HL Deb 09 March 1905 vol 142 cc875-89

House in Committee, according to order

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1.

*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY moved to omit the sub-section which proposed to reduce from six months to three months the notice required by the Act of 1897 to be given to the local authorities of the district in which the manœuvres were to take place. He said this was a somewhat innocent-looking Bill, but it contained several provisions which, if the were passed in their present form, would, in his opinion, act harshly. Among those provisions was the sub-section he now proposed to omit. The proposed reduction of the period of notice would prejudicially affect the interests of those situated within the areas scheduled for the manœuvres, and he believed the reduction to be absolutely unnecessary. He did not think any person who had any knowledge of the necessities of troops during the period of manœuvres would object in the main to the proposal in the Bill including woodlands and plantations for the purposes of manœuvres, but he thought that fair notice should be given. It might save owners and occupiers who wished to rear game on their land a great deal of money if the Act of 1897 was not amended in this respect, and they received the full six months notice. The manœuvres usually took place during September; many county councils, like the one of which he had the honour to be a member, met in May. If the period of notice was altered to three months they would not get the notice until after the May meeting, and it would be far too late in August when they met again for them to take the necessary steps for the general arrangements in connection with the manœuvres and to give full notice to the other authorities with whom they might have to communicate. He could not help thinking that it was very unwise on the part of the War Office at this juncture, when it could not by any stretch of imagination be said that that Department was a very popular one, to attempt in any way to unduly, and, as he believed, unnecessarily, hustle public bodies and private individuals, especially as the six-months notice had worked well.

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)

It has not.

*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

said he had not heard any instance given in which the notice had not worked well. The present proposal would not tend to promote that good feeling between the civilian population and the War Office which was so desirable. The War Office in this Bill was expecting a certain amount of compulsory service from the civilian population. He hoped that that might be the thin end of the wedge to a further advance in this direction, but he was afraid that that was not likely to be the case. He did not see any real necessity for the proposed change with regard to the term of notice. The only reason for it that he could make out from the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was that six months beforehand was rather too long for the War Office to make up its mind.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

No.

*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

said he did not think that any other reason had been given for altering the existing period than that six months was rather too long for the War Office.

Amendment moved— In Clause 1. page 1, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(The Marquess of Granby.)

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

associated himself with the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess the mover of the Amendment. Whilst thoroughly inspired with the necessity of giving the War Office every facility for holding manœuvres, he was altogether opposed to the alteration of the period of notice to three months. The county councils were the authorities approached under this Bill, and they might find themselves unable to make the necessary arrangements owing to shortness of notice if the period of notice was reduced to three months. He appealed to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the event of his being unable to accept the Amendment, to at least insert four months instead of three, as that period would sufficiently expedite the notice as to enable the county councils to receive it at their May meetings. He was, of course, presuming that the manœuvres would be held in the month of September. He did not know whether or not it was the intention of the War Office to propose that they should be held at any other period of the year, but he did wish to impress upon those who were promoting this change that any other period of the year than that when the hay harvest and the corn harvest had been successfully secured was an impossible time for the manœvres to take place. The holding of manœvres at any other period than September was, in his humble opinion, impossible owing to the large amount of compensation which would have to be paid to agricultural tenants.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, I would only say, with regard to the statement of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that its adoption would save landowners money who were concerned in raising game, that the noble Marquess has perhaps forgotten that whatever damage we do we have to pay for, and we pay very liberally for it, as the damage is assessed by the Military Manœuvres Commission, which consists almost entirely of local landowners. I do not at all object to our paying full compensation. I think it right that we should do so; but as we have to pay full compensation it is quite impossible for any landowners to lose money through three months notice only being given.

*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

said he was anxious that the taxpayers should not be called upon to pay unnecessary sums in compensation.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

That was hardly the ground on which the noble Marquess based his Amendment. The gravamen of the noble Marquess's attack on this sub-section lies in the fact that bad relations may be set up under it with the local authorities. He went so far as to say that we were hustling those authorities. My Lords, we are doing nothing of the kind. We are carrying out the recommendations of the representatives of the local authorities. This clause was based originally on a recommendation of the Military Manœuvres Commission of 1898. That Commission consisted of seven members, four of whom were directly appointed by the local authorities and the other three by the War Office. The three members appointed by the War Office included Lord Portman and Lord Pembroke, who were at the time members of the local county councils, so that the county councils had a total of six out of the seven representatives on the Commission which made this recommendation. Their recommendation was supported by the Commission of 1903, which also, of course, contained a majority representing the local authorities, and these local authorities, having experience in this matter, are not animated by the fears which the noble Lord himself has given expression to. The reason for the alteration is not a War Office reason, but practically a constitutional reason. The Army Estimates are very seldom finally framed till the end of February. They are not approved by Parliament until March, and constitutionally we are not permitted to say we will have manœuvres until, at any rate, one Vote has been approved in another place, and that never takes place until March. It may be said, "Oh, but you need not wait for that. You can send notice to the local authorities that you are going to hold manœuvres in their localities long before Parliament passes the Army Estimates." If that were done, I imagine Parliament would at once say that we had not got their permission to carry out the manœuvres. Therefore, we have to wait until the month of March, and are not able to carry out the manœuvres till six months after. We think six months unwarrantably long. You cannot give notice of your intention to put the Manœuvres Act into force until the middle of March, and the manœuvres, therefore, cannot be held until about the end of September, which is very often getting near the beginning of winter. It would be a great convenience to us and much better for the troops if we could always begin the manœuvres immediately after the harvest is over. I think that in asking your Lordships to give legislative authority to this recommendation, which has been made by representatives of county councils having experience in this matter, we are not asking too much. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to leave this sub-section in the Bill.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had given the House another proof of the way in which the War Office looked upon the question of expense. The War Office preferred to pay large compensation for damage which need never take place rather than save the expense in the first instance. Listening to the noble Earl's speech, one would imagine that in the past, under a six months notice, it had been impossible to hold manœuvres. The noble Earl had raised all sorts of constitutional questions with regard to the notice. It would be perfectly open to the War Office, to give this notice for manœuvres in the month of January, in spite of all that had been said in regard to the question of the Estimates, with a proviso that the manœuvres would only take place subject to the sanction of Parliament. Then the people in the county proclaimed would have timely notice that it was probable that manœuvres would take place over their land, and would be able in good time to make preparations. He would not go into the question of game at all. He put that entirely on one side. But their Lordships would agree with him that any owner of property, knowing that manœuvres were likely to take place over his land in August and September, would carry on his estate management in a different way during that year. He would not, for instance, set to work to do any spring planting that year, and if there was any great question of fence repairing he would leave it over until another year. Again, surely it was convenient for tenant farmers to know early in the year that manœuvres were going to take place, for it would, of course, govern such questions as cropping. The great reason put forward originally for reducing the notice from six to three months was that it was impossible to carry out manœuvres on land which had once been scheduled, even though the land had not been used, for another five years; but, under this Bill, if notice was given of manœuvres one year, and the manœuvres did not take place, the Government could proclaim the same land for the manœuvres the following year. This did away with one of the main reasons for shortening the period of notice from six to three months. He was sure that no noble Lord had any desire to place undue hindrance in the way of carrying out manœuvres in the fullest possible manner, but they must risk a certain amount of damage to land and inconvenience to owners and occupiers. It was, therefore, only fair that owners and occupiers should receive sufficient notice, and he contended that three months was not sufficient notice. All operations connected with land had to take place in the spring, and the persons concerned ought to be able to modify those operations by the knowledge of what was going to take place in the autumn. He would certainly vote with the noble Marquess in favour of the Amendment.

*LORD MONKSWELL

pointed out that the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had not taken any notice of the suggestion he made on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill to the effect that the period of six months was inserted in the principal Act to secure that before the draft Order was advertised in the local Press, which had to be done three months before the manœuvres were to take place, it should be considered by the county council. He did not think it was respectful to the county council to put before it a draft Order already advertised in the local Press.

LORD STANMORE

asked the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, whether the constitutional objections to which he referred had in the past had this operation, that six months had always elapsed between the passing of the Estimates and the holding of the manœuvres.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I understand from my noble friend the Under-Secretary that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, and that six months has been allowed to elapse. What I cannot help thinking has been somewhat lost sight of by the last two speakers is the fact that this proposal for a change in the period of notice is founded upon the recommendation of a Commission, six out of the seven members of which were appointed on account of their position as large landowners, or on account of their connection with the local county councils, and that it was the experience of these six Commissioners that led them to the conclusion that the period of six months was unduly long. I confess that I listened with some surprise to the suggestion that in these matters there was any desire on the part of the War office to hustle either the local authorities or the landowners. I believe, on the contrary, that the whole history of these Bills is one long history of earnest attempts to carry out manœuvres without giving either the local authorities or the owners or occupiers of land any just or reasonable cause to complain. I believe you may search in vain the practice of other countries in which an army is maintained, and in which that army undergoes training by means of military manœuvres for provisions so full of thought and consideration for the convenience of those concerned as the provisions upon which we have acted and now desire to act. We have been told that the proposal to shorten the period of notice is due to irresolution on the part of the War Office. It is nothing of the kind. The change is asked for because, as we all know, it is not possible to get the military Votes until well on in the spring. A period of six months brings you right into the middle of the manœuvring period, It surprises me to hear the noble Lord opposite tell the House that any Government could issue the necessary notices and set in motion all the complicated, machinery which is necessary for this purpose in anticipation of a Vote of the House of Commons. It is contrary to all my own impressions. There is another reason which has not been mentioned. I believe it is the desire of the War Office not only that there should be these manœuvres on a large scale, but that opportunity should be taken for much smaller local manœuvres, and if in the case of each manœuvres, however modest in their dimensions, it was necessary to give six months notice, it is obvious that very great impediment would be placed in the way of the military authorities. This proposal has been made, not on account of any desire on the part of the War Office to spare itself trouble, but because those who have had practical experience of these manœuvres, those who have had to organise them in the War Office and those who have had experience locally of the manner in which they have been carried out, have come to the conclusion that unless the period of notice is materially shortened very great inconvenience and obstruction will be placed in the way of the military authorities.

EARL SPENCER

said that whilst strongly in favour of facilities being given for manœuvres to take place in the best and most convenient manner, they ought also to consider the convenience of local authorities. He could not for a moment see why the noble Marquess should object to giving the longer notice. Surely a notice that the Government intended to hold manœuvres could be given at an early date, with the proviso that if Parliament did not agree to the manœuvres they would not, of course, take place. That seemed to him a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal. There was no need for elaborate preparations to be made until after the Vote had been passed by the House of Commons. He pleaded, on behalf of all connected with county councils, for the longer notice. There were many county councils whose meetings were held in May, who would therefore have hardly any time to make the necessary preparations and give the requisite notices for carrying out the manœuvres.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I would point out, in reply to the noble Earl who has just sat down, that we are giving the local authorities exactly the notice that the representatives of the local authorities who have had experience in these matters ask for.

*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

said the statement which had been made by the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister, that there were to be more smaller manœuvres held, rendered the proposed alteration in the notice to be given to the local authorities more objectionable.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to the effect that the owners of enclosed woods and plantations—"on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property." He said he was not in love with the absolute wording of his Amendment, but he thought that it clearly showed what his intention was. If the Bill was passed in its present form, woods and plantations would fall in the same category as land

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS,
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Lytton, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Mansfield, E. Dunboyne, L.
(L. President.) Onslow, E. Ellenborough, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Stamford, E. Farquhar, L.
Stanhope, E Forester, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Verulam, E. Harris, L.
Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.) Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Marlborough, D. Kenyon, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] Kilmaine, L.
Ailesbury, M. Cross, V. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Bath, M. Esher, V. Lawrence, L.
Lansdowne, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore) Lindley, L.
Linlithgow, M. Macnaghten, L.
Bristol, L. Bp. Rathmore, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Ravensworth, L.
(L. Steward.) Abinger, L. Robertson, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Alington, L. Romilly, L.
Albemarle, E. Ashbourne, L. Stuart of Castle Stuart, L.
Camperdown, E. Ashcombe, L. (E. Moray.)
Cawdor, E. Balfour, L. Wenlock, L.
Denbigh, E. Barnard, L. Windsor. L.
Feversham, E. Belper, L. Wolverton, L.
Hardwicke, E. Biddulph, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Grafton, D. Portsmouth, E. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Northumberland, D. Spencer, E. Monkswell, L.
Somerset, D. Muncaster, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Northbourne, L.
Ripon, M. Hill, V. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Winchester, M. Reay, L.
Burghclere, L. St. Levan, L.
Beauchamp, E. Coleridge, L. Saltoun, L.
Carnwath, E. Crofton, L. Sandhurst, L.
Dartrey, E. Denman, L Stanley of Alderley, L.
Harewood, E. Hylton, L. Stanmore, L.
Lauderdale, E. James, L. Thring, L
Lichfield, E. Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)[Teller.] Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]
Northbrook, E. Wandsworth, L.

which was not woods and plantations. All that he was contending for in this Amendment was that woods and plantations should be put in a category by themselves. They should not be considered simply as part of the general ground over which manœuvres were to be held. The owners of woods and plantations should be put on rather a different footing, and there should be the assumption that any objection to entry upon woods and plantations should be specially given attention to by the Military Manœuvres Commission. He did not know that his words were the best possible words that could be selected, and he would be quite satisfied if the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, would, on behalf of the Government, introduce other words with a similar object either at the next stage or on Report.

Amendment moved— In Clause 2, page 1, line 21, after the word repealed' to insert the words 'provided always that the owners of such enclosed woods and plantations, on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property.' "—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I quite understand that the noble Lord desires to place woods and plantations in a special category, but I am afraid from his wording that this special category would be one which would be very bad in working. The whole of the manœuvring ground is marked out with flags and so on by the Military Manœuvres Commission, and I think the Amendment, as drafted, would enable the owner to put up the prohibitory notices. This would obviously lead to confusion.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that was not his intention. He should only be able to put up the notices on cause shown before the Military Manœuvres Commission, and with their sanction.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I quite accept that correction, but I do not think it is necessary to put woods and plantations in a special category. The powers given to the Military Manœuvres Commission are very sweeping. I am advised that all woods and plantations would be covered by the word "lands," and it naturally follows, I think, that the Military Manœuvres Commission, the members of which are local people, will give special attention to woods and plantations. To put them in a different category would lead to inconvenience in working.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

explained that he did not wish to put them in a separate category from the point of view of the power of the Commission. All he wanted was to put in a proviso which should direct the Commission to give special consideration to them.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I think we understand the point of my noble friend's suggestion, and my noble friend the Under-Secretary will consider whether we can adopt his proposal that woods and plantations should be treated in a category by themselves. But what we are anxious to make clear is, that the last word shall be said, not by the owners of the woods and plantations, but by the Manœuvres Commission. If that is understood, we do not differ from the object aimed at by the Amendment.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said he quite agreed with the noble Marquess. All he wished was a special direction with regard to woods and plantations.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to this clause—which deals with the power of an officer to control the public use of a road or footpath—providing that the commissioned officer in command, upon whom this administrative power devolved, should not be the officer in command of any "part" of the authorised forces, but an officer of status high enough to command a "company or squadron." This was, he said, only a small Amendment to secure that the officer who was to have the power of stopping footpaths or rights of way should be an officer of some status, and not merely a subaltern. He thought the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, line 25, to leave out the word 'part' and to insert the words 'company or squadron.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

The Amendment does not commend itself to me, because it goes too far. We are not intending that even a captain of a company should have this power. What we had in our minds in putting in the words "or any part thereof" was the commander of a considerable unit—a division or a brigade. It really depends on the size of the manœuvres. If there are a number of divisions engaged, the commander of a division would be sufficient; if it is smaller, then the commander of a brigade. We have had considerable difficulty in drafting the clause. It is certainly not our intention that even a captain, except in very exceptional circumstances, should have this power, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

suggested the insertion of words securing that the power should not be exercised by any officer in command of any force less than a regiment. He certainly thought the term "or any part thereof" should be defined. Some minimum should be inserted, and the minimum should be not less than a regiment.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

Will not the noble Lord trust petty sessions?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

No, I do not think the power should be so wide as that in the clause.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

There has always been, as I have said, considerable difficulty in drafting words which will meet the case, and I am assured by our legal advisers that "or any part thereof" is the most satisfactory phrase to use because it covers all cases. I do not think there will be any difficulty.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Why not say field officer?

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

There may not always be a field officer present.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Then it is clear that the intention is that any officer shall be able to exercise this power.

On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Lichfield. E. Dunboyne, L.
Vane. E. (M. Londonderry.)(L. President.) Mansfield. E. Ellenborough, L.
Northbrook, E. Farquhar, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Onslow, E, Forester, L.
Stamford, E. Harris, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Stanhope, E. Hay, L. (K. Kinnoul.)
Northumberland, D. Verulam, E. Hylton, L.
Somerset, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] James, L.
Kenyon, L.
Ailesbury, M. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Killanin, L.
Bath, M. Colville of Culross, V. Kilmaine, L.
Lansdowne, M. Cross, V. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Linlithgow, M. Hill, V. Lawrence, L.
Winchester, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Muncaster, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Oranmore and Browne, L.
Bristol, L. Bp. Rathmore, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Ravensworth, L.
Albemarle, E. Abinger. L. Robertson, L.
Camperdown, E. Alington, L. Romilly, L.
Carnwath, E. Ashbourne, L. Saltoun, L.
Cawdor, E. Ashcombe, L. Stuart of Castle Stewart, L. (E. Moray.)
Dartrey, E. Barnard, L.
Denbigh, E. Belper, L. Wenlock, L.
Feversham, E. Biddulph, L. Windsor, L.
Fitzwilliam, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Wolverton, L.
Hardwicke, E. Crofton, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Ripon, M. Burghclere, L. Reay, L.
Coleridge, L. Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E. Denman. L. [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Portsmouth, E. Manners of Haddon. L. (M. Granby.) Stanmore, L.
Spencer, E. Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]
Monkswell, L. Wandsworth, L.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.