§ COLONEL BIDDULPHsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Owen Stanley) he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is proper for Colonels of Militia to march their regiments through the streets of London without the authority of the War Office, for inspection or other important duties; if the law, as laid down by Archbold, Justice of the Peace, page 347, vol. iv., as to the preservation of the peace by private persons and the military is correct; if Colonel Wilson was not in duty bound to assist the police, and apprehend the persons he saw committing outrages and robbery on respectable persons at St. James's on the 3rd of June; and if he will issue such orders as will define the duties of military men under such circumstances occurring again as are related in Colonel Wilson's Letter to The Times of the 12th June?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, it was the duty of the War Office to lay down routes for Her Majesty's Forces when on the march, but it was no part of the duty of the War Office to lay down routes for Militia regiments. They were entirely under the authority of the Lords-Lieutenant, and the War Office never interfered in any of the affairs of a Militia regiment, except through the Lieutenant Colonel. In this case no communication had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant and the War Office. He need not remind the hon. and gallant Member that, except in relation to things immediately connected with the business of the Secretary of State for War, it was no part of 88 the duty of the War Office to preserve the peace of the streets or parks of London. The second Question of the hon. and gallant Member ought rather to have been addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. It was no part of his (Sir John Pakington's) official duty to express any opinion with regard to the rules laid down by Mr. Archbold in his valuable and carefully-prepared work, but he had no reason to doubt the correctness of the law there laid down. As to the third Question, not having been present, he did not know what actually took place, nor what Colonel Wilson might have seen. He should not be justified, when answering a question, in attempting to define the exact circumstances under which it may become the duty of a commanding officer to merge his military functions in his general duty as a citizen. As to the last Question, he was informed that there was no uncertainty about the present state of the law on this subject, and it was not his intention to frame any new regulations.