Lords Sitting of 28 March 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Married Women's Property (13–52).
Third Reading—Settled Land* (19); Conveyancing* (20), and passed.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 13.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order); amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday the 25th of April next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 52.)
EARL CAIRNSsuggested that the third reading of the Bill should be postponed till after the Easter Recess, in order that the Profession might have time to consider the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLORassented to the suggestion as entirely reasonable. The Amendments referred to by his noble and learned Friend were, for the most part, designed to embody in the new Bill certain provisions in the existing law which it was thought desirable to re-enact.

ARMY (DESERTERS).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD TRURO, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the number of recruits shown in the General Annual Returns is that of exclusively new men recruited to the Army, or whether it includes the numerous oft-repeated re-enlistments of deserters; and to move for a Return showing the number of re-enlistments respectively by deserters, said, that he had recently asked the Government to furnish the Annual Army Returns earlier in the Session. Some objection was taken to his request; but he was glad to hear that the Government had taken an opportunity of considering whether they could grant it. But, while it was extremely desirable that the Returns should be furnished earlier, it was still more important that they should be fuller and more accurate, with more uniformity in classification and headings. He had been informed that, even in the Army, considerable trouble and difficulty had occasionally arisen from the headings of the Returns not being uniformly

  137
  the same. With respect to the accuracy of the Returns, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a few points in which considerable divergence existed between the Annual Returns presented to Parliament in April, 1880, and the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for the same year. In the Annual Returns for 1880 the number of desertions was stated to be 3,276, while the Inspector General placed them at 2,384. Then the Inspector General stated the number of recruits to be 22,022, whereas, in the Annual Returns, the number of recruits was shown as 25,535. In speaking of recruits he wished to ask, as it did not appear from the Returns, whether the men who joined the Army from the Militia were below the age at which they could properly be enlisted? Nor was there any allusion whatever in the Inspector General's Report to the recruits who did not come up to be attested. The Annual Returns showed that 6,589 men in 1880 were recruited, but did not attend to be attested. There was also an absence in the Inspector General's Report of a proper classification of men discharged for misconduct. A large number of men had been discharged for illness and misconduct; but some of the Returns were classified so indifferently, that it was difficult to understand what number should come under the different heads. The large number of 8,462 deserters from the Militia was given in the last Return, and this was a serious matter. But what he particularly wished to draw attention to was the number of re-enlistments, because unless they ascertained this it was impossible to understand what the strength of the Army was. If a man deserted and re-enlisted in various parts of the country and was returned each time as a new recruit, the nation was miserably deceived as to the strength of the Army. His sole object in calling attention to the facts and figures was that in future better Returns should be furnished, and at a period of the Session when Parliament would be able to consider them. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Return of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Return showing the number of re-enlistments respectively by deserters."—(The Lord Truro.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he could assure his noble Friend that this
  138
  subject, upon which he had asked a Question on a former evening, was occupying the attention of the military authorities of the War Office, and that they were quite as desirous as he himself and their Lordships were to get as early as possible the Returns in question. It was of great importance that they should be obtained as accurately as possible. The noble Lord had criticized the Returns, and said they should be more accurate. He (the Earl of Morley) quite agreed that they should be accurate; but the inaccuracies pointed out were very small, and not of a serious character, being in one case only eight men in 8,000, and in another instance 28 men in 25,000. He could not say exactly how these slight inaccuracies occurred; but he had no doubt they could be explained. The question of fraudulent enlistment was one which caused uneasiness, and they were as anxious as the noble Lord to check them as far as possible. Of course, if a deserter were known, he would not be enlisted at all; but, if he were enlisted, he would come under the head of recruits until discovered, when he would be liable to punishment. A paragraph in the Inspector General's Return showed what it was proposed to do in order to check, as far as possible, those practices. It was proposed that the medical officer should record in the attestation whether he thought the recruit had served before. An order would be issued almost immediately with the view of preventing fraudulent enlistment. Under that order a man offering to enlist would not be accepted unless he should satisfy the officer that his answers as to previous enlistment were to be relied upon. Last year 667 men were convicted of fraudulent enlistment. He regretted that there were so many, and the authorities were very anxious that the crime—for it was nothing less than a crime—should be checked as far as possible. He trusted that with greater care on the part of the medical officers and recruiting sergeants that would be done. The Return for which his noble Friend asked he was afraid it was impossible to give. It would not add much to the information he (the Earl of Morley) had already given to the House.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

STEAMSHIP "VICTORIA."

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the accident that occurred to the South-Eastern Railway Company's Steamship "Victoria" on Tuesday last, the 21st March, off Boulogne, and to move for a copy of the certificate granted to that vessel by the Board of Trade, said, that on Tuesday last he was a passenger by the Victoria, which left Folkestone at 11.39 a.m. There was a strong westerly wind, with rough sea, and, the machinery breaking down, the vessel drifted for some time up Channel, but eventually reached Calais harbour in the afternoon. The ship could carry over 300 passengers, and yet there were only two small boats on board, which would not hold more than eight people each, and he should be very sorry to be one of them. It was a great sin to send such a ship to sea with only two small boats to fall back upon in an emergency. The travelling public deserved more care and attention. They relied upon Parliament to make laws for their protection, and they looked to the Railway and Shipping Companies to carry out those laws in their integrity. Either the Companies had failed to carry out the regulations of the Board of Trade, or those regulations were insufficient. All he now asked was that some inquiry should be made into the matter, and he would move that a copy of the certificate granted to the vessel by the Board of Trade should be laid before the House.
  Moved for, "Passenger certificate granted to the South-Eastern Railway Company's steamship 'Victoria' by the Board of Trade."—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that the steamer Victoria holds a certificate from the Board of Trade, authorizing her to carry 356 passengers between Folkestone and Boulogne. The boats she carries are two in number—one of them is a lifeboat and the other a jolly boat, capable of carrying 40 statute adults—namely, 25 and 15 persons respectively. She likewise carries two lifebuoys fit and ready for use. These boats are carried in accordance with a hard-and-fast scale contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, under which ships are required to be provided
  140
  with boats, not at all in accordance with the number of passengers they may carry, but in accordance with the net registered tonnage of the ships; and as the size of ships is increasing, and owing to the operation of the tonnage laws, the register tonnage is decreasing, it follows that more passengers may be carried in a steamer provided with fewer boats than at the time of the passing of the Act. The Board of Trade have power to approve of liferafts in substitution for the boats required by statute, but not, as is often erroneously supposed, in addition to those boats. As regards the accident, it appears to have been very much as stated by the noble Earl. The Victoria left Folkestone for Boulogne at 11.30 on the 21st of March, with a crew of 21 men and 112 passengers. She encountered a strong breeze, with rough sea; and at 1.10 p.m., while going at the rate of 13 knots an hour, she was struck by a heavy sea. The crank pin of her port engine broke, and it took two hours to disconnect the engines, during which time, being in a disabled state, she drifted for about two hours, going about six miles up Channel. It certainly appeared that the number of boats was in accordance with the number prescribed by the Act of 1854. As soon as the engines were disconnected, she proceeded with her starboard engine, and arrived at Calais at 5 minutes to 4 o'clock. There will be no objection to lay the certificate of the Board of Trade on the Table, together with a Copy of the sections of the Acts of Parliament bearing upon the subject of boats and of the Board's instructions.
  In answer to Lord ELPHINSTONE,
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the ship, according to Act of Parliament, was bound to carry one lifeboat capable of carrying 25 passengers and one boat capable of carrying 15 passengers. He could not say at that moment whether she carried those boats or not; but he had no reason for supposing that she did not.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  Passenger certificate: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 53.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.