§ MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) stated that it was useless to discuss what were the duties of a loyal citizen in that House; but the hon. Gentleman should remember that he was not himself a Volunteer officer, and that Volunteer officers asked a practical question, requiring an answer. He came down to the House that evening in the hope that he should hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what would be his duty and what his responsibility in such an event as that which took place at Chester; but he must confess that he felt then in a more hazy state than when he entered the House. He was told that he could not he called out as a Volunteer, but that he might be called out as a special constable, and as such have arms put into his hands. He was also told that other men with whom he had been in the habit of acting as Volunteers might be called out in their uniforms, and have arms put into their hands; but he did not know whether he, as a Volunteer officer, should be in command of these men under the Mutiny Act. These were serious questions, and he himself should have to consider very carefully whether he could remain a member of the force. As a practical matter for the Home Secretary to consider before issuing his instructions, he could say, from intimations he had received, that unless the law was stated definitely, and they could understand whether they were to act as special constables in uniform, with their arms, under the command of the officers usually commanding them, he should have, in his own corps, the resignation of almost half of the members. The Volunteers required to know, in one way or the other, what was their duty. He agreed with the 1576 hon. and gallant Member for Sussex, and the hon. Member for Bradford, that, as far as their armouries went, they would be justified in acting in military formation in order to defend the arms given to them; but in all other cases of civil tumult it ought to be emphatically laid down that they should go out as special constables with staves, and staves only.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought it should be clearly understood that the Volunteers had the right to defend their own arms. The recent attempts at insurrection had been directed against armouries, with the view of getting possession of arms; and it would therefore be as well clearly to make known to the commanders of Volunteers that they could defend their own arms, if they were attacked, with all their military skill and appliances.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, it is unnecessary to enter upon any very lengthened statement. I apprehend the law to be clear that the Volunteers cannot be called upon as a military body to assist the civil authorities for any purpose. That is a point at the one extreme which is clear. A point at the other extreme which I hold to be equally clear is, that the Volunteers are not released, in cases of riot or insurrection, from the duties that fall upon every subject of the Crown. Between these two extremes, of course, a great variety of circumstances may arise, as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Thomas Hughes)—circumstances relating to particular cases, which it is not practicable for any one to give an opinion upon until they arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) truly said it was vain to argue what are the duties of loyal citizens in every emergency that may from time to time arise. Of course, in determining the duties of any individual, or class of individuals, you must take into consideration the circumstances of the individual and the circumstances of the class to which he belongs. That which on any given occasion may be the duty of one, may not be the duty of another. It is impossible by anticipation to say what shall or shall not be done upon any particular occasion by particular persons or classes of persons. But of this I am satisfied, that it is vain for any useful purpose to think of any legislation beyond what we have. We have it established that the Volunteers cannot be called upon as a military body by the civil authorities for any purpose. On the other hand, it is equally 1577 well established that they are not released from the discharge of their duties as citizens. What must define duty in each case is the necessity of the occasion. That is the only test by which any of us can arrive at the conclusion of what is proper to be done. We can arrive at our decision by no legal machinery. Unlawful riot must be suppressed, and not allowed to spread, and the requisite degree of force must be resorted to for the purpose. We must all decide what is our duty by applying our judgment to each occasion as and when it arises, subject to responsibility to the law for a proper discharge of the duty. There is no other way of solving the difficulty. Of course, after an event has happened, it is easy to describe the circumstances, and it is very easy to give an opinion upon it; but to ask the Government, or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or any human being whatever, to describe by anticipation events and contingencies which may possibly arise, in order to found a law upon them, is simply impossible. The action to be taken must necessarily depend upon the character of the occasion. You may have cases of unlawful assembling, ordinary riot, felonious riot, insurrection, and rebellion. Where either the first or second of these only occurred, it would be wrong, in the first instance, in ordinary cases to call upon any but the police. A judicious magistrate, if he found a larger force than he first employed necessary, would then call out the special constables, preferring perhaps, in the first instance, those who were not Volunteers; and in the event of still further assistance being required, he would call upon the Volunteers to act as special constables, and would arm them with staves as the other special constables. If, however, a felonious riot broke out—if, to give one out of many instances that might be suggested, the town were in flames and the population intoxicated—the magistrate would be entitled to resort to all the means in his power, and to employ every force he could summon to his aid. I speak with reference to such occasions as the riots of 1780; but I hope it will not be supposed that I look upon the recurrence of such things as probable. I believe it to be highly improbable; but to define the law so strictly as to limit the power of those who are responsible for the preservation of order in any case which may possibly arise would be most unwise. I trust, therefore, that the 1578 House will not be disposed to pass any measure for limiting or defining with particularity the duties of any particular class of Her Majesty's subjects. That general directions may be usefully given I admit, but it is vain to define what course shall be adopted in every emergency. There must necessarily be cases in which difficulties will arise. Every one who holds a position of responsibility must be prepared to meet difficulties; and I am quite sure that the hon. and learned, and, if he will allow me to call him so, the gallant Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes), will not be the man to shrink from his duty because difficulties may arise in the discharge of it.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, I do not rise to prolong this discussion, but merely to ask a question which I hope some Member of the Government will be able to answer, and which may do something to allay the uneasiness which evidently pervades the minds of the Volunteers. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Walpole) will undertake, before issuing them, to lay the regulations he proposes on the table of the House. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said as to misapprehension in the opinions of various speakers, I am afraid his own speech was not so plain as to show us the precise nature of the instructions he suggests. The impression which the right hon. Gentleman loft was, that a Volunteer does not as such cease to be a citizen, and, that although he cannot be called upon quâ Volunteer in aid of the civil power, he may come out in aid of the civil power just as any other citizen may. What, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke appears in common with other Members to overlook is that you have by law placed the Volunteer in a position which is not simply that of an ordinary citizen. Not only has the State drilled him at its own expense, but it has placed in his hands arms which are its and not his property. It appears to me, therefore, that it ought to be clearly defined what position an officer who is responsible to the State, not only as the commander of the force, but as the custodian of those arms will occupy, if the Volunteers are under any circumstances to be called out for the repression of disturbances, It might be the opinion of the magistrates and of the Volunteers themselves that an emergency had arisen which justifies them in coming out in aid of the civil power; but it might be the 1579 opinion of the officer responsible for the custody of the Government arms that it was not his duty to place those arms in the hands of the Volunteers. Are the Government of opinion that the officer ought, on the demand of the magistrate, to deliver up the charge of those arms, although it might be contrary to his own opinion? It seems to me that there are only two courses for the Government to adopt in order to make this question plain. They might strictly forbid the issue to Volunteers of the Government arms under any circumstances of this nature, reserving to themselves the power, in cases of emergency, to issue arms. Or, holding the opinion that Volunteers might, under certain circumstances, come out and possibly be armed, the Government might propose a clause something like the clause which stood in our Bill; thereby insuring that armed forces of men drilled and armed with weapons the property of the Government should not be allowed to act, except under military discipline and under the command of proper officers.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he thought the commanding officers of Volunteers had a right to ask the Government to frame some definite instructions to lords-lieutenant, so that Volunteers in difficult circumstances might know how to act. He could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) that very numerous bodies of Fenians came over from Ireland, both by way of Holyhead and Liverpool, for some days before the outbreak at Chester. Most of them were Irish, but many of them were Irish-Americans. After the outbreak at Chester they straggled away by hundreds to Holyhead and passed over to Ireland by the packets, but, on their arrival at Dublin, were arrested. From information he had received he believed that the plot was concocted by the Fenian leaders in Ireland.
§ MR. AKROYDsaid, that his view of his duties as a commander of Volunteers had been in no degree cleared up by the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. One remark made by the Attorney General seemed to him, as a Volunteer officer, the height of absurdity—that Volunteers might be called out in uniform, but must be armed with constables' staves. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not use the word uniform.] No doubt, they were liable to be called upon to act in their private capacity; but he (Mr. Akroyd) wished to guard against the supposition that they were liable to be called out, except in their private capacity. 1580 If that were clearly understood it would get rid of considerable misunderstanding. If the Volunteers were called out as a corps at all, he should like to know under whose orders they would be placed, and whose would be the responsibility if they used their arms. The rifle with which they were armed was the very worst weapon that could be used in case of internal tumult. No one could say how far it would carry, or whom it would reach. The arms were usually placed in the armoury of the corps, but there were many cases where they were placed in the orderly room, where there was no protection and no one to guard them against a sudden assault. This was a matter well worthy the attention of the War and the Home Offices.
§ SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSONsaid, he wished to ask, whether the Government would lay their new regulations on the table before they were published?
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he had heard several brother commanding officers of Volunteers express an opinion of the great doubt and uncertainty of the position in which this question had been left by the debate of tonight. It appeared to him that the Attorney General had placed the question so far in a clear light, when he said that there was no power under the existing Act to call out the Volunteers quâ Volunteers; that they were simply citizens, and like any other citizens, liable to be called out where occasion required by the proper authority. He apprehended that those who called them out on their own responsibility would arm them, according to the emergency, not as Volunteers, but as individuals. Clearly, if the emergency were so great that individual citizens might be armed with deadly weapons, then Volunteers, acting together as individuals, could not be deprived of that power of acting as a body which their constitution gave them. A very strong and unanimous feeling was expressed at the late meeting of Volunteer officers that the old law should not be re-enacted, and that Volunteers quâ Volunteers should not be liable to be called out. There was also a feeling not less unanimous, that occasions might arise when, as at Chester, it might be greatly to the advantage of the State that it should have a body of men who, on an emergency affecting Her Majesty's Supremacy, might be called upon to aid the civil power. The hon. Member for Birmingham had drawn a wrong distinction between the circumstances of the present time and those which existed when the 1581 force was re-established. The hon. Member said there was no question at the latter period of employing the Volunteers in suppressing tumult and riots. But this was not a case of tumult, but of treason—not a case of riot, but of rebellion; and although the hon. Member and a portion of the press might throw ridicule on what had occurred at Chester, yet he believed it to have been an attempt at treasonable insurrection against Her Majesty. In such a case he would rather take the opinion of the local authorities, who were actors in the events, than the opinion of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The inquiry recommended by the hon. Member would be utterly needless, because it could not be doubted from the information received by the Government that this was a plot, an organized treasonable conspiracy against Her Majesty's Supremacy, and an attempt to gain possession of arms belonging to Her Majesty in Chester Castle. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would draw up short instructions showing whether Volunteers were to act on such occasions as citizens or soldiers.