble Viscount, having held Office at the War Office, knew what the custom had been in regard to these appointments. In his opinion, the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, in the reply he had given the other night, had shown a dexterity which highly qualified him for official life—a dexterity which most effectually concealed the intentions of the authorities in reference to this matter. The Volunteer Force was a peculiar one, and was the outcome of patriotic feeling; and the Volunteer officers who gave their time and their money freely in its support depended for their reward on being allowed to exercise the commands which their position and experience entitled them to hold on occasions like the Portsmouth Review. He did not remember that anything had ever been done by Volunteer officers which could be complained of—they had always properly discharged their duties. He had never seen such glaring mistakes—mistakes which had been censured on the field—as those which had been made by the Regular brigadier. On the last occasion at Portsmouth, he had seen no less than two brigades, commanded by Regular officers, for a period of one hour remain under an enfilading fire; and one of the most distinguished Generals in the Service had made the remark thereon, that there would not have been a man left alive, if either of the brigades had been in actual service. No Volunteer brigadier had ever committed such a gross and apparent blunder. It was neither just to the Volunteer officers nor expedient that they should be excluded from commands. In order to prevent Volunteer officers from commanding brigades on that occasion, the brigades which were under Regular officers were made to consist of no fewer than six regiments, instead of three. He did not wish to say anything discourteous of Regular officers. He was speaking simply as a member of the Volunteer Service,

  1641
  in which he took deep interest. He contended that it was inexpedient to pursue the course which had been followed by the War Office, and he could not understand their policy. Was it intended to displace Volunteer officers altogether, and to prevent them from holding the positions they had always held? Although he had held a high position in the Volunteer Force for 20 years, he had not commanded a brigade at Portsmouth; and he regretted that that occasion should have been taken to offer to him something in the nature of an affront.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, be was extremely obliged to the noble and gallant Viscount opposite for giving him an opportunity of correcting any misapprehension that might have arisen with regard to the answer he had given to the noble and gallant Lord below the Gangway a few days ago. His words as repeated might have given a somewhat incorrect impression of what he had intended to convey. It was, however, quite impossible for him to pass over the speech of the noble Lord behind him (Lord Truro) in silence. The noble Lord took advantage of his position in Parliament to criticize the manœuvres at Portsmouth, which had been conducted by Regular officers of the highest rank, he himself having been serving as an officer under them. Such conduct was subversive of all military discipline. He declined to go into a comparison between brigadiers appointed from the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, and he declined to enter upon any criticisms as to the manner in which these officers had performed their duties. On such matters this House was not in a position to pronounce an opinion; they were most properly left to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and to the military authorities at headquarters. But he must protest against such a speech as that just delivered by the noble Lord. He must say that the course taken by the noble Lord was singularly inopportune at a time when every attempt was being made to knit the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces more closely together. In answering a Question put to him by the noble Lord behind him a few days ago, he did not intend to convey, nor did he think that his words conveyed, the impression that Volunteer officers would in future never
  1642
  be selected for the command of brigades. There was no new decision come to by the War Office, and no intention to issue any order which would disqualify Volunteer officers from holding commands of brigades when opportunities occurred for them to have such commands. The general rule in force as regarded the selection of brigadiers was practically the same for the Volunteers as for the Regular Army—namely, that brigades, whether composed of Volunteers or Regular troops, should, on the occasion of important Reviews, be commanded by the colonels having charge of the regimental districts to which the troops constituting these brigades belonged. There were often occasions in which there were a greater number of brigades than colonels who were thus qualified to command them; and in those cases, as he had already remarked, there would be no disqualification of Volunteer officers who were recommended for efficiency in drill by the general officers commanding the districts in which the regiments were localized; and he felt sure that His Royal Highness Commanding-in-Chief would in the future, as in the past, be ready to give every opportunity to Volunteer officers to command brigades. He thought that this would satisfactorily answer the Question of the noble Lord.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he thought the answer of his noble Friend perfectly satisfactory; but he wished to say with regard to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Truro) that he did not think the noble Lord was really to be considered as speaking in the name of the Volunteer Force. He had listened to those remarks with great regret, and felt sure that his criticisms on officers who were in high command on a recent occasion as well as on other occasions were such as would not have been made by many members of the Volunteer Force. He must apologize for making these remarks on the speech of his noble Friend, but he felt compelled on behalf of the Reserve Forces to do so.
  LORD TRUROdesired to say a word in explanation. When he made the remarks to which exception had been taken, be pointed out that he made them on the authority of a general officer of distinction, who was present on the occasion in question, and not simply as his own observation. He really did not

  1643
  know what there was to complain of in regard to such criticisms. The noble Earl was surprised at his taking that opportunity of bringing the matter before their Lordships. When were the Volunteers to make their grievances known? ["Order, order!"] When officers made such remarks out-of-doors they were called insubordinate—["Order, order!"]—and the only place where they could make them was in Parliament. He felt that he was entitled to give expression in the House to what he believed to be the feeling of the great body of his fellow-Volunteers. ["Order, order!"] He, as a public man, was entitled to do that, and also entitled to make their grievances known to the authorities.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the real question was not whether the senior commanders of Volunteer regiments were efficient as commanders of brigades, but how far their removal on parade and field days from the regiment in order to give them command of brigades would affect the rank and file of the regiment. The Volunteers did not, as a rule, come out more than once a week, and they were not accustomed to be drilled by the second in command. When, therefore, the commanding officer was removed, in order to give him a brigadier's command, the regiment was placed at a very serious disadvantage. This was felt even with Regular troops, who had more frequent opportunities of drill than the Volunteers; and a Line regiment never drilled so steadily when its commanding officer happened to be absent and the next senior took command. It would be a serious disadvantage if any rule were laid down that the senior Volunteer officers in command of Volunteer regiments should be entitled to claim as a matter of right the privilege of commanding brigades on the occasion of field days. He thought it would be far better if they were left in command of their own regiments, and that officers of the Regular Army accustomed to command brigades should be intrusted with that duty.

  CLAIMS OF PEERAGE, &c.
  The Earl of Milltown, the Lord Kintore, and the Lord Oxenfoord added to the Select Committee in the place of the Marquess of Abercorn, the Earl of Mansfield, and the Lord O'Hagan.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.