§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEwas desirous of asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War. He understood that a soldier of the 8th Regiment had been brought to court-martial for desertion, and that he in his defence pleaded that, strictly speaking, he was not a soldier; that he had not been duly and legally enlisted; because by the Mutiny Act it was provided that when a man was enlisted he must be attested by a magistrate acting in and for that district. In the case he was mentioning, it appeared that the soldier had been enlisted in one county, and was attested in another. It was considered that this enlistment was not legal, and the consequence was that he was immediately discharged. It appeared that there were no less than 5,000 or 6,000 men in the same position. No less than 400 out of 1,500 of the Grenadier Guards had been liberated on that ground. Other soldiers had also left their regiments—for he could not call it desertion—on the same ground—namely, that they were not legally soldiers at all. Now he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, what was the course of conduct which the Horse Guards meant to pursue? and to submit the question to him whether it would not be desirable to bring in a short Bill to confirm these enlistments? He understood that another course had been suggested, which was to compel the men who had thus been brought into the army to refund the money they had received, and to make them pay for their accoutrements. But that was a course which he believed would not be so effectual 1047 as the passing a short Bill to make the attestations legal. By the present law a man who had served in the army twenty-one years was entitled to a pension; and some of these men who had been improperly attested, but having served a considerable term of years, were alarmed, lest they should lose their pensions. He did not believe the Government would take any such advantage; but the fear existed, because what was good for one was good for the other, and it might be urged against the men that they, not having been legally enlisted, were not entitled to any pension. Many of these men had already served ten, and in some cases fifteen years, and they were afraid that all that period of service would be lost, in consequence of their having been enlisted in one county, and attested in another. He was quite sure that the Government were prepared to set these things square on the best plan possible, which he believed would be by bringing in a short Bill. It was quite clear that something should be done for the sake of those men who had already faithfully served a great number of years in the service of their country.
§ MR. S. HERBERTsaid, it was perfectly true that within the last few days a great number of applications from soldiers in the Horse Guards had been received, which had been correctly described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But it was not the case that any soldier had, upon such application as stated, been informed that the parties alluded to would be deprived, after years of hard service, of their future pensions. On the contrary, every soldier, notwithstanding his enlistment might be illegal, by continuing in the service, would have the full benefit of his past services, and would receive his pension under the regulations that now existed. With respect to the request which had been made, that a claim should be advanced against soldiers who were about to leave the army, he thought that nothing could possibly be more unjust to the soldiers. Whether there were or were not in the army so great a number of persons as the hon. Gentleman thought could claim their discharge on the ground of this technical flaw, he was not prepared to say. The subject was one of very great importance; it was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and, at a future period, he should be able to state what their decision was.
§ Subject at an end.