HC Deb 15 April 1847 vol 91 cc851-67

moved that this Bill be now read a Third Time.


said, that in persisting in his opposition to this Bill, he was sure that neither the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, nor any Minister thereof, would accuse him of any—he would not say factious, for he disdained to use that term, but of any—disposition to thwart Her Majesty's Government. He had supported them in the principal measures of the Session. He knew the difficulties they had to encounter; and he would appeal to the noble Lord whether, in personal intercourse with him, he had not evinced a disposition rather to smooth than to create difficulties. Having already twice addressed the House at great length on the subject, he should now confine himself to declare generally, that, so far from his opposition to the measure having abated by the discussions which had taken place, it had gained additional strength. Since he last addressed the House, he had received numerous communications from professional men, all of whom concurred in deprecating the limitation of the period of enlistment to 10 years, unless accompanied by some more substantial inducement to men who had served for that period, to re-enlist. He continued to feel that the difficulties which must result to the colonial service would be incalculable, if some fixed period beyond the 10 years were not provided for that especial portion of the service of the British Army. The power given to the commanding officer to prolong the period of service, when the regiment was abroad, was fraught with danger, and was a strong admission of the difficulty of adapting the principle of limited service to the exigencies and contingencies of our colonial and foreign service. A regiment might be in Upper India, or in Australia, when some such sudden emergencies as those which recently happened in both these quarters, might again occur: the power given by the 3rd Clause, to prolong the service, would then be exercised to its limit; but should the emergency continue, and the prolonged time expire, what then? It appeared to him that there was no safety but in so managing, that no regiment should be sent on colonial duty, unless the service of all men belonging to that corps be of such duration, as to embrace the period of its foreign service. It seemed to him, too, that fresh engagement by enlistment should always be made, before the first period expires, to preclude effectually all possibility of misunderstanding, or confusion, or uncertainty. He would adduce a few practical observations to show the inapplicability of limited service, with safety, to the Army of this country. A regiment comes home from India, after a service of many years, a skeleton, rarely more than 200 men. It is, in the year of its return, recruited, say to 800. It remains in England five years, and is then again sent on the ordinary tour of foreign service. Wherever it may be in the eleventh year, the time of service of about three-fourths of the men expires. What will you then do? Send out 600 recruits, or bring the regiment home? If the former, is the regiment fit for service. If the latter, what confusion in the reliefs! Again, the 90th Regiment, after serving 10 years in Ceylon, was embarked for England in 1844, and touched at the Cape on its voyage. Under the emergency which existed there, the officer commanding the forces laid his hand upon it, and sent it up the country; and, he believed, that regiment still served there. The 45th and 73rd Regiments, on their voyage to another destination, put into the Rio de la Plata—they were detained. In his own time, two out of the six regiments he had in the Ionian Islands, were sent off suddenly to Canada, on account of emergency there. These regiments were first on the list to return home; they remained in Canada three or four years. How would service limited to 10 years, provide for such emergencies as these? It was a very perilous thing to run the least risk—to admit even of the possibility of any misunderstanding with soldiers, as to duration or prolongation of service, or even to permit the first period to expire, without a distinct understanding, or a fresh contract. He would remind the House of what occurred many years ago, as a warning of the inconvenience and danger resulting from limited enlistment in such a service as ours. In the year 1783 several regiments were embarked for foreign service; but, in the same year, peace was declared, and the destination of the troops changed. An eminent officer, the late Sir Thomas Dalrymple, then lieutenant-colonel of the 68th regiment, was embarked at Portsmouth, destined for foreign service (the Spanish Main). He received a communication from General Conway that the destination was altered, to what quarter he (Sir H. Douglas) did not recollect, and immediately proceeded to London, to report that the greater part of the regiment under his command were young soldiers, and had been enlisted subsequent to the general regulation of December 1775, by which soldiers were enlisted for seven years, or during the war, and that peace being concluded, they demanded their discharge; but that if a small bounty were offered, he had no doubt that he could prevail upon them all to re-enlist. General Conway desired him to feel their pulse; his reply was, that he was not accustomed to act in that manner with soldiers, but that he would do as he was ordered. On his return to Portsmouth, he went on board the different transports, and addressed the men in each, who all agreed to accompany him and their officers: but he had hardly returned to the headquarter ship, when boats were seen coming off from the other transports, and in each was a soldier with a sheet of paper, on which was written the clause of the general order or regulation which entitled them to their discharge. On his again landing at Portsmouth, he found the 77th regiment (the Athol Highlanders), of which he had for some years been major, and had commanded for a time, in open mutiny in the streets of Portsmouth. The regiment had that morning refused to embark, and upon Lieutenant-Colonel Crosby's remonstrating against such unsoldierlike conduct, they knocked him down, loaded their pieces, and levelling them at their officers, obliged them to retreat. They then marched to the town gates, took possession of them, and obliged the guard to retreat, firing upon a party of the 41st regiment who were assembled to oppose them, killed one man, and wounded several. They then proceeded to the magazine or store-house of the regiment, which they broke open, and furnished themselves with ball cartridge. A mutiny also broke out from the same cause in Jersey, in the 83rd regiment, and in the 104th, which was happily repressed by the vigorous and well-timed exertion of the Royal Irish. The country was in consternation—Sir William Howe was sent to Portsmouth—General Conway to Jersey. The 68th were landed and sent to Winchester; the 77th Athol Highlanders marched from Portsmouth by orders of Lord George Lennox, and disbanded. In the 1st, or Royal Scots, there was some unsteadiness. All this is recorded in the journals of the day (Morning Herald, January 29th, 1783; the London Chronicle, January 28th to January 30th, 1783; the London Chronicle, February 13th to February 15th, 1783; the Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser, Thursday, March 27th, 1783). The practical deduction he made from these facts was, that it is extremely unwise and dangerous to send regiments, on colonial, service, composed of men enlisted for a limited period, unless some provision be made, sufficient to induce soldiers to re-enlist, should prolonged services he required; and he knew of no provision that could be so effectual as that of giving a good bounty. A very moderate bounty would suffice. That course, though recommended by Sir H. Dalrymple, was not followed at that time, and the consequence was, it became necessary to land the 68th and disband the 77th Highland regiment, and others that were also under orders to embark: and he (Sir H. Douglas) might add, that the British Army had never been in such a state of excitement and insubordination, as that brought on by that limited service expedient. He could assure the House that the ten-year enlistment, and the quasi militia duty of twenty-two years afterwards, with the remote prospect of a pension at 50 years of age, is becoming more and more unpopular in the country and in the service—that it is deemed a disadvantageous change, a pitiful, discreditable provision. That it is perfectly absurd to expect that this measure, of itself, will either attract a better description of men to enter the service, or induce good soldiers to continue in it. He would read to the House an extract from an important and influential journal, an organ which expresses and influences public opinion by its ability:*But we warn the Government that it will be impossible to procure recruits for that time, or to re-enlist them after that time, on the proposed rate of pension. A man who is worth anything, and who therefore has a sentiment of self-respect, will not give himself and his best energies to the State for ten or twelve years on the bare possibility of getting 6d. a day for thirty years hence. The thing is impossible. To suppose it would argue an utter ignorance of human nature. With a hope so bald, and a prospect so blank as this, the Army will be recruited from the riff-raff of society, not from the respectable and well-conducted men, whose presence is so much desired. If you wish to have good men in the ranks, you must hold out good inducements. Treat them well and fairly there; reward them well afterwards. It will be the wisest economy in the end. If you cannot give a pension at the end of ten or twelve years, give one at the end of fifteen years' service. Let it, however moderate, commence directly on the men's discharge; and let it be increased as they grow older. And, more than this, reward by such civil situations as you have at your disposal, the most deserving of the retired soldiers. You will thus, at the same time, confer an honour on the Army, and an obligation on the State. And, in truth, no State owes more to its Army than that which has intrusted to the guardianship of a farce not much larger than that of modern Belgium, possessions vaster and more diffused than owned the sovereignty of Imperial Rome. One word more. The termination of a soldier's service ought, for the sake of uniformity, to be fixed for the last day of the year in which his service expires. Nor will the proposed reformation be complete until some plan is enforced—either by legislative enactment or rule at the Horse Guards—for limiting the colonial duty of regiments to ten or twelve years. There must be some superior inducement held out to the soldier, than an enlistment for 10 years, and the pitiful, miserable provision of 6d. a day to a man of 50, * Times, April 12, 1847. after 30 years' service as soldier and militiaman. A good pension ought to be given, sufficient to attract and retain good men in the Army: and, if that were done, he for one, would care little what became of the limitation clauses. He wished then to know, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, to accompany this limited service scheme with a revision of the pension list, with a view to restore it to what it was, or to make a still better provision for the soldier in his old age. If the Government would give any assurance to that effect, then he, and those with whom he acted on this occasion, would be willing to hope that such a provision would neutralize the prejudicial effect which the limitation clauses, by themselves, must have: and in that case he would make no difficulty about those clauses: but if no such assurances were given, he would do all in his power to prevent those clauses passing into law. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.


seconded the Amendment, on the ground that the House had been called on to pass this measure in the absence of any military information on the subject. They ought to have had the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief, of the heads of the public departments at the Horse Guards, and of military men connected with Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary at War could, if he had liked, have passed the Mutiny Bill with a clause for limiting the service in it; but he had shrunk from that responsibility, which he sought to throw on Parliament by means of this Bill. The subject of the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army had been very differently treated. It was first brought forward, he believed, by Sir F. Burdett. Then Sir S. Romilly, in 1815, moved that a clause be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, limiting the number of lashes to 190; but that Motion was obliged to be withdrawn in consequence of the absence of military information. The question then slept till 1830. Then came the Military Commission. Secondary punishments were tried, and solitary imprisonment adopted by the authorities at the Horse Guards. A total reformation had taken place; and those who, like himself, had advocated the abolition of corporal punishment, had the gratification of finding it restricted to 100 lashes in 1846, and it had become almost the exception instead of the rule. But what induced the House to consent to this change was, the opinion of the military officers who were summoned to state their views before the Military Commission appointed to inquire into the practicability of abolishing corporal punishments. Before pressing this question forward, they ought to have the benefit of the opinions of military men. The House of Commons was not the arena on which to judge of the effect this Bill would have on the order and discipline of the Army. A drummer, of fourteen years of age, was just as competent to give an opinion on a decision of the Lord Chancellor, as the House of Commons on matters relating to the discipline of the Army. After all, this Bill was but an experiment; and upon what was it to be tried? Upon the British Army—an Army spread throughout the globe. The Government were bound to give a good military authority, before they called upon the House to sanction a measure which might endanger the existence of the Army, composed now of a body of men a better than which could not be found, though the earth were searched through. If the Government were determined to press the Bill, at least let it be improved. A large bounty was offered to the soldier; that bounty was deceptive. What was a real bounty? A pension after a certain number of years' service. The bounty went now to furnish the man's kit: it would be far better to give him his kit. The Army, it was said, was recruited from the dregs of society, and by fraud. But was there no deception on the part of the recruits? He knew of many cases of deception—of men with bodily defects who took the enlistment money; and he knew one case of a man who, without bodily defect, had enlisted eight times in seven months, receiving portions of the enlistment money, an then deserting. Who bore the expenses or these frauds? The recruiting parties themselves. If this Bill was to pass, the periods, he thought, were too short. There should be one of twelve, and a second of ten, years; and at the end of twenty-two years the soldiers should have a pension of 10d. or not exceeding 1s. per day, according to character. Another point was, that the comforts of the soldier should be more consulted, as to clothing and appointments, especially in Africa and other hot climates. Then what was proposed to be done with the East India Company's troops? The Company must be bound by the same engagements, and at the expiration of the periods must send the soldiers home. In the absence of all military information, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to press this Bill—a measure affecting so deeply the interests of the Army, and which might work for evil. If the Bill was pressed, he should divide with the hon. and gallant Member.


said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether he had considered the point to which he had directed his attention on a former occasion? He meant the very disadvantageous position in which soldiers at present in the Army would be placed, as compared with soldiers who might hereafter enter the service, if that Bill were passed. They would then have two classes of men in the Army—the limited-service men and the unlimited-service men. By that Bill the limited-service man could command his discharge gratuitously at the end of ten years, while the unlimited-service man could not, at any time, command his discharge; and even if he should obtain the consent of his commanding officer for his discharge, he would have to pay for the purpose 15l. in the cavalry and 10l. in the infantry. But the Government dared not extend to the soldiers at present in the Army the same boon which they proposed to confer on soldiers who might hereafter enlist. It appeared to him that there was only one way in which they could give the soldier now in the Army an equivalent for the comparative disadvantage to which he would be subjected, and that was by increasing the rate of his pension. He earnestly hoped that that subject would undergo further consideration on the part of the proper authorities.


had hoped that, considering the extensive alteration which the Secretary at War proposed to make in this Bill by withdrawing its 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Clauses, the right hon. Gentleman would have made some further statement calculated, if not to remove, at any rate to mitigate the objections to it; and having been unable to be present at the last debate on the subject, and having, although present, been prevented by indisposition from taking part in the previous discussion, he (Lord Hotham) was very anxious to be allowed to state the grounds upon which his vote would be given, should the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool be pressed to a division. The principal object aimed at by this Bill, was said to be the getting a better class of men to enlist. He had never been able to discover the precise meaning of the expression, a better class of men; but if it was supposed that by merely shortening the period of enlistment, persons in easy circumstances would be induced to cuter the Army, he felt a strong conviction that Her Majesty's Government would be disappointed, inasmuch as the restraint necessarily imposed by military discipline upon every soldier, and especially and to a greater degree upon every recruit, would of itself be sufficient to deter those who had other means of employing themselves from being attracted by the slender inducement held out by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. If the substitution of limited for unlimited service were as great a boon as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose, it would have been well worth his while to consider whether, by dealing liberally with the question of pensions, he might not have been able to induce men to enlist for the Army generally, instead of enlisting, as they now had a right to do, for particular regiments. An arrangement of this nature would have many and great advantages. It would greatly diminish the charge for recruiting. It would save all that, he feared, very large expense which the transport of the necessary relief under the new system would occasion; while, on the other hand, it would enable the authorities so to dispose of the recruits as to cause every one to have his fair share of duty, and thus to add very much to the efficiency of every regiment. In speaking of the expense which this new system would create, his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had quoted a despatch written by the Duke of Wellington to Lord Liverpool in 1812, on the subject of the very large sum which would be required for the re-enlistment of men whose seven years term of service was about to expire. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had questioned the accuracy of this statement, contending that the bounty could not have exceeded 4l. or 5l. per man, and that thus the sum named by the Duke of Wellington would have provided bounty for a greater number of men than the whole army then in the Peninsula consisted of. Now, if he (Lord Hotham) had not been prevented, as he had already stated, from addressing the House when his hon. Friend was thus contradicted, he could have offered his own personal testimony as to the probable accuracy of his argument. He (Lord Hotham) was serving with the army in the Peninsula at that period, and he well remembered that a large number of men of his own regiment were re-enlisted, and that he was employed by his commanding officer to assist in their attestation and in paying them their bounty, not of four or five pounds, but of sixteen guineas per man. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had also called the attention of the House to the case of a regiment returning from India. Such a regiment might, on its return to England, receive six or eight hundred recruits; and, after remaining, perhaps, five years at home, would be ordered for three years to the Mediterranean, and from thence for three years to the West Indies, where, before little more than half its tour of duty was completed, the greater part of the men composing the regiment would be entitled to their discharges; and he would confidently ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was a state of things which he would find it easy to deal with? Looking, then, to the inducement which men, after serving their period of ten years, would have to re-enlist, he (Lord Hotham) observed with regret that the right hon. Gentleman would give no intimation of the real intentions of the Government with respect to pensions. Many inquiries had been made on the subject by hon. Gentlemen around him; but the right hon. Gentleman always referred to the royal prerogative as his reason for declining to answer them. Now, he (Lord Hotham) hoped he need not say that no one was less disposed to interfere with, or indeed more desirous to maintain, the royal prerogative than he was; but he could not help feeling that when her Majesty's Ministers brought forward a measure, the success of which mainly, if not entirely, depended on the exercise of the royal prerogative, the House had a right to know how it was intended to use it. Again, there was a very serious question, to which the hon. Member for Windsor had referred, namely, what was to be done with all those men of whom the Army now consisted, and who were all enlisted for life; but here also the right hon. Gentleman put forward the royal prerogative. The importance of this question must be obvious to every one; but the consequences of its being improperly dealt with were so serious, that he (Lord Hotham) would not venture to allude more particularly to them. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side might know, privately, the right hon. Gentleman's intentions; but those sitting on his (Lord Ho- tham's) side of the House having no such advantage, the right hon. Gentleman could not complain of their unwillingness, in the absence of all necessary information, to go along with him in support of his Bill. These were some of the objections which pressed strongly on his mind. He (Lord Hotham) did not presume, because he had the honour to hold a commission in the Army, that he must necessarily be wiser than any one else. The subject, however, being that of the profession in which he had been brought up, it was one upon which he could not but have an opinion, and upon which, having an opinion, he felt bound to give it. He (Lord Hotham) did not distrust the intentions of the Secretary at War; but, believing that he as greatly overrated the advantages as he underrated the difficulties which the Bill would occasion, and after giving the subject the host consideration in his power, he arrived at the conclusion that the only vote which he could, with a safe conscience, give, would be in favour of the Amendment.


observed, that so far from finding fault with the noble Lord for the unequivocal manner in which he had expressed his views, he willingly admitted that, from his experience of military life, in war and peace, there was no man better entitled than the noble Lord to form an opinion, and to utter it fearlessly, on the subject of military service. This he did not hesitate to admit; but he was bound to say that he, notwithstanding, differed totally from the noble Lord with respect to his opinions on the principle involved in the present measure. The Bill did not now come before the House in the same form which it presented when first introduced. He had divided it. And the reason he had done so was to simplify the great principle contained in it. His object was to procure the decision of the House on the naked simple principle of adopting for the future the system of limited enlistments. Being anxious to obtain a decision on this point, he had disencumbered the question of all foreign considerations whatsoever, and took out all allusion to Acts of Parliament having reference to pensioners and to the soldier's privileges. He did so with the view of bringing those questions into a separate Bill. For the present he only wanted to introduce a short Bill for the express purpose of limiting the period of enlistment. He did not at all concur in the opinion that this was a question on which that House was not competent to decide. On the contrary, he thought it was one on which they might be very fairly called upon to pronounce. It should be borne in mind, however, that the present measure could not pass into law without an ample opportunity being afforded to the highest military authority in the empire to declare his opinion upon it. The Royal Assent could not be given to it before it had passed through the other House of Legislature, of which the Commander-in-chief was so distinguished a Member. A discussion would take place there, in which, no doubt, that illustrious Personage would take part. But even though the Commander-in-chief had not a seat in the House of Lords, he could not on that account accede to the proposition that the House of Commons was not a competent tribunal to pronounce on the question. He did not wish to underrate the value of the opinions of military officers on military questions—far from it; but he would take leave to remind the House of this undoubted fact, that changes had been introduced by that House, which were now universally admitted to be great improvements in the British Army, but which, nevertheless, on their first introduction, had had to encounter an unequivocal opposition on the part of the older officers in the service. He was not sure, that however distinguished by rank and service those officers might be, their minds were not liable to be warped by an undue prejudice in favour of regulations and institutions to which from ancient habit they were already attached. With respect to the prospective effect of limited enlistment on those who were already enlisted for an indefinite period, he could only say that all due care and precaution should be taken to prevent the spread of any spirit of discontent amongst the soldiers thus circumstanced. He would not further trespass on the attention of the House, but would conclude with the expression of a hope that they would sanction the third reading of the Bill.


objected that the Government had not been sufficiently explicit in describing the data on which they went, and the object which they had in view in introducing this measure. On these points accurate information should have been furnished, before the House was called upon to interfere in a question which might have been decided by the exercise of the royal prerogative without any reference whatever to them. One would suppose that the natural object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was to improve the efficiency of the Army; but if they were to regard it in that light, how did it occur that the period he selected for giving the soldier leave to take his free discharge was just the period of his service when he was capable of rendering the most efficient service to his country? It was the period when the human frame had attained its maturity, when the irregularities of youth had been got over, and when the soldier was somewhat hardened in the service. It was also to be remembered, that if wages were high at the time the soldier was entitled to his discharge, he would be naturally inclined to accept higher wages than he obtained in the Army, and leave the service. It was likewise to be observed, that this measure was differently framed from the regulation of 1806. That regulation tended to keep the hardy soldier in the service; but the tendency, he conceived, of this Bill was to disband the Army. For reasons he had stated, he should vote with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liverpool against the third reading of this Bill.


observed, that the soldier who was now serving had enlisted under specified warrants, and by those warrants he was bound up, and was entitled to a certain amount of pension which he (Colonel Lindsay) hoped would be altered; and he must express his opinion that, so far as the word injustice was used, there was no injustice in keeping the soldier now serving to the engagement into which he had entered. But he hoped that if the supply of men were greater, as it was expected to be, the Government would relieve those soldiers sooner from their engagements than they were bound to do by the Act now in force. With respect to the question of limited service, he differed from the opinions expressed by some of his hon. and gallant Friends. He held the principle of limited service to be a good one; but, while he held that opinion, he thought that fourteen years would be better than ten. He also held that this Bill was defective, without some assurance or notification being given of an increase of pensions. He would vote for the Bill if he thought that there would be an increase of pension when the soldier had completed his second period of service; but he would vote against the Bill because no announcement had been made by the financial authorities with reference to pensions. With respect to the assertion that a better class of recruits would be obtained if this measure were passed, his (Colonel Lindsay's) idea was this—he believed, if limited service became the law, there would be a greater supply of men, and consequently a greater power of selection. He repeated that, on the ground of pensions alone, if the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool pressed the Motion to a division, he would go into the same lobby with him.


I have to say a few words as to the ground on which the Government has brought forward this measure, before the Bill is, as I hope it will be, finally passed. The hon. and gallant General who objected to this Bill is, no doubt, a very high military authority; and it must be admitted that he has pointed out in former debates, and during this debate, several inconveniences that may arise, especially in the colonial service, by carrying limited service into effect. But I own, considering the state of this country, and the state of the Army, that I think the time is come when there must be a very great change with regard to the mode of enlistment, and the period for which the enlistment shall take place. I think, in the first place, it is most desirable that you should have a larger class of persons from whom you may procure recruits for the Army; and I think it is quite clear, even without having any particular data or calculation on the subject, that the circumstance of a man seeing there is a limited period at the end of which he will obtain relief from military service, and he able to devote himself to other pursuits while health and strength are still left to him to go on with those other pursuits, it a continuance in the Army is disagreeable to him, would obviously be a reason for a man enlisting in the Army on sober and steady calculation, instead of taking up the decision in a moment of haste and despair, and afterwards becoming discontented. It likewise appears to me to be obvious that if men enlist with a more sober calculation of the state to which they are about to belong, they will be, I think, more contented with their position than they now are. This is one of many measures by which we hope to make the condition of the soldier more satisfactory to the men themselves that are serving, and more in conformity with the general improvement in the state of the country. It is not an answer to us to say that there was a good Army thirty or forty years ago, in the Peninsula or at Waterloo, for we must make all the different institutions of the country conform to the general spirit of the times and the advancement of the day. It does appear to me that we shall altogether by this measure introduce a spirit into the service that will make the soldier more contented, than he would be if we retained the old mode of government in the Army in an unaltered state. These are the general reasons why I think some change is necessary and should be made. I admit fully the inconvenience the hon. and gallant General has pointed out; but I think this general argument is sufficient to overhear all that inconvenience. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last that the question with regard to pensions shall be considered. The Warrant of 1836 was very well considered; it had the consent of Lord Hill and the military authorities of the time, and put an end to much confusion that prevailed. But at the same time I admit, in the altered circumstances of the Army, when the men shall only he enlisted for ten years—and wishing that those men who are good soldiers should be enlisted for a further time; that the amount of the pension ought to be fully considered; and that the suggestions which have been made in this House—one suggestion was made by a right hon. Gentleman not now present (the late Secretary at War)—should be fully considered by the Government before the Act is passed which will regulate the pensions; I shall—differing as I do from the hon. Gentlemen who have opposed this measure—give with great satisfaction my assistance, as a Member of the Government, to carry this Bill.

The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 91; Noes 42: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Chaplin, W. J.
Anson, hon. Col. Clive, Visct.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Collett, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baine, W. Dalmeny, Lord
Bannerman, A. Dalrymple, Capt.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Barnard, E. G. Dickinson, F. H.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Dundas, Adm.
Bodkin, J. J. Dundas, Sir D.
Bowring, Dr. Easthope, Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Ebrington, Visct.
Brown, W. Escott, B.
Buller, C. Ewart, W.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Forster, M.
Callaghan, D. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Cayley, E. S. Gore, hon. R.
Greene, T. O'Connell, M. J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Ogle, S. C. H.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Ord, W.
Hanmer, Sir J. Paget, Col.
Hatton, Capt. V. Perfect, R.
Hawes, B. Philipps, Sir R. B. P.
Heneage, G. H. W. Pinney, W.
Heneage, E. Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Pulsford, R.
Hollond, R. Rawdon, Col.
Hume, J. Repton, G. W. J.
Jervis, Sir J. Rich, H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Russell, Lord J.
Lambton, H. Rutherfurd, A.
Langston, J. H. Seymer, H. K.
Loch, J. Seymour, Lord
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
M'Carthy, A. Sheridan, R. B.
M'Donnell, J. M. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Mainwaring, T. Stuart, Lord J.
Maitland, T. Talbot, C.
Mangles, R. D. Thornely, T.
Marjoribanks, S. Ward, H. G.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Watson, W. H.
Mitchell, T. A. Wawn, J. T.
Moffatt, G. Williams, W.
Monahan, J. H. Wyse, T.
Morpeth, Visct. Yorke, H. R.
Morris, D. TELLERS.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Parker, J.
Muntz, G. F. Tufnell, H.
List of the NOES.
Allix, J. P. Henley, J. W.
Archdall, Capt. M. Hotham, Lord
Arkwright, G. Hudson, G.
Bankes, G. Ingestre, Visct.
Bentinck, Lord G. Lindsay, Col.
Beresford, Major Lowther, hon. Col.
Berkeley, hon. C. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Broadley, H. Manners, Lord C. S.
Burroughes, H. N. Newdegate, C. N.
Chandos, Marq. of Packe, C. W.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Prime, R.
Christopher, R. A. Reid, Col.
Collett, W. R. Sibthorp, Col.
Cripps, W. Stuart, H.
Disraeli, B. Thompson, Aid.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Vyse, H.
East, Sir J. B. Wodehouse, E.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Wood, Col. T.
Floyer, J. Worcester, Marq. of
Gooch, E. S.
Gordon, hon. Capt. TELLERS.
Goring, C. Boldero, Capt.
Halsey, T. P. Douglas, Sir H.

then moved the omission of Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which was agreed to; and also the addition of some new clauses, which were read first, second, and third times, and added to the Bill.


moved as an Amendment that in Clause 2, line 1, the following words should be struck out:— After completing the term of limited service for which he shall have first engaged, and being approved by his commanding officer or other competent military authority, as a fit person to continue in Her Majesty's service as a soldier. As this was a matter of regulation, he considered it would be better to omit these words.


would not consent to strike out the words, for the effect would exactly be that if they rendered a soldier liable to be enlisted during the period he first engaged to serve, he would be open to the solicitations and coaxings of commanding officers.


Really the right hon. Gentleman has made a most unwarrantable imputation upon the commanding officers of Her Majesty's service.


observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had introduced a Bill containing only eight clauses, but out of which he now proposed to strike no less than five. That was a nice Bill for a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Government and the Secretary at War, to bring before the Legislative Assembly. Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman himself had set the example of mutilating the Bill, and proposed to strike out five out of eight clauses, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend below him (Colonel Wood) was quite justified in his request to have a portion of; the 2nd Clause struck out. If the House agreed to that, he would propose to strike out the 1st Clause, and then the Government might perhaps be induced to withdraw the remainder altogether. If this was to be taken as a specimen of the legislation of the present Government, he might fairly be warranted in exclaiming, "Good Lord, defend us from such legislation for the future!"


defended the commanding officers of Her Majesty's service against the imputation of attempting to bully or induce by undue means the men under them to re-enlist. Such conduct would be unworthy of British officers, and those practising it ought to be removed from the command of a regiment. The right hon. Gentleman could know very little of the character of commanding officers if he could impute such practices to them.

Motion negatived. Bill passed.

House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.