HC Deb 28 June 1867 vol 188 cc728-45
CAPTAIN VIVIAN

rose to call the attention of the House to the Circular lately issued by the War Department defining the duties of Volunteers in case of riot. Before introducing the subject, he observed that no doubt the alteration of the hour of sitting on Tuesdays and Fridays had been beneficial to the discharge of public business; but its effect on private Members had been to extinguish them, on account of the late hour before they could bring forward their Motions at the Evening Sittings. Although the hour was late he hoped the House would give him its attention for a short time whilst he brought before it the Motion of which he had given notice. He did not mean to condemn the whole of the Circular, and if it had been confined to the first four paragraphs and the last, no objection could have been taken to it, Taking, however, the first paragraph in connection with the answer given by the Secretary of State for War to a question put to him on a former occasion, it would appear that he either had no confidence in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, or in the interpretation which he (the Secretary of State for War) had given to it. The five paragraphs to which he had alluded contained all that was necessary for the Volunteer corps. The fifth paragraph was, comparatively speaking, harmless; but he thought it contained more than was required. In it he thought the Secretary of State for War had trenched on the duties of the Home Office, because it was not usual for the War Office to lay down duties, conditions, and circumstances under which special constables might be called on to act. He now came to the serious part of the document; and he complained of it in the interests of the Volunteer corps, because it would destroy the popularity of that force. The sixth paragraph of the Circular stated— In cases of dangerous riots and disturbances, for instance, in case of insurrection or of riots having for their object the commission of felonious acts or the subversion of the civil Government, the civil authority may call upon and require Her Majesty's subjects generally, including Volunteers, to arm themselves with and use such other weapons of defence or attack as may be in their power and may be suitable to the occasion, and such other weapons may be used accordingly by Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, according to the necessity of the occasion. Now, he wanted to know who was to define to the Volunteers what was a "dangerous" riot as distinguished from a common riot, and who was to say whether a riot or insurrection had for its object the commission of felonious acts before the felonious acts were committed? He wanted to know what the Attorney General considered a felonious act? Did he think that the breaking into a house and gutting it constituted a felonious act? It was his misfortune to be a member of an Election Committee appointed to try a petition from Nottingham. The petition contained a charge of riot, which was not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee; but it was proved that in more than one instance mobs broke into houses, entirely destroyed the furniture, and broke all the windows. They so frightened the inhabitants that, in one instance, a committee were obliged to escape from a hole in the roof of the house. Was that a felonious act, and would the Volunteers have been justified in interfering in the election riots of Nottingham? The Circular went on to state that— Fire arms should be the last weapon called into action, and should only be resorted to in cases when, without their use, it would be practically impossible to quell the disturbance. But this Instruction did not stand alone. The eighth paragraph of the Circular stated that Volunteers, in acting as special constables or otherwise for suppressing and quelling riots were entitled to use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they might possess, for the purpose of making their combined strength and the use of such weapons as the occasion might justify more effectual. The climax of the Circular was the ninth paragraph, which stated— Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in cases in which it is proper for them to act for the suppression of riots, should act, if it be practicable, under the direction of the civil authority; but they will not be released from the obligation to use their reasonable endeavours for the suppression of riots and disturbances, according to the necessities of the occasion, if magistrates should not be present, or not within the roach of immediate communication when any such occasion arises. Now, there never was a more dangerous doctrine than that which was contained in this paragraph, and if it were suffered to remain without explanation or Amendment, it would strike a death-blow at the Volunteer force. He had already pointed out the complete ignorance in which this instruction left the Volunteers of how they were to act in cases of emergency. But in this last paragraph it was laid down that the Volunteers might be called upon to use their arms against the people without the orders of the civil authority, and he mustadd that this was attempted to be laid down by as Jesuitical a piece of special pleading—he did not use the word offensively—as he had ever seen in any public document. The Circular, moreover, stated distinctly that the Volunteer officers were to be the judges of what was and was not insurrection. Now, he had always thought that in domestic disturbances in this country the military were absolutely subservient to the civil authority. The statement in the Circular was interpreted by a large body of Volunteers—rank and file as well as officers—to mean that the Volunteer force might be called out and employed independently of the civil power, and that Volunteer officers, although no civil authority was near, might be called on to judge what was or was not an insurrection, and might tell their troops to fire on the people. Such a document as the Circular was calculated to create a war of classes. The Volunteer force had hitherto been considered the defenders of the people against foreign invasion; but, henceforth, they might well be looked on as the possible enemies of the people, and as possible instruments in the hands of an unscrupulous Government. He only spoke in reference to the way in which the document might be interpreted, not supposing that the Government, when they framed it, had any such idea in their mind. If once the belief was destroyed that the Volunteer corps was only a force against foreign invasion their popularity would be gone, and he should not be surprised if the document he had been commenting on caused a large retirement of men from the Volunteer force. He had a great admiration of the force, knowing how valuable it was, and he therefore hoped that it was only from inadvertence that such a mischievous document had been circulated. He trusted that the Government would withdraw it, or that the House, at any rate, would, by adopting his Resolution, show that it differed from the Government in its view respecting the duties of the Volunteer force.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens, and are in such cases no more than any other Citizen liable to orders or instructions from the Military or Civil Authorities,"—(Captain Vivian,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Member had not read the Circular with sufficient attention. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that the Volunteer officers might, according to the Circular, be called on in cases of riot to command the Volunteers to act without the authority of the civil power, and that the Volunteers might be called on to act as Volunteers in case of riot. This was a most singular interpretation of the document. It was emphatically stated in one of the earlier parts of the Circular that the civil authority was not in any case entitled to call upon or order the Volunteers to act as a military body, with or without arms, in the preservation of the peace. This was not repeated in every paragraph, but it governed the whole of the document. But they were also told that they were not released from the ordinary duties of Her Majesty's subjects; and the Circular pointed out the duties which in the preservation of the peace were incumbent on all Her Majesty's subjects. It pointed to extreme cases that might arise, which must be handled with delicacy, and showed that Volunteers were not exonerated from the discharge of those duties that necessity might impose, and which must be performed with the same responsibility by them as by other of Her Majesty's subjects. Great care was taken upon this point. That was the view of Her Majesty's Government and of the Law Officers. And so with the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member. Every word of it might be adopted. It appeared, indeed, as if it had been borrowed from, the terms of the Circular itself. The Circular was in entire harmony with it. The first four paragraphs were not objected to, and the only objection to the fifth paragraph was that it was not issued by the Home Secretary. He thought the fifth paragraph must also be approved, always bearing in mind that what governed the whole was this—that, as a military body, the Volunteers could not be called on to act under any circumstances, however extreme. The Circular went on to point out what was their duty, not as a military body, but as a portion of Her Majesty's subjects; and it particularized what, in case of riot, would be the duties of special constables, whether they were Volunteers or not. The hon. Member asked for a definition of a felonious act. Did he suppose that the Circular could point out instances?

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

had asked how any one could tell before an act was committed whether it would be felonious or not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

That must be judged from the animus which was seen to prevail at the moment, If a number of men complained of some common being enclosed to which they thought they had a right, and assembled round the paling threatening to pull it down, it did not want any great insight to determine from their motive that they were not about to commit a felonious act; but if they evinced a design with a view to plunder, or to the subversion of civil authority, to pull down houses and commit acts of that kind, these were felonious acts. He did not think it possible in a Circular to do more than point out that in certain extreme cases measures would be justifiable which in less extreme cases would not. The nature of the proceedings would teach them under responsibility to the law what course was to be taken, and necessity would justify what they did. The Volunteers were not exempted from those duties which all Her Majesty's subjects were bound to fulfil. There could he no other directions or instructions. Volunteers could not be called upon, under any circumstances, to act as a military force; but they were not exempted from the duties generally of Her Majesty's subjects. He said there was nothing more than that in this Circular, and it was right. He would take the sixth paragraph— In cases of serious and dangerous riots and disturbances, for instance, in case of insurrection or riots having for their object the commission of felonious acts or the subversion of the civil government, the civil authority may call upon and require"— What?— Her Majesty's subjects generally, including Volunteers, to arm themselves with and use such other weapons of defence or attack as may be in their power and may be suitable to the occasion, and such other weapons may be used accordingly by Her Majesty's subjects," again "including Volunteers, according to the necessity of the occasion. Then the seventh paragraph— Firearms should be the last weapons so to be called into action, and should be resorted to only in cases when, without their use, it would be practically impossible to quell the disturbance. These paragraphs were addressed not more to one than the other; they applied not to Volunteers only, but to all Her Majesty's subjects called on to assist in preserving the peace. So with regard to the ninth paragraph, the governing idea was that— Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in cases in which it is proper for them to act for the suppression of riots, should act, if it be practicable, under the direction of the civil authority; but they will not be released from the obligation to use their reasonable endeavour for the suppression of riots and disturbances according to the necessities of the occasion, if magistrates should not be present or not within reach of immediate communication when any such occasion arises. The Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member, though borrowed from the Circular, merely said what the duties of the force were not; it did not go on to say what the duties of Her Majesty's subjects were; but it was necessary to say that. It was quite right to say that the Volunteers had no obligations as a military force except in case of invasion; but it was necessary to say that Her Majesty's subjects had certain duties to discharge from which Volunteers were not exempted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had certainly succeeded in explaining away many of the objections to the Instructions issued from the War Office; and if the Volunteers were to read the Instructions, with his comments, and possessed sufficient legal knowledge to understand them, possibly any objection to the Instructions might be removed. But the explanation of the instructions left on his mind the impression that the Secretary for War had somewhat forgotten his position in the matter. What the commanding officers of the Volunteer forces wanted was, not a merely legal opinion as to what Her Majesty's subjects, Volunteers or others, might do in certain cases, but definite orders from the Secretary for War as to what they were to do under difficult and possible eventualities. The Secretary for War could not release himself from the responsibility of being the commanding officer of the Volunteers. Their position was a difficult one. The force was formed on the understanding that it was not to be used except to resist invasion, and that it was not to put down riots, and that was the understanding on winch the force was legalized and supported by Parliament. On the other hand, they feel that if any appeal is made to them in case of a disturbance, and in the absence of any definite instructions from the Secretary at War, they refuse to accede to the appeal, they will stand in a position which honourable men and men of spirit were not to be expected to bear. That being the case, what was wanted were definite orders from the Secretary for War. He would defy any commanding officer to make out from the Instructions what he was to do in case of riot. An hon. Friend of his had most pertinently asked how was a commanding officer to know whether a riot or a disturbance was serious or dangerous? According to the Attorney General a commanding officer was not to see a house pulled down; but if he was to interfere in every case in which a house might be pulled down, the arrangement on which the Volunteer vote was granted was at an end. The Circular said the Volunteers were not to act as a military body, a phrase which betrayed its legal origin; and yet it said— All Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in acting either as special constables, or otherwise, for suppressing and quelling riots, are entitled to use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they may possess, for the purpose of making their combined strength, and the use of such weapons as the occasion may justify, more effectual. The Attorney General passed lightly over this, speaking of such knowledge as the Volunteers possessed, and not of their knowledge of military discipline. What was the meaning of military discipline, if it did not imply the giving of orders? When the Volunteers were placed in such a difficult position it was not fair, and scarcely generous of the War Office to send them out such Instructions, stating on the one hand that they could not act as a military body, and that officers had no power over their men, and, on the other, that they might use such knowledge of military discipline as they possessed. How was an unfortunate man to know what to do? Placed in this position he might use tremendous force and fire volleys with destructive effect. He fancied the Secretary for War had not considered all that this instruction might imply. If Volunteers were to be used as an armed force under any circumstances let an Act be brought in to to provide for their acting under officers. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than a body of Volunteers being used in the way that these Instructions contemplated, not as a military body, but as a force armed with dangerous weapons, acting as neighbours against neighbours, and that with the knowledge of, but without the power to put in practice, military discipline. Firing might begin and nobody have the power to stop it. The House might think that dangerous circumstances were unlikely to arise; but they had arisen at Sheffield, after the Chester raid. On an alarm occasioned by an anonymous letter, which might have been a hoax, Volunteer officers met, kept men under arms all night, and caused musketry and field ammunition to be served out to them. Suppose the matter had gone further, what might have happened? Something much more definite than this legal opinion was required to guide men under these circumstances. The Instructions might have been shorter and clearer. If the Secretary for War had informed the Volunteers that the Act of Parliament gave them no power over other men in case of civil disturbance; and that he therefore confirmed the Instructions issued by his predecessor, Lord Herbert, which states that the Volunteer force is not intended to be used on the occurrence of local disturbances, that might have been sufficient. Perhaps it might have been added that Volunteers were not released from their duties as citizens. What they required to know exactly was what they were to do with their arms. They were responsible to the Secretary for War for use of them, and he was responsible to the country for the use they made of them. They ought to have been told that they were not to use their arms for any purpose not contemplated by the Volunteer Act without the authority of the Secretary for War. We were, perhaps, too apprehensive of such an emergency as a Fenian attack; but in such a case it should be impossible for the Volunteers to use their arms except upon a special order from the central Government, which Parliament would afterwards indemnify. While he would not let it be said we should not make use of Volunteers on extraordinary occasions, he would not neutralize and destroy the value of the force by making it ordinarily available. The feeling of the House, of the country, and of Volunteer officers would convince the Government they had better withdraw the instructions, and issue short and precise rules which could be understood.

COLONEL NORTH

, referring to the Chester raid, said, that if it was not an invasion it was like one, because the town was visited by American and Irish strangers, whose object was understood to be the capture of the castle, and the appropriation of the arms stored there. He quite agreed that, as a rule, the Volunteer force should not be employed to act as a military body in cases of common disturbance; but, for his own part, if he had had the command of a body of Volunteers on such an occasion as that of the threatened attack on Chester Castle, he should certainly have felt it his bounden duty to call upon them to act as a military body. It might be advisable that, where it was possible, the Secretary of State should issue an order; but surely, on a sudden emergency, it would become the duty of the officer of the Volunteers to determine whether it was his duty to call on his men to act. Many years ago, in 1829, 1830, and 1831, during a state of things which never happened now, and which he trusted would never recur, the military were in constant collision with the people in the manufacturing districts. The interpretation which he put upon this Circular was, that if a body of Volunteers in plain clothes and armed with constables' staves were found together it would be for the public benefit that they should take advantage of their military knowledge, as far as drill went, and act against the mob. He had never left his barrack square on that most painful of all duties to a British officer to act against his fellow-countrymen that he did not feel conscious of the great responsibility which rested on the soldiers. Notwithstanding the reproach too often cast upon English soldiers respecting their anxiety to shoot at their fellow-countrymen—["No, no!"]—Well, was not that constantly stated in the House? His own opinion was that, except in cases like that of Bristol, where it became necessary that the military should act with vigour, a battalion of Volunteers armed with staves would be more effective than regular soldiers, because the latter were always most reluctant to fire upon the people, even when called upon to do so. As to the present Circular, he thought that, as far as the Volunteers were concerned, the first four clauses and the last clause were very safe. He might remark that most of the commanders of Volunteer battalions were also magistrates; and therefore the question was, whether under certain circumstances they could act as magistrates or simply as officers in such cases, and whether they would or would not have to call in the aid of the civil magistrates to direct them? With regard to questions of this nature some further explanation was needed; but he must state that these regulations had been drawn up for the purpose of conveying general and not definite information. As a rule, Volunteers ought not to be employed, in his opinion; under any circumstances in a common riot; but in extreme cases, such as that of the Bristol riot, it became necessary that every citizen should exert himself to the utmost, and that the Volunteers should be called out as an armed body. In such a case, if he were in command of a battalion of Volunteers, he should act in a military point of view, and then take his chance as to whether his conduct was subsequently approved or not.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were very difficult to satisfy on this subject. The other night the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had addressed to him some questions which he answered as fully as he could, and in a manner which he believed was satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman himself. He would only add that questions of law were mixed up with the subject, and it consequently became necessary that the regulations should be examined from a legal point of view. Afterwards the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) gave notice of a Motion relating to this matter, and the moment he saw it he stated that he did not see the slightest objection to it, because he thought it was in accordance with the spirit and intention of these regulations, and because, not being a lawyer, he thought it was also in accordance with the letter of the regulations. His hon. and gallant Friend had now brought forward his Motion, which had been met by a very clear and able statement on the part of the hon. and learned Attorney General, The hon. Member for Bradford appeared to have listened with great surprise to the statement, and had expressed his opinion that it was very clear in regard to the law on the subject. Indeed, it appeared to dispose so entirely of the imaginary difficulties which had been raised that the hon. Member for Bradford, in order to escape from his own difficulties, said—"I must turn to the Secretary of State for War. I must turn to somebody who is not a lawyer, and therefore I will ask the Secretary of State for War why he does not draw up some plain regulations for the guidance of the Volunteer force?" He would remind the hon. Member and the House of the origin of these regulations. The demand on the part of the House that Volunteers should not in cases of emergency be left in doubt as to their duties, arose, he believed, out of the occurrences at Chester, It thereupon became necessary for the War Department to frame some regulations on the subject, and the regulations which were drawn up were, very naturally, submitted to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The consequence was that the original regulations were considerably altered, and assumed their present shape. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro had no objection to the first four or five regulations, and, consequently, the only question which could possibly arise was whether it would be politic to introduce the other regulations respecting the extreme cases which might arise? On the grounds which had been most ably stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he thought that in such a document the Volunteers ought to be told what it was their duty to do, not as soldiers, but as citizens, whenever extreme cases arose. The hon. Member for Bradford had asserted that the Volunteers were told in these regulations that they might act as an armed force; but he (Sir John Pakington) begged to deny that they were told they might do so. They were only told under what circumstances they might, as citizens, use their arms, and that was all. The hon. Gentleman said they should be told when and on what occasions they might use their arms; but the answer to that was that it was impossible beforehand to tell what might be the circumstances under which it might be the duty of Volunteers, as Englishmen and citizens, to use them. He maintained that the regulations were in exact accordance with the language of the present Resolution, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would agree that they were no more than ought to have been issued, and that if they had stated less, they would have been incomplete and inadequate to convey that instruction which Englishmen would require when extreme circumstances arose.

LORD ELCHO

said, the feeling of uncertainty, and even of dissatisfaction, created by the Instructions under discussion was not confined to hon. Members of that House; for, at a meeting of the commanding officers of Volunteers in the metropolis held the other day, the question was incidentally raised, and a desire was then expressed that if possible something more definite should be laid down with regard to the position in which they were placed. No doubt it would be difficult to issue clear and definite Instructions that would apply to all cases which might arise; but he learnt from what had been said that night that the Government seemed inclined to follow the principle lain down in the Circular issued by Lord Herbert in June 1861, in which this paragraph appeared— I have also learned that in some cases Volunteer corps have been called out in aid of the civil power on the occurrence of local disturbances; and I have to point out to you that the Volunteer Force is not intended to be employed in that manner, and it is inexpedient that they should be assembled on any such occasions. It appeared to him, therefore, that the best course to adopt, under existing circumstances, would be to strike out passages 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the Instructions, and leave in passages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. He recollected that when the Bill under which the Volunteers were embodied was under discussion in that House his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) stated that a case might arise of some great national emergency in which the Secretary of State might feel it to be his duty to stretch the law in order to preserve order. He did not think the discussion of to-night left any doubt that if such an emergency should arise, and that the Secretary of State did exercise extraordinary powers in the case of the Volunteers, the House would at once grant him an indemnity. Under these circumstances, he thought that if the paragraphs to which he referred were omitted the position of matters would be perfectly satisfactory.

MR. THOMAS HUGHES

concurred in the remarks made by the noble Lord who had just preceded him as to the omission of paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9. It appeared that a certain amount of responsibility rested upon the Volunteer officers, but that the law as it now stood gave them no power over their men in cases where that responsibility would be felt. He thought it would be better to return to the old law, and to give the Secretary of State power to call out the Volunteers in cases of emergency when they might be required to act as a military body.

GENERAL PEEL

said, that the Circular had been issued in consequence of applications from the Volunteers after the occurrence at Chester. He thought that as regarded the Volunteers, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 would be sufficient, because paragraphs 6, 7, and 9 did not apply to Volunteers particularly. They were Instructions to the civil authorities and Her Majesty's subjects generally.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

could not but think that the Circular would be defective if the paragraphs which had been objected to were struck out. Would it be expedient in such a Circular only to tell the Volunteers a part of their duty? He could not but think that a Circular issued to Volunteers should lay down general instructions as to the cases in which Volunteers or other persons were authorized to use the constable's staff or to use arms. Every one who wanted to know the opinion of high judicial authorities on this point would look to what was said by Chief Justice Tindal, who pointed out what was the duty of the soldier and what that of the citizen. Chief Justice Tindal said— But if the occasion demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the advice or sanction of the magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to act for himself and upon his own responsibility in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous assembly; and he may be assured that whatever is honestly done by him in the execution of that object will be supported and justified by the common law. And while I am stating the obligation imposed by the law on every subject of the realm, I wish to observe that the law acknowledges no distinction in this respect between the soldier and the private individual. The soldier is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation and invested with the same authority to preserve the peace of the King as any other subject. If the one is bound to attend the call of the civil magistrate, so also is the other; if the one may interfere for that purpose when the occasion demands it without the requisition of a magistrate, so may the other too; if the one may employ arms for that purpose, when arms are necessary, the soldier may do the same. Undoubtedly the same exercise of discretion which requires the private subject to act in subordination to and in aid of the magistrate, rather than upon his own authority, before recourse is had to arms, ought to operate in a still stronger degree with a military force. It had been proposed, in consequence of a discussion in that House, that some general instruction should be given to Volunteers as to what was their duty in case of riot and disturbance. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Truro that Volunteers were to do what other subjects of Her Majesty were to do. But would it have been satisfactory to lay down in a single line—"The Volunteers are to act in the same way as the other subjects of Her Majesty?" [Cries of "Yes!"] Would it not have been said that the Instruction was so meagre as to give no information. The Circular stated that, as a military body, the Volunteers could not be called out, and then it went on, in accordance with the language of the Judges, to lay down that in cases of serious and dangerous riots and disturbances the civil authority might call upon Her Majesty's subjects generally, including the Volunteers, to arm themselves and use such weapons of defence or attack as might be in their power, and might be suitable to the occasion. Should the Circular have stopped short and not said a word about those serious riots, and what was the duty of the Volunteers in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, in case such disturbances took place? It was stated in the strongest manner that in no case were arms to be resorted to, except where it was impossible by other means to suppress the riot. It further stated that it was quite right and proper that the Volunteers should use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they might possess. He maintained that if called on to aid in suppressing a riot Volunteers were bound to make use of such knowledge at the earliest possible moment, because by that means serious consequences might be averted. Could it be said that if twenty soldiers happened to be on leave of absence in a place where a riot was taking place, and they were called on to aid in suppressing it, they would not be right in making use of their knowledge of discipline? And if twenty, why not forty or any greater number? [An hon. MEMBER: With arms?] He was not saying with arms. In the paragraph which conveyed the instruction relative to the use of the knowledge and practice of military discipline not a word was said about arms. If Volunteers did not read those Instructions carefully, that was not the fault of the law officers, or of those who issued the Instructions. If 500 persons with a knowledge of discipline were engaged in quelling a riot it would be absurd to say that they were to forget that discipline, when a knowledge of it would have a beneficial effect in the suppression of the riot. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the Volunteers were to use their arms. They were told in the instructions that they were not to do so unless the necessity of the case required it, and, in that case, the law distinctly was not only that they ought, but were bound to do so. Would any one tell him that if a man's house were attacked and he had arms, that he ought not to use them to defend it? He profoundly objected to the term "calling out the Volunteers." There was no such thing as calling out the Volunteers; and anybody who read the instructions candidly must see that it was expressly stated that there was no such thing. But if men joined a Volunteer corps they were not by reason of so doing exempted from their liabilities and duties as citizens; and if called upon to act they should have the same general knowledge of what their duties under certain circumstances would be as in the case of special constables. He ventured to think that if the Instructions objected to were left out the Circular would not be exhaustive, and by inserting them there was not a single word in them which rendered the Resolution which the hon. Member wished the House to come to more needful, because the points laid down in the instructions were entirely in accordance with the principles of the Constitution and with those laid down by the common law of the land.

SIR GEORGE GREY

had entertained a hope when the hon. and learned Gentleman rose that he was about to concur with the very reasonable proposal made by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and endorsed by the right hon. and gallant General opposite (General Peel), with all the knowledge of the subject which he possessed. He much regretted to find that such was not the case. The intention of the Government in issuing these Instructions was plain enough; but it would have been sufficient to explain in the clearest and most explicit terms what was actually the law. The Instructions had failed in their object, which was to explain to commanding officers what were their duties under certain special circumstances; for these officers now complained that the four paragraphs in the Instructions, the omission of which was now suggested, threw upon them a degree of responsibility, and left a certain amount of doubt which really defeated the object of the Instructions. As it appeared to the ordinary reader, the only effect of retaining these paragraphs in the Instructions was to keep up a distinction between Volunteers and the rest of Her Majesty's subjects and the duties which they had to perform under certain circumstances. It was quite right that Volunteers should be informed that they could not be called on to act as a body for the repression of civil disturbances, yet that they retained all their liability in common with all other persons to aid the civil power; but if instructions were necessary for the guidance of Volunteers in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, these ought not to come from the War Department, but from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In extreme cases which had been referred to any Government which knew its duty would not shrink from the responsibility of taking all the means at its command for the repression of serious disturbances. But responsibility ought not to be left upon the commanders of Volunteer corps, and the right hon. Gentleman, with a view of satisfying these officers, and in deference to the general opinion which had been expressed by the House, would consent, he hoped, to omit the four paragraphs from the Instructions. Having done that, the Government would have fulfilled its obligations in a satisfactory manner, and in entire accordance with the general feeling.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend, and the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he certainly should take into consideration how far it might be desirable to omit from the copies of the regulations issued to Volunteer officers one or all of the paragraphs objected to. But he must guard himself, after the opinions which had been expressed by the highest legal authorities, from giving any pledge or promise on the subject, and must take some time to consider, under all the circumstances, the course most advisable to be taken.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

hoped the right hon. Baronet would lay upon the table copies of the amended Circular before it was issued to the Volunteers.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, That the words 'the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens, and are in such cases no more than any other Citizen liable to orders or instructions from the Military or Civil Authorities,' be added, instead thereof.

MR. AYRTON

took exception to the concluding words of the Motion, which, by implication, asserted that in case of disturbance Her Majesty's subjects passed under the control of the military authorities. He moved the omission of all the words after the word "citizens."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out from the word "Citizens," to the end of the proposed Amendment."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

consented to omit all the words after "those of other citizens."

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, That the words 'the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens,' be added to the word 'That' in the Original Question, —put, and agreed, to.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens.

House adjourned at Two o'clock, till Monday next.