Lords Sitting of 18 February 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Church Patronage٭ (26).
Third Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction (25), and passed.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES—DEFECTIVE WEAPONS AND STORES.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in rising to move—
  "That there be laid before this House Returns of the schedule of complaints and defects printed by the War Office for the use of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores now sitting, as to the weapons and stores supplied for the use of Her Majesty's Navy,"
  said, that he wished to explain in a few words why he had ventured to bring this subject under the attention of their Lordships. In the case of the Army and
  2
  Navy it was extremely important that when great questions were at issue as to their efficiency it should not be supposed that those questions were treated merely as between experts. Those matters were of great importance and interest to the public; and he thought it was well, when deficiencies were discovered or apprehended, that they should show an interest in them as well as the professional class. The reason why he moved for the Return was that the answer that had been given by his noble Friend (Lord Elphinstone), on the part of the Government last week, to his Question as to the defective armament of certain ships was of a startling and an alarming character. Having recapitulated the statement made as to the numbers of cutlasses and sword bayonets that were found to be defective on being tested on board the ships of the Training Squadron, the noble Lord said that the statement was so startling that he followed it up by inquiring whether there had been any complaints of previous defects of a

  3
  like land, and the reply given was that there had been previous complaints, and that a Schedule of them had been printed by the War Office, and was in the hands of the Commission. There could not be a safer or a wiser policy than to give the public complete information on such matters. He would be the last to press for the Return if the noble Lord who represented the War Office thought it would be undesirable in the public interests to give it while the Commission was sitting; but he thought that the moment when questions were raised as to the condition of weapons in actual use was the time when good service might be done by a statement of the fears which disturbed the public mind. He had the most perfect confidence in those at the head of the Admiralty and the War Department; he was satisfied that, with their ability, judgment, and courage, the great interests of the Services were safe in their hands, and he would not breathe a word of suspicion against their administration. All he desired to do was to assist them in getting at the bottom of the complaints made. The reply to which he had referred had, however, given rise to profound uneasiness as to the condition of the weapons in use in the Fleet generally; and while the Commissioners were looking to the future supply of weapons, he ventured to put a Question to the Admiralty with regard to weapons at present in use. They ought to be informed whether the weapons that had been formerly complained of were still on board our ships, or whether they had been discarded and sent away from the ships. He would ask whether the Admiralty would direct that all weapons on board ships in commission should be tested forthwith, for, after the revelations that had been made, it would be wrong to leave untested weapons in the hands of our sailors and Marines? It was stated that nobody connected with the ships was responsible for the proper condition of the weapons in use upon them; and, therefore, some assurance ought to be given that no weapons could be passed into the hands of our men without being tested. The noble Lord said the other night—
  "We give patterns of the weapons we wish for; but we have no means of knowing whether the weapons we receive are according to pattern."
  4
  That was an unfortunate state of things as far as the Admiralty was concerned, and he should have thought it would have necessitated the testing of the weapons by the War Office before they were issued. He hoped that every complaint would be brought to light, and that the Commission would put the country in possession of the facts in each case. The country would not be satisfied unless it knew the answer to the complaints that had been made. Another point of essential importance was that the Commission should get to the bottom of the fact as to who was responsible for the issue of these inferior weapons; whether they were supplied by contract; if so, whether the contract had been broken in the first instance, and, if it had, whose fault it was; whether the patterns supplied by the Admiralty had been accurately copied? Many of them remembered the shoddy boots, the trusses of hay stuffed with rubbish, and the wretched beds supplied during the Crimean War, and they should insist upon the fullest inquiry into the action of the contractors. Again, there should be the fullest inquiry as to whether there had been any foul play on the part of the officers connected with the Department. They hoped that there had been no foul play; but they knew that in other countries beside our own such a state of things had existed. They had a right to know whether this was the case in the Public Services. It was also very necessary to know whether the officers responsible for the supply of these arms ever delegated their duties, for which they received pay, to inferior officers who were not really responsible to the Department; whether officers of high position had not, in some cases, made themselves not responsible, and had allowed officers of a lower grade to pass the weapons. These were points that ought to be thoroughly investigated. Another question for consideration was whether the weapons were inferior because the War Office did not pay enough for them; then let the fact be known, for it would be better to pay more for a good article. It was a disastrous and cruel policy to place untrustworthy weapons in the hands of our soldiers and sailors. Whether the issue of defective weapons could be traced to political action of any kind, such as the demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  5
  of the day that there should he sweeping economies without reference to their wisdom or safety; and whether we were now paying the penalty for the popularity-hunting of past Ministers. He hoped that their Lordships would insist upon the responsibility for these culpable or criminal deeds being brought home to individuals, and that those individuals should be treated with no sparing hand. He knew nothing more criminal than knowingly to allow men to fight for their country with unreliable weapons. The investigation of this matter ought not to be allowed to drift into recriminations between different classes of officers, or between one Party and another; and civilians should be backed up by the Ministers of the day in efforts to get at the bottom of these abuses, which made us all ashamed of our country.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Return of the schedule of complaints and defects printed, by the War Office for the use of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores now sitting, as to the weapons and stores supplied for the use of Her Majesty's Navy."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he must express a hope that the noble Earl would consent to withdraw the Motion he had made, and he thought there were good reasons for making that request of him. The fact was that all the questions that had been raised in the speech of the noble Earl were at that moment being carefully considered by the Royal Commission and by two Committees. He quite agreed with the noble Earl that those who were not connected with the Departments, and whom he described as "laymen," had the right to manifest the greatest interest in the questions raised, and particularly in the question whether the weapons placed in the hands of our soldiers and sailors were fit for them to use. He also agreed that great anxiety had been produced in the country by the issue of weapons complained of as defective; and there-sult had been that a Royal Commission had been issued to inquire into the facts, and a Committee was sitting under his noble Friend formerly Under Secretary for War (the Earl of Morley) to inquire whether im-
  6
  provements could be suggested with a view to greater efficiency and economy in the Royal Laboratory and gun, gun carriage, and small arms factories, in the testing of weapons, in checking the quality of articles supplied under contracts, and, indeed, into all the points raised by the noble Earl. In addition, to that, in consequence of the excitement produced in the country by the issue of alleged defective cutlasses and sword bayonets by the War Office, an independent Committee had been appointed to inquire into all the circumstances of those issues, as well as into the character of the present stores and the weapons now in use. In these circumstances he deprecated discussion at a time when, he would submit, the House was not in possession of information without which it was impossible that any discussion could be fair and complete. It was impossible to discuss this grave question adequately on this occasion, and he hoped the noble Earl would consent to withdraw the Motion. With regard to the Schedule moved for at first by the noble Earl, that Schedule would not have been complete. In the first instance the War Department made out a Schedule of complaints made by the Admiralty, and sent it to the Admiralty, asking whether it was complete. The Admiralty thought it not complete, and supplied a supplementary Schedule. These two Schedules, which contained every complaint, had been placed before the Royal Commission.
  EARL STANHOPEasked whether saddles, bridles, and harness and other things would come under the inquiry into the supply of military stores? It had been stated that saddlery of the time of the Crimean War was still kept in the military stores.
  LORD HARRISreplied that it was an inquiry into everything that had been complained of, and that included saddlery.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that in the discussion frequent use had been made of the word "officer." So far as he knew, not a single military or naval officer had been responsible for any of these transactions in the War Department. For the last 15 years not any military officer had been responsible in that Department; and, doubtless, that observation was equally applicable to naval officers at the Admiralty. Sooner

  7
  or later, now that the people had the power in their hands, naval and military officers would be placed at the head of the War Office and Admiralty, instead of, as at present, the civil element predominating in both Departments, since only by military and naval officers being respectively responsible for their Departments would real economy combined with efficiency be thoroughly attained.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he would, of course, withdraw his Motion as requested by his noble Friend; but he would give Notice that unless he received some assurance that untrustworthy weapons would not be issued pending the inquiry, he would feel it his duty to bring the matter forward again.
  LORD HARRISsaid, he would direct the attention of the noble Earl to the answer given in "another place" by the Surveyor General of Ordnance, to the effect that all cutlasses and sword bayonets complained of were being withdrawn and tested as rapidly as possible.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether the cutlasses were being tested by the naval authorities?
  LORD HARRISsaid, that Question ought to be addressed to the Admiralty.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INDIA—THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE CELEBRATION — LIBERATION OF 25,000 PRISONERS.
  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY,who had a Notice on the Paper to ask as to the release of 25,000 prisoners in India, said, that about two hours before coming down to the House he had received a communication from his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) requesting him to postpone until Tuesday next the Questions which stood in his name, in order that his noble Friend might obtain information from India; and, under those circumstances, he would postpone asking the Questions until Tuesday.

  RAILWAY RATES.—QUESTION.
  LORD VERNONasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Bill dealing with railway rates would be submitted to the House, and hoped that the Government would urge on the Bill as much as possible?
  THE PRESIDENT (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON), in reply, said, he hoped the Bill would be presented next week, or early in the week after.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  (NO. 25.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a" —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMAN, in rising to move as an Amendment to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months" said, that with the permission of their Lordships he wished to read a letter received by him in 1874 from a Member of the House of Commons. It was to the following effect:—
  "I have to thank you for several valuable and interesting communications. I take with me the remarks which you copied respecting the Appeal to the Lords in the case of Mr. O'Connell. The stopping of the Bill took everyone by surprise; and it is possible—but, I fear, only possible—that better counsels may prevail as regards the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords—at all events there is breathing time. I had some conversation with the (then) present Attorney General and with the Lord Advocate, both of whom are most anxious to check and retrace the step of doing away with one of the chief raisons d'être for a House of Peers; and as Mr. Disraeli is personally opposed to the change, it is certainly on the cards that the Government may next Session surprise us as much by its wisdom as it has done this Session by its folly. What a reproach it is to the constructive ability of the Government that with a fair field it cannot constitute an Appeal Court which shall also proceed on the ancient lines of the Constitution. People seem to have got into a sort of maelstrom about law reform which they cannot check, or guide their course, however conscious they are that they are being wiled on to destruction. There is hardly one person on either side of the House of Commons—who is in favour of the House of Lords at all—who really and heartily thinks it a good thing to abolish their judicial functions."
  He would not detain their Lordships with any remarks of his own, but would conclude by submitting the Motion which stood in his name.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Resolved in the offirmative.
  LORD DENMAN, interposing, said: Well, my Lords, this is your usual habit of suicidal policy.
  Bill read 3a accordingly: An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.