Lords Sitting of 11 May 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.) [H.L.].
And the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with.
Great Eastern Railway; Great Northern Railway; Sittingbourne District Gas; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas.
And the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill.
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.].
And the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with.
Bangor Corporation [H.L.]. (Petition for additional Provision.)
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision of Manchester Corporation; together with the proposed Clauses and Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision of the Portsmouth Street Tramways Company; together with the proposed Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee to incorporate in the Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill such parts as they think fit of the Chatham and District Light Railways Bill.
Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 27th of April and 1st of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Exeter Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Norwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The Lord Glanusk, the Chairman of the Select Committee appointed for the consideration of the said Bills, informed the House that the Lord Aberdare, a member of the Committee, was, on account of illness, unable to be present; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
North Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; City and South London Railway Bill. Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Maidstone Gas Bill. Read 2a and committed.
Bishopric of Bristol Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill (No. 61); Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill (No. 62); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional

271
Orders (No. 4) Bill (No. 63). Local Government Provisional Orders (No 4) Bill (No. 64). Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Wakefield and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Midland Railway Bill; Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Broadstairs Gas Bill; Bradford Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Willesden Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.,

D. Manchester,

E. Verulam,

L. Sinclair,

L. Brougham and Vaux (Chairman),

L. Sudley (E. Arran);

agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Thursday next at eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills, to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Approximate estimates of expenditure under the Military Works Acts of 1897, 1899, and 1901.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS, ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901 (PART II.: CIVIL JUDICIAL STATISTICS).
  Statistics relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Judicature, county courts, and other civil courts; edited by John Macdonell, Esq., C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of visits made, patients seen, and miles travelled by visitors of lunatics, between 1st October, 1902, and 31st March 1903.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Order made by the County Council of the county of Durham altering certain polling districts in the North-Western Parliamentary Division of the County.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL, 1900.
  Report respecting; Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Friday last), and to be printed. (No. 60.)

  IRISH LIGHTS TENDERS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new steam tender to be built for the Irish Lights Commissioners, and to the fact that the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board have been prevented from discussing the details regarding the expenditure and other matters connected with this vessel; and to move for a return specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, and also for a specification of the new steam tender which is now being built. I may state that my Motion refers principally to the new tender being built, or ordered to be built, for the Irish Lights Commissioners to replace the "Princess Alexandra." The request for this new tender appeared for the first time in the Estimates for the year 1901, and it was immediately objected to by Mr. F. L. Heyn, a ship-owner of Belfast, who stated that he had frequently had the opportunity of admiring the "Princess Alexandra," and that she was a very nice boat indeed. From the report made by Captain Vereker to the Board of Trade on this subject, it appears that the ship herself was then in good condition, but that her boilers were defective, and that she would not be worth new boilers. It is also noticeable that the Board of Trade's principal surveyor in Ireland stated that the report upon which the Irish Lights official based his estimate "does not agree with the condition in which the vessel was found." The Irish Lights Commissioners appear to have been singularly ill-informed on this subject, as Sir William Watson, who was one of the Commissioners, I believe, stated that the vessel was constantly at sea, also that he would consider the boilers in very bad order if the pressure had to be reduced. As a matter of fact,

  273
  she is seldom at sea, and Captain Vereker reported that the pressure of her boilers had been twice reduced previously. The Irish Lights Board suggested that her boilers were not safe, and after a long discussion it was agreed that a report from Lloyd's surveyors as to the state of her boilers should be obtained. The vessel was thereupon brought over to Liverpool, arriving there about the 9th of December, 1900. The report of Lloyd's surveyors—Mr. J. T. Milton and Mr. McGregor—was made on the 4th of January in the following year. I have the complete report in my hand, and would call your Lordships' attention to the last paragraph of it, which runs as follows—
  "The repairs necessary to the boilers not being of great extent, we have made no estimates as to their probable cost."
  That does not look as if the boilers were in too bad a condition. The Irish Lights Board, instead of having the ship promptly repaired, in accordance with Lloyd's report, repeated in the spring of the same year their demands for a new vessel, and, in the meantime, kept the vessel lying in Liverpool untouched. They chartered the steamer "Cragside" at the cost of £265 per month, plus £150, the cost of fitting up holds for the crew, and she is supposed to have done the work which the "Princess Alexandra" would have done. She was afterwards kept lying in harbour unemployed, it is understood, for several months, and the freight still running on. The shipowners, through the medium of their Advisory Board, opposed the provision of a substitute, and, after a lengthy discussion, the Board of Trade disallowed it. The repairs to the ship, the "Princess Alexandra," were completed about the beginning of last year, during which year she did a certain amount of work.
  In the Estimates for 1902–1903 a new tender was again proposed; this time the cost had been reduced to £26,500. The Shipowners' Advisory Board were prepared to once again emphatically protest against this expenditure, when the President of the Board of Trade ruled them out of order on the ground that the provision of this substitute was maintenance and not new works. I am extremely surprised that the Board of Trade should have taken such a high-handed action, in not only deterring the shipowners from
  274
  giving their views and the benefit of their personal knowledge in such an affair, but in not allowing them to make suggestions on the matter. They (the shipowners) provide the money, and have an absolute claim to see that it is expended without the needless waste which I am informed goes on. In the Estimates for 1903–1904 it now appears that the new tender has been sanctioned, part of the money has been spent, and it is proposed to spend the remainder during the coming financial year. The shipowners were opposed to the expenditure because there was nothing to show that the "Princess Alexandra" had not carried out her duties well for thirty-seven years, or was unable to carry them out for some years longer. They were also unable to understand why this boat was required at all, and although they repeatedly pressed for an official time-table, detailing her employment during any given year, their request was refused. I believe that, including the "Princess Alexandra," the Irish Lights Commissioners have now no less than four steam tenders. The "Tearaght" and the "Moyra" were built in 1893, and the latest addition is the "Ierne." I understand that the time these steamers spend at sea is as follows—the "Princess Alexandra," 90 days; "Tearaght," 210 days; "Moyra," 60 days; and the "Ierne," 210 days. This latter vessel attends exclusively to the rebuilding of the Fastnet Lighthouse, being constructed specially for the purpose. As this lighthouse is almost built it would appear that she could have been utilised to replace the "Princess Alexandra."
  In the general lighthouse accounts for the year 1902 the cost of maintaining steam vessels belonging to the Irish Lights Board is given at £18,949 13s. 7d.—a yearly average of £4,737 each. This appears a somewhat extravagant expenditure for the amount of work carried on. The shipowners hold strongly that the work could, with proper system, be performed with a smaller number of steamers and less expenditure. Of course, I know that even shipowners are sometimes disposed to carry their economical views a little too far, but, all the same, their acute personal knowledge should not be discarded in the rough and ready way

  275
  affected by the Board of Trade. In order to give the shipowners some voice in the expenditure of the money they contribute, the late President of the Board of Trade constituted the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board, and amongst the matters which were referred to them were—
  "All questions of new works, new lights, where they ought to be placed, and how much ought to be expended on them."
  If the building of a new steam tender is not a new work I should like to know what the Board of Trade think does constitute a new work? It seems to me perfectly obvious that the shipowners are entitled to express their opinions and to have them considered, for in the accounts of the general lighthouse fund new tenders have invariably been placed under the heading of "new works," and have always been considered as such in the four Estimates submitted to the Lighthouse Advisory Board. Before Mr. Courtney's Committee it was admitted that a record was kept of the employment of these tenders, and with a body like the Irish Lights Commissioners everything should be quite above board. I accordingly move that a Return shall be made specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, and also a specification of the new tender which is now being built, and of which those who ought to know are completely in the dark.
  Moved, "For a Return specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, and also for a specification of the new steam tender which is now being built."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: In reply to the first part of the Question, which deals with the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board, I would point out to my noble friend that he is under a slight misapprehension. In receiving a deputation on April 28th, 1899, Mr. Ritchie, who was then President of the Board of Trade, stated that—
  "He was prepared to say that if the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Shipping would submit the names of a Committee that would adequately represent the views of the shipowners with regard to all
  276
  questions of new works, new lights, where they ought to be and how they ought to be placed, and what the expenditure ought to be, he would undertake that they should be called together annually at the Board of Trade before any proposal submitted, etc."
  That Advisory Board was formed, but it had no statutory powers of any description. With regard to lighthouses and ships, and the position in which they should be put, that Advisory Board has been of extreme use to the Board of Trade, but I would remind my noble friend that the Advisory Board is only called into operation by the President of the Board of Trade. In this case the President has not asked for their advice, although, as I have said, on many other occasions he has been eery much indebted for the advice they had given. With regard to the Motion for a Return specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, I would inform my noble friend that the Board of Trade have no authority over the Lights Commissioners except with regard to expenditure. The latter body, however, have courteously communicated to the Board of Trade, by telegraph, the following information. They state that the "Princess Alexandra" arrived in Liverpool on December 13th, 1900, and returned to Kingstown on March 17th, 1902, since which time she has been, and is still, continuously employed in buoy shipping, delivering stores, and in general coast work. They also state that the other Irish Lights vessel, the "Tearaght," was throughout the whole of 1902 actively engaged in assisting lighthouses and in buoy shipping and salvage operations at the Albatross lightship. This is all the information the Board of Trade have on the subject. In reply to the third point, the Board of Trade do not think it is for the public good that a specification of the new steam tender should be laid before your Lordships. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade authorised me to state the figures which my noble friend has given, and beyond that the matter is more or less out of his control. The President of the Board of Trade sanctioned the expenditure of £26,500 on this new vessel, having previously satisfied himself, upon the advice of his nautical advisers, that this would be the best course to adopt.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  EMOLUMENTS OF RESERVE OFFICERS.
  LORD ROSMEAD, who had given notice to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the discrepancy in the financial treatment of the two classes of Reserve officers called up for service during the late war, and to move to resolve that, in the opinion of this House, the emoluments received by the senior (pensioned) officers of the Reserve in respect of services rendered during recent mobilisation compare most unfavourably with those of the junior officers who had retired with gratuities; and that the consequent grievances of the senior (pensioned) officers should be favourably considered by His Majesty's Government, with a view to removing the disparity complained of said: My Lords, in rising to give your Lordships a brief explanation of a subject which I venture to think is of no little public importance, my object is to bring under the notice of His Majesty's Government the decided disparity of the treatment of the two classes of Reserve officers who were called up for service during the late war. Officers of the Army, as your Lordships are aware, are permitted, by paragraph 515, and the Articles referred to therein, of the Royal Warrant, to retire either on a pension, providing they have the qualifying service, or, if they prefer it, with a gratuity (or lump sum down), which gratuity is their undoubted property, earned by past service, and is in no way subject to any control whatever by His Majesty's Government. It is, in fact, a definite payment free from conditions, except that the officer accepting it is liable to be called up for service in case of national emergency. Those, on the other hand, who prefer to leave their capital in the hands of the Government, draw an annual income from it for their lives in the form of a pension.
  These alternative methods of procedure are clearly laid down by the terms of the Royal Warrant, and, accordingly, some retiring officers select the one, and some the other. In the ordinary course no question would arise; an officer having made his choice is prepared to
  278
  stand by it. But, my Lords, it has been found that when the national emergency arose, as it did during the late war in South Africa when so many of the Reserve officers were called up for service, the authorities suspended the pensions of those officers who had retired on a pension, thereby depriving them of the benefit of their pension, whereas those officers who had retired with gratuities continued to enjoy the benefits of such gratuities, and thus received the full pay of their rank without any deductions whatever during mobilisation. Moreover, I would point out that the officers who retired with gratuities are further entitled to qualify for higher rates of gratuity, and in many cases have thus received various sums. It appears to me that when paragraph 601a of the Royal Warrant was framed it must have been overlooked that, under the amended warrant, the pension of £250 after twenty-three years service was abolished, and consequently, as no increase is provided for, the words of paragraph 601a are as regards the majors and senior captains without any meaning.
  In order that your Lordships may fully appreciate how the application of the rules in force financially affect the two classes of Reserve officers, I will venture to quote an example. A junior major retires with a gratuity of £1,600, and has, say, sixteen years' service. This officer receives during two years mobilised service full pay at the rate of £300 a year, amounting for the two years to £600; further than this, he adds two years to his previously completed sixteen years service, giving him a total of eighteen years, consequently qualifying him for the higher gratuity of £2,000. He accordingly receives the difference, viz: £400, and his total receipts amount to £1,000. On the other hand, a senior major, who retired with say twenty or more years service upon a pension of £200 a year, receives during a similar period of mobilisation, only the difference between his pension of £200 and consolidated pay at £350, equal for two years to £300 in all. There is thus, as your Lordships will perceive, a balance of £700 in favour of the junior officer, and a consequent hardship to the senior. I trust your Lordships will recognise the manifest injustice of this procedure, and

  279
  it is with that object I have ventured to make these remarks on the subject which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, the emoluments received by the senior (pensioned) officers of the Reserve, in respect of services rendered during recent mobilisation, compare most unfavourably with those of the junior officers who had retired with gratuities; and that the consequent grievances of the senior (pensioned) officers should be favourably considered by His Majesty's Government with a view to removing the disparity complained of."—(Lord Rosmead.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has put this Motion on the Paper seems to be under some misapprehension as to the regulations with reference to retiring officers. He has suggested to the House that an officer has the choice of accepting a lump sum as a gratuity on retirement, or a pension of so much a year. That is not the system at present in force, or, as far as I am aware, that has been in force in the past. The old Regulations enabled an officer on retirement after twelve years service to receive a gratuity of £1,200. If he had served fifteen years he was entitled to a gratuity of, I think, £1,600, and, if he had served eighteen years, of £2,000. In 1887 those Regulations were somewhat modified, and officers who had served fifteen years became entitled to a retiring pension of £120 a year. In 1889 a further alteration was made, and gratuities to officers were abolished altogether. Therefore the system at present in force is that an officer after fifteen years service receives a pension of £120 a year, and after twenty years service a pension of £200 a year. Therefore the grievances and the inequalities that have arisen, and to which the noble Lord called attention, owing to the re-employment of officers in the late war, are not likely to recur, inasmuch as the gratuities have been abolished. I do not wish for a moment to deny that grievances and inequalities have existed and do exist at the present moment; that is to say, that officers who have served in South Africa have, as the noble Lord pointed out, received for
  280
  two years extra service a gratuity of £400 owing to their having been on the gratuity basis in the past, and that senior officers have served a similar period and have not been enabled to increase their pension. That I admit. But the real grievance to which I understand the noble Lord called attention is that an officer serving in South Africa who was previously drawing a pension was not allowed to draw his pension while he was serving, whilst no actuarial deduction was made from the pay of the officer who previously received a gratuity. It is the case that in past years, when an officer who had received a gratuity of £1,200, £1,600, or £2,000 as the case may be, was re-employed, an actuarial deduction was made on that sum of money; but when the noble Marquess was Secretary of State for War at the commencement of the war, he thought actuarial deduction was not altogether fair. In explaining in the House of Commons the reasons that had influenced the Secretary of State in foregoing the actuarial deduction, Mr. Wyndham said—
  "The gratuity is always much less than the actuarial value of the retired pay given for the same service, but the more practical point is that the gratuity is actually given as a lump sum and is not as a rule, in the officer's possession when he is called upon to return to service, so that a deduction from full pay would in that case be a real hardship on the officer."
  Consequently no deduction was made. I cannot admit that the officers who were in receipt of pensions had any grievance, because they knew when they received their pensions that they would have to forego them in the event of their being re-employed. That is laid down in the Regulations. At the same time, I admit that grievances have arisen in exceptional cases. Not every officer who has been re-employed has a grievance, but there are special cases in which the Secretary of State for War thinks that some redress may be necessary. For that reason my right hon. friend has recently appointed a Committee which is inquiring into the whole subject; and if, on the report of that Committee, he is able to see his way to put forward proposals for the consideration of the Treasury, he will do so. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the Motion.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Are those officers who were granted gratuities under the old system placed on the pension list now, or are they on the old footing?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: On the old footing.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The old system will be continued till they die out?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Exactly.
  LORD ROSMEAD: After the remarks of the noble Earl the Under Secretary I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, by the Manœuvres Act, 1897, it is necessary that a draft Order in Council should be sent to all the local authorities in the districts in which the manœuvres are going to take place. It is also necessary that this Order in Council should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days, and that both Houses should pass an Address in favour of it, before it can be submitted to His Majesty. That Order in Council has been on the Table of your Lordships' House for thirty days; the local authorities have received the necessary notice, and I therefore ask the House to accept the Motion which stands in my name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 17th February last."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.