Lords Sitting of 13 March 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL—Second Reading—British Agricultural Association, negatived.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Municipal Voters (Relief) * (39).

BRITISH AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, this is a Bill which involves considerations of very great importance to the agricultural interest; and I should have thought that it would, as a matter of course, be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee. It has had the misfortune, however, to attract the unfavourable notice of my noble
  1046
  Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale); and in face of his hostility, which is always regarded, and justly regarded, as so powerful in this House, I am bound to lay before your Lordships the reasons why I think this Bill ought to be read a second time, and referred to a Committee to examine its details. I wish to lay emphasis on this fact—that I am urging the second reading of this Bill because, by so doing, I shall relieve myself of the necessity of going into a number of details, of which the Bill is full, and which, if they are challenged, can be remedied in Committee. I am only asking you so far to approve the main principle of the Bill as to send it in the ordinary course to be examined by a Select Committee. What is the principle which I am urging on your Lordships to accept? You are aware of the great disasters which have befallen agriculture during recent years, and one of the worst consequences of those disasters is that agricultural credit has almost entirely disappeared. Before the bad years money was lent largely to farmers—at a very high rate of interest very often, but still lent—and the farmers had money on which to work; but when the bad years came these loans were drawn in, very often to the ruin of the farmers and the suffering of the banks. There is, in fact, no agricultural credit, speaking generally and roughly, to be had; and if the law remains in its present state there is no prospect of an early revival of agricultural credit, because the security is not sufficient, considering the smallness of the profit, to invite investors to invest their money in such enterprizes. The proposal in this Bill is to enable a Company of capitalists to lend money to the farmer against his crop—against the crop which the money advanced is intended to raise; so that if he intends to raise an expensive crop in a certain field he shall be at liberty to pledge that individual credit, that crop, to pay the interest and the capital by which, the crop is raised. That cannot be done now, because the mixture of chattel interest in the crop and the farmer's own interest in the land prevent the ordinary machinery of a bill of sale from being applied. You will say—"What possible objection can there be to a capitalist being allowed to advance money upon a crop to be repaid

  1047
  out of the proceeds of that particular crop, the crop being ear-marked for the purpose?" Well, the objection is this—that there are other creditors upon the farmer's holding, and that the new creditor will stand before these others. But it is to be noticed that it is not proposed that the capitalist should stand before the landlord, because that would not be just. The landlord furnishes the land, and the capitalist furnishes the capital; and it would not be fair that the capitalist should come and thrust the landlord aside and stand before him. The landlord's interest is, therefore, saved. He has an absolute priority on any proceedings under this Bill; but after the landlord the crop is set aside in order to pay the capital by which it has been grown, and no other creditor of the farmer, as respects that crop, can step in and take it. It seems that that in itself is a perfectly just proceeding, because but for the advance of the loan there would be no crop grown; and it is certainly for the public interest that the crop should be grown; and, therefore, it is for the public interest that the capitalist should be allowed to have a lien on the crop. The same has been done in other countries—in New South Wales, for instance, where, in many instances, money is lent for the crop on the security of the crop. But in the present instance we have a precedent, and in this country precedents are invaluable. We have the principle of an advance specially guaranteed from the land by the Act of 1864, under which lenders were empowered to lend money to landlords to enable them to make improvements upon the land, and that stood in front of all mortgages which might previously have been upon the same land. We ask you to do for the farmer what has been done again and again, and on an enormous scale, for the owner. We ask you to enable the occupier to pledge the improvements which he has made by the money lent for that purpose. The owner can do that already, and it is just that the occupier should be able to do it. It is, however, not only just; unless it is done the agricultural interest cannot rise again for a long time from the depression in which it is. I have heard of one solid argument against the principle of this Bill, and that is, that if this is a good thing it should be done by a Public
  1048
  Bill. But my answer to that is that in the present state of Business in Parliament it is laughing at us to say that you must pass Public Bills. You can only pass large Bills behind which there is great pressure; but a Bill which aims at nothing but doing good cannot be passed. But to tell us that because one Parliamentary road is blocked up therefore we must not try another which is open is merely to laugh at the misfortunes under which agriculture is labouring. We have, however, something more powerful than argument or common sense. We have a good precedent. This very thing has been done again and again in favour of the owner—that is, Private Bills have been passed on the subject before any Public Bill. A Public Bill was not passed until 1864. Again and again Private Bills were passed before that date. Amongst these there was the Act passed in 1848 with regard to the West of England Company which obtained this privilege. In 1849 there was the Act conferring the power on the General Land Drainage Company; in 1853 there was the case of the Lands Improvement Company; in 1856 the Scottish Drainage Company, and in 1860 another Company, obtained this power. All these were Private Bills, and we only ask to do for the occupier what has been done again and again for the owner; and I am sure if this Bill becomes law it will confer enormous benefits on that interest which is now suffering so severely, and which of all other interests in the country is deserving of your Lordships' consideration.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, it was his duty, occupying the position which he did, to oppose this Bill. Nothing could be more dangerous than to allow private legislation to supersede public legislation. The effect of this Bill would be, if passed, that an example would be set in favour of placing private before public legislation. In other words, this Bill practically did away with the Bankruptcy Act, for the tenant was protected against the operation of the Bankruptcy Act under the operation of this Bill. The tenant also came under a contract of partnership with this Company, and the effect of the Bill would be that

  1049
  there would be an example set of legislation for private purposes, setting aside that which was already public law relating to such matters. He considered that nothing could be more dangerous than tampering with the law. If his noble Friend would introduce a Bill of a general character dealing with the objects he had in view, he would pass it through this House; and if its objects were desirable, he had no doubt it would also pass through the other House of Parliament. He denied that it was impossible to find time to pass a Public Bill on this subject. There were many Public Bills that did pass as well as Government measures; and no doubt if a Public Bill were introduced it would receive every attention from the two Houses. The public law with regard to debtor and creditor was set aside by this Bill. He wanted to know why a Company should have power to advance money for such purposes? Why should a landlord not have the same powers? He had no interest in the Bill one way or the other; but he held that it was an improper Bill for the House to sanction in the shape of private legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must express his concurrence in the objection taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, as to the principle of the Bill. He was very sorry to object to any Bill which was brought forward to benefit the agricultural interest. He felt as acutely as anyone the present position of agricultural industry; but he felt also the importance of the principle involved in maintaining the proper line of demarcation between public and private legislation, and that principle greatly exceeded the importance of this Bill. Private legislation concerned only the interests of private persons or private Companies, and no person had a locus standi against a Private Bill except the persons who claimed to have private interests with which it interfered. All those persons, and those only, might be heard against it. Questions of public policy were never considered at all; and it therefore appeared to be absolutely vital to prevent any inroad, by Private Bills, upon that province which public legislation had already occupied. If this Bill had been introduced as a Public Bill he should have offered no objection to the second reading. It was said there was
  1050
  a difficulty in passing a Public Bill; but that suggestion only added to the force of the objection. It was important to take care that, because there was a difficulty, Private Bills were not introduced instead of Public Bills. In the case of a Public Bill, every man was supposed to have notice; but of Private Bills no public or general notice was given. A Public Bill was publicly debated, in both Houses, in all its stages; but a Bill like the present would not be considered at all, except in a Select Committee, without opponents. These Private Bills were scarcely ever circulated; and when they passed they were not printed with the Public Statutes. Was it true that this Bill contained provisions which encroached on the province of public legislation? He thought it did, in several ways. It would affect, throughout the Kingdom, the rights of landlords and creditors. According to one of the clauses of the Bill, when the Association was going to lend money to a tenant it must give 14 days' notice to the landlord, who, if he pleased, might refuse his consent. That applied only to tenancies of over 12 months' duration. When the landlord received the notice he might know nothing about the Act, or anything connected with it; and before he could consult his solicitor the time for objecting under the Act might have expired, or else his solicitor would have no more time than might be left of the 14 days to make all necessary inquiries about the matter. If the tenancy was for 12 months, or any less period, the landlord was only at liberty to object to the transaction on one or other of two grounds. One was that the tenant was bound, by his covenants, not to do those things, for which he proposed to borrow the money. In the great majority of cases that was not likely to be the case; and therefore that ground might be put aside. The other ground was that the tenancy would be determined within 12 months; so that, in order to enable the landlord to object on that ground, he must turn out his tenant, which, otherwise, he might not have wished to do. If objection were made on either of the grounds mentioned, the Company could take the matter to the County Court, which would determine whether the objection was to hold good. But, supposing no objection were made, various rights were conferred on the Company,

  1051
  which were at variance with the public law. He would first take the case of the landlord dealt with by the 33rd section.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It has been withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, then, of course, his objection to that clause disappeared. If the other clauses to which similar objections in principle applied were also withdrawn, his objections would also be withdrawn. He would next take the case of a creditor of a person to whom money had been lent by the Company, and this brought out in the strongest possible way the objection of principle. The 31st and 32nd sections practically said that, if the occupiers in possession, having the apparent ostensible ownership of everything upon the land, became bankrupt, the ordinary law was to be entirely set aside, and the general creditors were to be altogether postponed, and absolute preference was to be given to this Company. This was to be done not by a Public Act, but by a private measure, about which tradesmen could know nothing, and in respect of which no communication was to be made to them. The effect of this change would be that an agricultural tenant would be empowered to enter into a contract with the Company by which he could prefer them to all his other creditors, and give them a preferential security on all his present and future movables and farming live and dead stock. All he could say was, that if that were a proper thing to do for the protection of agriculture, it ought to be done by public legislation, and the change in the law should be considered in all its bearings in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess had stated that the principle of this Act had been embodied in some Private Acts already passed. It was impossible to say how far that was the case without an examination of those Acts. For his part, he had never heard of any private legislation being proposed before which superseded the Bankruptcy Act; and he might point out that in some of the Acts to which reference had been made, before an advance could be made it was necessary to obtain the sanction of a public Department—the Enclosure Commissioners; and all that was then done was to charge the property in the land
  1052
  against reversioners, if the Commissioners thought that they would derive benefit from the proposed improvements. One Act which had been referred to—that of the West of England Drainage Company—was in itself a warning. It enabled loans to be granted on the security of land, to ecclesiastical as well as other persons, without any of the usual and proper safeguards for the protection of the interests of successors; and one particular clergyman, without any ecclesiastical consent or oversight, mortgaged his glebe to the full extent of its value to the Company. Last Session the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had to come to Parliament for a general Public Act, which was passed to prevent such mischief occurring in the future.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he could not endorse what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had said with regard to Private Bill legislation. He thought that some of the most efficient work done in that House was the initiation of private legislation, especially on the subject of the landed interest of the country. While it was necessary for an Act of this sort to be publicly debated and considered in all its bearings, it was not absolutely essential for a measure of this sort to fulfil those conditions to quite the same extent as a Public Bill. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had criticized the main blots of the Bill; but one observation could be made with respect to some of the loans to tenants. It was thought very objectionable by some persons to admit the principle of lending to tenants on standing crops, for they said that if a tenant were in such a position that he required to borrow on standing crops he was not in a proper condition to borrow at all. In the case of expensive crops, such as hops and beetroot, when the tenant's capital was insufficient, the assistance of the landlord would be very advantageous. For that reason, it appeared to him that there would be advantage in considering this measure on its merits before a Select Committee. Evidence would be taken to show what would be the best means of promoting a scheme which would meet the requirements of the situation. The situation with regard to agriculture was undoubtedly a serious one. They had not been able to get a Royal Commission to

  1053
  inquire into it; but their Lordships would admit that there was no industry in the country which so much required an inquiry at the present time. He ventured to think that if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee much valuable information might be obtained with regard to the best means of dealing with the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot say that the arguments of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack have convinced me. He has addressed himself almost entirely to technicalities, and those not of a very important character, contained in the Bill. He dwelt very much, almost playing with words, upon what he called the privacy of a Private Bill, and said that there was no sufficient opportunity of discussing a private measure. The procedure in a Private Bill is exactly similar to that in the case of a Public Bill, with the exception that it is submitted to a Select Committee in addition. It passes through all its stages in this House like any other Bill, and its contents are discussed in this House, not only as a matter of form, but in practice also. When the noble and learned Earl talks of no notice being received of such a Bill being passed, and of its being passed secretly, my impression is that more publicity has been given to this Bill than to most Bills that come before us. The noble and learned Earl has rested very much upon the grievances of the landlord, and the fact that he is only to have a fortnight's notice. I quite admit that that is too short; but I think that the second reading of a Bill is hardly the occasion on which to discuss a question of detail of that description. It is contrary to all our practice to make a consideration like this the ground for rejecting the second reading of a Bill; it is easy to rectify any such error in Committee. The noble and learned Earl practically did not deal with the Preference Clause at all. It appears to me that you have passed Bill after Bill doing for the owner precisely what you are now asked to do for the occupier, giving him priority for money lent for improvements. When you were being asked to give advantages to the owner, you never discovered all these technicalities. The recommendation to pass such a Bill as this as a public measure is utterly impracticable, and has no
  1054
  meaning whatever. I regret that the noble and learned Earl, and I presume Her Majesty's Government, have taken this view with respect to a measure which has undoubtedly an object of very great interest in view. I do not think, however, that there has been sufficient support of the measure in this House to justify me in pressing the second reading to a division.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)desired to say, on the part of the Agricultural Department, that he had approached the consideration of this Bill with great interest, and with an intention, if possible, of supporting it. At the same time, it was impossible—and he thought most of their Lordships would feel that it was impossible—to resist the arguments of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack against the Bill on its present lines and in its present form. The noble and learned Earl had certainly taken objection to some of the details of the Bill; but he could not agree with the noble Marquess that the noble and learned Earl had rested his chief objection to the Bill upon any of these details rather than on much broader grounds. He could only say that if this Bill had been a public one he should have voted for it with great pleasure and satisfaction, although feeling that there would have been necessity for considerable change in Committee.
  On question, resolved in the negative.

BURMAH—RENEWAL OF DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is intended to renew diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Burmah? The noble Viscount said, he would only add a few words to express a hope that the Government were giving full consideration—which he had no reason to doubt—to the important subject of the relation of this country with Burmah. He would ask, further, whether the reports were correct as to the action of the Chinese in conjunction with the Burmese in restoring the authority of Burmah at Bhamo; and, also, whether it was true that Sir William Hewett had been ordered to go up the Irrawaddy? He

  1055
  thought he need hardly remind the noble Earl how important it was that this country should have a predominant position with respect either to a change of dynasty in Burmah or to the action of Foreign Powers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, as their Lordships would be aware, diplomatic relations with Burmah had been broken off in 1879. In 1882 an ineffectual attempt had been made to renew them. At the present time he would only state that the subject was engaging the most careful attention of the Viceroy. He was in communication with the Viceroy; but he was not in a position to say what the Viceroy might think it right to do in the matter. With regard to the other matter, he had no information whatever as to the report with reference to the action of the Burmese and Chinese at Bhamo. Neither had he heard anything as to any expedition of Sir William Hewett up the Irrawaddy.

NAVY—CHILDREN OF WARRANT OFFICERS—THE COMPASSIONATE FUND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any allowance from the Compassionate Fund for the children of warrant officers is to be granted; and, if so, whether the grant will he extended, as in the case of other officers, to all orphan children?"
  said, he would not have asked the Question had he been aware that, to a certain extent, it had been already answered in "another place." He would now vary the Question, and ask whether the noble Earl could state when an answer would be given; and whether the claims of all or any of the children would be taken into consideration?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK,in reply, said, that an allowance would be granted to all children of warrant officers who lost their lives in and by the Service, whether they were killed in action or not.

ARMY ADMINISTRATION.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in rising to move for the following Returns:—
  "(1) Return of the titles of the Acts of Parliament at present in force for the regulation of
  1056
  matters connected with the Army; showing the clauses of each Act which have been repealed by subsequent legislation; (2) a list of the Orders in Council now in force for the government of the Army; (3) a list, with dates, of the several volumes of Royal Warrants and of Regulations issued by authority of the Secretary of State for the administration of the Army and now in force; (4) a list of the Reports of Royal Commissions or of special Committees on Army matters which have been presented to Parliament since the year 1872; (5) Returns of the terms for enlistment, discharge, extension of service with or without pension, transfer to the Reserve, extension of reserve service, or re-engagement for the reserve that existed in 1879 at the time of Lord Airey's Committee, and the terms in force at the present time for the same—namely, the enlistment, discharge, transfer to the reserve, extension of reserve service or re-engagement for the reserve; periods of service that give title to pension, and the amount of such pension; also the provision made for the families of reserve soldiers when their husbands are with the colours; and if any persons are charged with the duty of affording assistance to the families of reserve soldiers in case of need during the absence of their husbands,"
  said, that he was placed in a position of some difficulty. The Motion for the first four of these Returns had been placed on the Paper by himself, and he could speak about them; but the others were moved by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Napier of Magdala), who was now unable through indisposition to be present. The Motions had been joined because the discussion of them would otherwise have been separated by several other subjects. The Motion which he himself now brought forward was necessitated, because from 1871 down to the present time there had been a constant succession of changes in the constitution of the Army, which had left it, he did not say now whether in a worse or in a better position than it was before, but certainly in a totally different position. Prom 1871, when Lord Cardwell began his reforms in the Army, almost all the changes that were made were embodied in Acts of Parliament, in Royal Warrants, and in General Orders. Large sums of money were spent in abolishing purchase, and in establishing depôt centres. Lord Cardwell's changes involved the absolute destruction of the system which they superseded. Each successive War Minister was compelled, whether he liked it or not, to develop the new plan, some parts of which were found not easily workable. It was impossible for any Minister, whatever his opinions might be, to resist the plea that the new system

  1057
  required time to prove its effects, or to induce his Colleagues to sacrifice the more than £3,500,000 that were expended on the depot centres, or to face any new succession of organic changes in the constitution of the Army. At no time was it possible after 1872 to go back to the old Army system, which was entirely destroyed—its bones, so to speak, having been buried. When Lord Cardwell introduced this scheme in 1872 he had been fortified by the Localization Committee, which dealt with two classes of subjects—the one destructive, the other constructive. The destructive parts of the scheme had been entirely successful—that was to say, the existing Army system was wholly demolished. The constructive parts of the scheme were not so effective, hardly any of them having yet been carried out. Lord Cardwell took care to embody all his changes in Acts of Parliament, and successive Secretaries of State had since then had no choice but to obey the law. Each of them had tried to make the system work, and had taken certain steps which, whether they were right or wrong, were absolutely irrevocable. Each of them might, in fact, be said to have broken up the ground behind him. Before Lord Cardwell's changes, or in 1871, the Votes for the Army amounted to about £16,000,000 per annum. The Army Estimates had remained at pretty much the same sum ever since. At that time enlistment was for 21 years, at the end of which term a pension was obtained; recruiting was found to be difficult, hardly sufficient men coming in to make up for the waste in the Army. In fact, even lowering the standard and giving large bounties scarcely enabled them to get enough men for the Service. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the state of the Army in Lord Cardwell's time was very unsatisfactory, and it was quite right to apply some strong and even drastic remedy to it. There was no Reserve. Lord Cardwell's plan was to abolish purchase, to secure the necessary flow of promotion by the compulsory retirement of officers, and to give promotion by seniority, tempered by selection. Pension to the rank and file was entirely done away with, an endeavour was made to create a Reserve by passing men after three years' service in the ranks into the
  1058
  Reserve, and the main feature of the scheme was to localize the Army and to establish what was now called the Depot Brigade system—to identify regiments with various localities for recruiting and training, connecting the Regulars, the Auxiliaries, and the Reserves with the Forces actually serving under the standard. That system was based on the number of battalions—namely, 141, which then happened to exist in the Army; and its smooth working depended on the possibility of retaining exactly 71 battalions always in England and 70 abroad, any disturbance of that proportion involving the complete dislocation of the scheme. Now, on no occasion since then had that proportion been kept up; and Lord Cardwell's original scheme, from beginning to end, though nominally adopted, had never been really carried out. The scheme was embodied first in the Regulation of the Forces Bill of 1871, which was three times remodelled before it passed. First, the whole Bill, except as to the abolition of purchase was withdrawn. Then the abolition of purchase clauses were thrown out in their Lordships' House. Then those clauses were carried into effect by Royal Warrant, and in the same month of 1871 the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) moved a Resolution declaring that the amended Bill was read the second time only on account of the clauses securing compensation to officers; and that Bill was at last carried only in the shape of clauses giving compensation to officers. Shortly afterwards came what was called the Localization Committee, which presented three successive Reports, and subsequently the Localization Act was passed, £3,500,000 sterling being granted for the building of barracks at the various depot centres. In that year also a General Order was issued to the Army giving effect to the recommendation of the Localization Committee, and containing instructions for the officers appointed to command in connection with the localization of the Forces. In 1874 there was a change of Government. At that time there were in active operation the Army and Militia Reserve Act of 1867, the Regulation of the Forces Act of 1871, the Localization Act of 1872, and the General Order of 1873. In 1875 Mr. Gathorne Hardy appointed the well-known Militia Committee of which Lord Stanley was Chair-

  1059
  man. That Committee propounded a scheme similar in many respects to that adopted by Mr. Childers. Mr. Hardy also appointed Sir Daniel Lysons's Committee to examine the brigade depots; and in the same year, when preparations were made in prospect of the war with Russia, a Committee was appointed on the mobilization of the Army. In 1878 Mr. Hardy appointed General Armstrong's Committee on the short-service system. On the recommendation of that Committee, the whole system of rewards and punishments had been framed to meet the requirements of the old long-service system, which were set aside and remodelled in order to suit the circumstances of the new system of Mr. Card-well. In 1879 Colonel Stanley succeeded Mr. Hardy, and he appointed Lord Airey's Committee in consequence of the difficulties which had been found in the working of the short-service system. That Committee might be said to represent the military opinion of the day. Their recommendations were not presented to Parliament for a considerable time—in fact, they were not presented until Mr. Childers had matured and laid before Parliament his new scheme in March, 1882, while moving the Army Estimates. He need not enter into an examination of that scheme, because it was the scheme upon which the Army was at present regulated. His object in giving this brief history of the Army changes from 1871 until the present time was to show their Lordships that there were a series of Acts of Parliament, of General Orders, of Royal Warrants, and of Orders in Council which overlapped each other to such an extent that no one could make head or tail of the mass. Officers did not know how they stood, nor under what Regulations they came. There might be a mass of books for them to consult; but it was nearly impossible for them to find out whether a certain Royal Warrant or General Order had been wholly or partially repealed by some subsequent legislation, and, indeed, unless in the case of such experts as his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War, no officer could exactly say under what Regulations the Army at present existed. It was necessary, therefore, that there should be laid before their Lordships such information as that he had indicated, and that there should be in the possession of
  1060
  officers of the Army a single Return from which they and others interested in the administration of the Army might gather the exact position of legislative enactments by which the Army was controlled. If the Returns for which he asked, as well as the Return asked for by his noble and gallant Friend the Field Marshal, were granted, as he hoped they would be, there would be in the hands of officers in the Army and of those interested in its government a compendious book of reference by which the actual condition of affairs might be thoroughly known.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,

  "1. Return of the titles of the Acts of Parliament at present in force for the regulation of matters connected with the Army; showing the clauses of each Act which have been repealed by subsequent legislation;

  "2. A list of the Orders in Council now in force for the government of the Army;

  "3. A list, with dates, of the several volumes of Royal Warrants and of Regulations issued by authority of the Secretary of State for the administration of the Army and now in force;

  "4. A list of the Reports of Royal Commissions or of Special Committees on Army matters which have been presented to Parliament since the year 1872;

  "5. Returns of the terms for enlistment, discharge, extension of service with or without pension, transfer to the Reserve, extension of reserve service, or re-engagement for the reserve, that existed in 1879 at the time of Lord Airey's Committee, and the terms in force at the present time for the same; namely, the enlistment, discharge, transfer to the reserve, extension of reserve service, or re-engagement for the reserve."—(The Viscount Bury.)

  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was unable to trace any connection between the historical retrospect given by the noble Viscount and the Motion of which he had given Notice. The only object he could conceive the noble Viscount had in making his statement was to show the system was introduced by Lord Cardwell, and to prove that because subsequent War Ministers were unable to depart from it he (Viscount Bury) was to be acquitted from any responsibility in having to carry it out. He had no difficulty in acquitting the noble Viscount of that responsibility. The noble Viscount, towards the conclusion of his speech, complained that there was a good deal of confusion as to the documents, whether General Orders or Acts of Parliament, by which the Army was governed. He had no objection to produce the Returns asked for; indeed, the Motion

  1061
  had, to some extent, been anticipated, and the documents were in such a forward state of preparation that they would probably be presented to the House in a few days. He thought, however, the noble Lord somewhat exaggerated the confusion to officers and others interested in the Army arising from the number of documents dealing with its administration. He did not seem to be aware that the documents regulating the Army were infinitely more simple in their character than they had been in any former period. With one or two exceptions, the legislation affecting the Army was up to date. It was contained in 12 volumes of Regulations, eight of which were confined to departmental arrangements. It seemed to him, therefore, that the criticisms of the noble Viscount referred more appropriately to the old days, when there was no such thing as the consolidating of Warrants. At present there was no confusion whatever. The Warrants were perfectly clear, consolidation took place from time to time, and every officer could not fail to obtain with very little trouble the information he wanted. There was another volume to which he would like to refer; it was a manual of military law issued on the authority of the War Department. The book had been drawn up by an able legal authority, embodying the Acts of Parliament and dissertations on military law regulating the Army up to date. The price of the book was 2s. 6d., so it was not beyond the reach of noble Lords who were interested. The Returns asked for by the noble and gallant Lord the Field Marshal had already been placed before the House in a very convenient form. The noble Viscount's Motion concluded with a reference to a Return, though in reality it was rather in the nature of a Question, as to the payment which the wives of Reserve soldiers would receive while their husbands were with the Colours. He did not think that that was a subject for a Return; but he would give the noble Viscount what information he could. The wives of Reserve men with the Colours would receive the same allowances as were received by the wives of soldiers serving abroad—namely, 8d. a-day, with 2d. a-day for each child up to a certain age. These sums were calculated on the foreign rate, and not on the home
  1062
  rate, which was much smaller; and he believed no complaint had been made as to the way in which the wives of Reserve men would be dealt with. There was no such organization as the noble Viscount suggested for relieving the wives and families of Reserve men in case of need; and he failed to see how such an organization could be established. The families of Reserve soldiers were scattered all over the country, and the task of relieving them in case of need must devolve on local administrations in the places where these people resided. In conclusion, the noble Earl said he hoped he should be able shortly to lay upon the Table of the House the Returns for which the noble Viscount had moved.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYwanted to know whether it was proposed to give effect to that part of the original scheme which provided that when the two battalions of one regiment were both abroad a third battalion should be formed at home? That part of the scheme had never yet been carried out.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he must protest against the extraordinary irregularity of asking a Question on a Motion with which it had nothing whatever to do; but he had no objection to answer it. When it was thought desirable, no doubt, the depôt could be, and was in several cases, increased in numbers. Of course, the Military Advisers of the Crown were guided by the circumstances in which wars were carried on.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSexpressed his satisfaction with the announcement that the Returns moved for by his noble Friend would, as far as possible, be granted.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.