HC Deb 03 August 1872 vol 213 cc382-98
LORD ELCHO

Sir, at length, after months of weary waiting, I have an opportunity of calling attention to the case of Sub-Lieutenant Tribe, which, in spite of the appeal of the Secretary of State, I feel it my duty to bring forward. I can assure the House that it is with extreme reluctance that at this late period, on the 3rd of August, I stand between them and Committee of Supply. The fault, however, does not rest with me, but with Her Majesty's Government, who arbitrarily, and by a small majority of 27, in the early part of the Session, took away from us the constitutional, time-honoured privilege which Members of Parliament had heretofore enjoyed of bringing forward any grievance, on going into Supply, under which any individual or any portion of the people might happen to labour; and in so doing I am inclined to think that the Government have done much to injure the popularity of the House of Commons, for it is not as a mere legislative machine—as such, it is of a very second-rate quality—but as the free exponent of grievances and of public opinion, that the House of Commons has obtained that popularity and that position which it holds in the estimation of the people of this country and of the civilized world. So strongly, indeed, do I feel this, that if the Government should, in the next Session of Parliament, again attempt to curtail our privileges in regard to Motions on Supply, I shall myself resist such an attempt by all the means which the forms of the House admit of; and I shall be greatly disappointed if, even in the teeth of a conjunction of the Treasury and Front Opposition benches, there is not found a sufficient, number of independent non-official Members to defeat it. I was anxious and determined to bring this case of Sub-Lieutenant Tribe before the House—first, because of its important bearing upon the character and future position of officers in the British Army; secondly, because this Motion is a sacred trust—a legacy bequeathed to me by my hon. and gallant Relative the Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson), who only consented to take that care of his health, by absenting himself from the House, which was enjoined by his medical advisers, on the express promise and understanding that I would undertake his Motion; and I am sure there is not a Member of this House who does not sincerely regret the cause of his enforced absence, and that this Motion, to which he would have done so much justice, is not in his hands. His object in the Notice which he originally gave has been greatly misunderstood. It has been supposed that his intention was—and that mine now is, to question the decision of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief upon this case, and to reverse it so far as it is in the power of this House to do so. My hon. and gallant Relative, I need not say, is too good a soldier, he knows too well the value of discipline, to have entertained such an idea. Such was not, and is not, the intention of this Motion. It is a protest against ex parte statements in the Ministerial Press, commenting untruthfully upon the case of Sub-Lieutenant Tribe; it is a protest against the Secretary of State answering Questions in the House of Commons on a grave matter of discipline, and in a way which, though, no doubt, unintentional on his part, is calculated to leave a wrong impression and misrepresent facts, to the injury of the character of the officers of the 9th Lancers; and, lastly, it is an endeavour, by publication of the facts of the case, to do justice to a gallant regiment injured by the misrepresentations of the Press and by the answer of the Secretary of State. Sir, the current misrepresentations of which I complain may be best found in an article in The Daily Telegraph, which appeared on the morning of the day on which the hon. Member for Hackney put his Question to the Secretary of State. It may, perhaps, be said—Why quote from a newspaper? But we must not forget that in the early part of the Session information as to the intentions of the Government on Irish education—although not what the French call communiqué—found its way into a Government paper; and information somehow does get into the Ministerial prints, and articles are written in a sense agreeable to the authorities. Besides, I cannot give the current misrepresentation in relation to the Tribe case in a more complete or succinct form than by quoting from the article in The Daily Telegraph, which is known to be the most devoted and affectionate of Government organs. I find it there stated that—"Mr. Tribe was the first to receive a commission under the new system;" that he had passed with distinction at Sandhurst, but did not join at once, and obtained leave of absence in order to undergo the ordeal of another examination—"A proceeding," The Daily Telegraph remarks, "which, in the opinion of his future comrades, may have induced them to agree that he was too studious for the cavalry;" that the subalterns requested him to exchange into another corps. "Perhaps," says The Daily Telegraph, "because they had an antipathy to an individual who could pass severe examinations; perhaps because he was one of 'Cardwell's men.'" For declining, he was bullied and sent to Coventry. The major accuses him of falsehood, and says he will never make a cavalry officer. He is placed under arrest; a Court of Inquiry reported on the facts, and the Field Marshal, after considering the report, has ordered Mr. Tribe to resume his duty. He has done more than this; he has felt it necessary, through the Adjutant General, to give the officers a piece of his mind, and we are credibly informed that the morsel they have to read and inwardly digest is not likely to afford them acute pleasure. The article winds up with these general remarks— The Duke of Cambridge has set an example of loyalty to the national will, and his reward is in the approbation of his countrymen…. The youthful and middle-aged gentlemen engaged in this painful incident are properly objects of pity, since they have only acted in accordance with the errors sucked in through their mess-room education. I beg the attention of the House to what follows:— As the victims of circumstances over which they have no control—the bad customs of the Army—we feel no anger against them. Sir, I know not which to admire most in this passage—the good taste which speaks of the bad customs of our gallant Army, or the logic which, having begun the article by attributing the treatment of Mr. Tribe to his having been the "first" of the new system, and to his being one of "Cardwell's men," ends by excusing it on the score of "the bad customs of the Army." This, we all know, is a sensational age. We have sensation on the stage, in literature, in legislation, and in the Press; and we are all aware that The Daily Telegraph has the largest circulation in the world. This those who run may read in letters of the largest type, and on boards of the largest description. I make, therefore, all due allowance for the need of sensational writing to keep up such a circulation; still, I hope and believe that highly-seasoned stuff such as this is too much for ordinary stomachs. Why, even ostriches cannot sometimes digest it. Let me explain. Soon after Easter Monday, I read in The Daily Telegraph that the public in the "Zoo." had amused themselves by feeding the ostriches with halfpence; that they were in consequence all made ill; but, with the exception of one, they all recovered, and on opening this bird, they found in its stomach a complete copy of The Daily Telegraph; thus proving that the ostrich, which can digest the copper coinage of the realm, is wholly unable to digest the sounding brass of The Daily Telegraph. But I pass from the misrepresentations of a misinformed journalist, and I come to the facts of this case. Let me, however, first remind the House of the gravamen and substance of the charges against the 9th Lancers—namely, that Mr. Tribe's was the first appointment under the new system; that he had passed with distinction at Sandhurst; that he sought to pass a further severe examination; that he was, in consequence of all this, bullied, charged by his commanding officers with falsehood; that a Court of Inquiry reported; and that Mr. Tribe had been ordered to return to his duty, and the officers had been censured. Now, for the facts. Mr. Tribe was not the first to secure a commission under the new system; not even the first in the 9th Lancers—a son of Earl Russell having received a similar commission before him. He did not pass with distinction at Sandhurst; he did not pass there at all, but went up for examination for a direct commission at Chelsea, which he obtained before the change of system. Mr. Tribe, therefore, stood, in all respects, in the same position as a purchase officer before the abolition of purchase, and if the Army Bill had not passed, he would have had to pay for his commission like anyone else. All, therefore, about his being one of "Cardwell's men," and so forth, falls absolutely to the ground. It is true that he obtained leave to go through another examination; but having obtained it, he took no steps in furtherance of his professed object. I hold in my hand a letter from Colonel Rich, late major in the 9th Lancers, which says— Sub-Lieutenant Tribe obtained an extension of leave from the 31st December, 1871, to the 20th January, 1872, to go up for examination at the London University. The examination was held on the 8th of January, 1872. Mr. Tribe did not go up, and could not have done so, as he had not given the prescribed 14 days' notice; so really cancelled his leave, and should have joined his regiment at the expiration of his first leave. He could not be ignorant of having to give notice, as he had previously been up for three similar examinations—that is, similar to that held on the 8th of January. I ascertained these facts from personal interviews with the authorities of the University. I saw one of Mr. Tribe's applications for one of these previous examinations, which he went up for. The examinations were for matriculation. Comment upon this letter is needless; I pass on to other matters. It is true that he was reported as unfit for a cavalry officer, being unable to ride, having thrown himself off his horse on more than one occasion in the regimental riding-school, as he had previously done when at Sandhurst. It is also true that he was placed under arrest by his commanding officer, and that charges of falsehood were brought against him. But it is not true that the Court reported. A Court of Inquiry—I have here Simmons on Courts-Martial, but I shall not trouble the House by quoting from it—may either report their opinion or not, according as desired to do so by the supreme authority convening the Court. In this case, it is said that the Court, which was presided over by Major General Lysons, intended to report, but that a telegram came down from the War Office forbidding them to do so. They accordingly only transmitted the proceedings to the authorities. The inquiry, I should mention, was so far open that counsel were allowed, the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) acting as counsel for the 9th Lancers; and reporters were also present, on the understanding that the reports of the proceedings were not to be published until these were completed. Subsequently, after the military authorities had considered the proceedings, a Memorandum from the War Office was read to the officers of the 9th, assembled for the purpose, by Sir Thomas M'Mahon, the general in command of the cavalry at Aldershot. The Memorandum began as follows:— If Mr. Tribe elects to remain in the Army, he must remain in the 9th Lancers; although his conduct"—I call the attention of hon. Members particularly to this—"in some respects has not been such as has hitherto been characteristic of the British officer; and it ended by saying that if he remained in the 9th Lancers, he must be treated with courtesy. The Memorandum made no reference to the counter-charges brought by Mr. Tribe against the officers; it neither censured nor even mentioned the commanding officer; and it may be said, so far as is known, practically to admit that the charges preferred against Mr. Tribe had not been, to say the least, disproved. What followed was, that the officers declining to associate with Mr. Tribe, except when on regimental duty, his counsel and guardian, Dr. Tomkins, complained to the authorities; and the Adjutant General came down to Aldershot in uniform, summoned the officers of the 9th Lancers together, and said the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief must insist on their receiving Mr. Tribe socially into the regiment, and he ended by saying—"All I ask is a very simple matter; only write me a private letter containing these three little words—say you will 'Try your best.'" What the reply of these officers has been to this request, I do not know. I have not seen it, but I know what it must have been. I know what English gentlemen, what every hon. Member of this House would have written. They must have replied that, while ready to meet and communicate with Mr. Tribe on all regimental matters, as in duty bound, they must decline to associate socially with him until he was relieved of the charges of falsehood that had been made against him. Subsequently, Mr. Tribe has been placed more than once under arrest for absenting himself from stables without leave, and the last information I have is a telegram I received on Thursday evening, which says—"He is under arrest, and charges are preferred against him for falsehood and bribery." So much for the facts of the case. I come now to the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), and to the answer given by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member asked whether the Secretary of State would have any objection to state to the House the nature of the charges brought by Major Marshall, of the 9th Lancers, against an officer who was the first to receive a commission without purchase; and what was the nature of the decision? Now, the Secretary of State began by apologizing for answering the Question at all, saying that he did so because the hon. Member for Hackney had said he asked it in support of the authorities; but I submit that this is an insufficient reason. I deny the right of the Secretary of State to answer a question on a matter of military discipline at one time because it suits him, and at another time to refuse, when it is convenient for him not to answer. But the point which I wish to bring strongly before the House is that the Secretary of State—unintentionally, I doubt not—answered the Question in a way to endorse the current misrepresentations on the matter at issue. Thus, after saying—"That the nature of the charge was that Sub-Lieutenant Tribe had been guilty of conduct unworthy of his position as an officer," he told the House that—"A Court of Inquiry had examined into the circumstances, and reported the proceedings to His Royal Highness, who has decided that Sub-Lieutenant Tribe shall return to his duty, and that the commanding officer shall be responsible that he is in every respect treated by his brother officers in a becoming manner." "It is not," he added, "quite accurate to say that Sub-Lieu-tenant Tribe was the first to receive a commission without purchase; he was one of the first." Now here we have an answer which necessarily conveyed a wrong impression, and endorsed the misrepresentations to which I have referred, Why, instead of saying—"It is not quite accurate to say that Sub-Lieutenant Tribe was the first to receive a commission without purchase"—that being the whole point in this case—he ought to have repudiated alike the fact and inference as to his being what is called a "Cardwell man." The fact is, the Secretary of State has said too much or too little; and what he has said necessitates, in justice to all concerned, the production of the official Papers bearing upon this case. Justice to himself, to the officers, and to Mr. Tribe alike requires it. Those who have thus far favoured me with their attention will have observed that I have in the main as yet confined myself to a simple historical narrative. I would now point to certain considerations which naturally and necessarily arise from the very peculiar circumstances of this case, and which must, I think, have occurred to everyone who has given it a moment's thought. These considerations are—1st, What is the position and duty of a commanding officer in relation to the officers and the regiment under his authority and command? 2ndly, What is the position and duty of the officers of a regiment in their social relations to each other? Heretofore, the belief has existed that a commanding officer is responsible for the efficiency and character of his regiment; that if he believes and knows an officer to be inefficient, it is his duty to report him as such; and that, being responsible for the honour and character of his regiment, it is equally his duty to take notice of any act or conduct on the part of any one of the officers which, in his opinion, is hurtful to its honour and character. These two positions will not, I presume, be disputed by the Secretary of State or by any other military authority. Let us, then, take our stand upon them, and from this vantage-ground look at and judge, first, of the conduct of Major Marshall, the position in which he finds himself placed, and the precedent thus established for the future guidance of commanding officers. Major Marshall, believing that a necessary qualification for a cavalry officer is ability to ride, and finding that one of his officers throws himself off his horse in the riding-school, and that when at Sandhurst he had acted in like manner, comes to the conclusion that he is unfit for the cavalry. Upon investigation, the facts of Sub-Lieutenant Tribe having thrown himself off his horse in the regimental riding-school and at Sandhurst, and his unsuitableness for the cavalry, are not disproved; but it is decided by authority that, in the words of the Memorandum of the Adjutant General—"if Mr. Tribe elects to remain in the Army, he must remain in the 9th Lancers." Again, Major Marshall, responsible as commanding officer, for the time being, for the honour and character of his regiment, feels it his duty to place Sub-Lieutenant Tribe under arrest, and charge him with falsehood. This charge is fully investigated, and after a review of the proceedings of the Court, authority in the same Memorandum, so far from exonerating Mr. Tribe from the charge of falsehood, makes no reference to it, but decides that "his conduct was not in some respects such as has hitherto been characteristic of the British officer," and that, this notwithstanding, "he is to remain in the regiment, should he so elect." Now, I have no wish or intention to question the decision of authority in this case. Authority, no doubt, had reasons for its decision, of which outsiders have no knowledge. I only wish to point out that, while to all appearance the grounds upon which the commanding officer based his course of action remain unchallenged, and are even admitted to be sound, the opinion of the commanding officer, as to what is necessary for the fitness of an officer and the honour of his regiment, has been overridden; and on the face of these proceedings, so far as known, the precedent is established that "riding"—I do not speak of horsemanship—is not a necessary qualification for a cavalry officer; while an unrefuted, undisposed-of charge of falsehood is no longer a bar to the holding of Her Majesty's commission. Sir, it has been said by The Daily Telegraph that Mr. Tribe is one of what are called "Cardwell's men"—that he is the first officer appointed under the new system. I have, I think, already disposed of this part of the case, and shown that there is no foundation for such statements, Sub-Lieutenant Tribe having been, in all essential respects, in the same position as a purchase officer; but assuming, for the sake of argument, these statements to be true—assuming him to be "a Cardwell man," and the first appointment under the new system, what a prospect does this hold out to us, if, with the new system, we are to have a new standard—if the old association of "an officer and a gentleman"—I do not mean a gentleman by birth, but by character and conduct—is to be dissolved, and men are to be allowed to remain in the Army, "although their conduct is not, in some respects, such as has hitherto been characteristic of the British officer!" I think the Secretary of State has good grounds to pray to be saved from his friends, if Mr. Tribe is to be considered and kept in the Army as the first-fruit of Army regeneration. Secondly, I come to consider what is the position and duty of the officers of a regiment in their social relations with each other. In the endless discussions which we had last year upon Army matters, one thing at least was not denied—namely, the excellence of what was and is called our regimental system. In any failures or shortcomings, it was not our regimental organization that ever failed us. This, at least, we could safely rely upon when all else had collapsed or broken down. The regimental system then it was by universal consent determined to uphold as far as possible in the coming changes in the Army. Now, it is perhaps difficult to define precisely what was and is meant by "the regimental system;" but I think I shall not be far wrong if I say that a part, a vital part—nay, the soul and very essence of it—consists in the free, friendly, social intercourse in each regiment of the officers with each other, and in the knowledge and belief that whatever might be their relative social standing in the world, whether born of high or comparatively low degree, whether rich or poor, whether purchase or non-purchase men, or risen from the ranks, once they held the Queen's commission, they were, one and all, officers and gentlemen; meeting in their common mess-room, like the Knights of the Round Table, socially on terms, of the most complete equality, the honour of all being the care of each, and the honour of each the care of all. To the spirit of camaraderie, to the brotherly, knightly feelings thus engendered and fostered, we owe that self and mutual reliance which, plus the in-born native courage of the race, has enabled British officers to stand and die shoulder to shoulder, as they have stood and died together, in mutual trust, on many a bloody field, in the orchards of Hougoumont, on the slope of Inkerman, in the breach at Delhi. Surely, then, it would be well to foster and guard this spirit, and to encourage the feeling in the officers of our Army of confident camaraderie and mutual trust. We hear now-a-days much about Prussianizing our Army. Do not, at least, let us de-Prussianize it in this respect; for upon this feeling Prussia sets such store that before an officer can be received into a Prussian regiment he must be accepted by the officers, who have a right to exercise a veto by ballot upon his appointment as complete as that exercised by the members of our military clubs in Pall Mall on the admission or rejection of members. And if it be well to foster and guard this feeling of camaraderie, it cannot be well to interfere with the social relations of the officers to one another—it cannot be well to strike at its roots by an attempt to force into the social circle of a regiment an officer unexonerated from the charge of falsehood, whose conduct "was not, in some respects, such as has hitherto been characteristic of the British officer." And if the officers of a regiment should at any time respectfully resist such an attempt—if they should decline to "try their best" to be on social and friendly terms with a brother officer charged with and un-acquitted of falsehood, their position is impregnable. They cannot fail to be supported by all honourable men and by public opinion. It may, perhaps, be said that the evidence taken before the Court of Inquiry was not sufficient to justify a Court-martial; but to this I would reply, that when the Army Regulation Bill was last year under discussion, we heard much from the Secretary of State of the good that would result from the appointment of sub-lieutenants, who would serve in a probationary stage of existence, and who, the Royal Warrant of November 1, 1871, says "shall be removed from our service for moral or physical unfitness;" and I submit that, under this Warrant, Mr. Tribe might have been dismissed without any further proceedings being required. And now, Sir, I have finished what I had to say upon this strange, eventful story; but, before I sit down, I would offer, if hon. Members will kindly bear with me a little longer, a few remarks as to the position of the House of Commons and the military authorities in relation to questions, such as this, affecting the discipline of the Army. At the outset of my remarks, I said that my hon. and gallant Relative deprecated, as I did, the necessity of bringing such matters before the House, but that in doing so he was only following the lead of the Secretary of State, whose uncalled-for, incomplete reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney necessitated the moving for the Papers necessary to enable the public to form a sound judgment upon the question thus raised by the Press and in the House of Commons. But, although the doctrine that Parliament is not a fitting place for the discussion or questioning of matters of military discipline is undoubtedly sound, there have been, and there will be, special occasions when this salutary rule has been, and ought to be, departed from, and this has been admitted by the highest constitutional authorities. I find in Clode's well-known book that Earl Russell, speaking many years ago on a question relating to a court-martial, said— There can be no doubt that under that kind of superintendence and supervision which this House ought to exercise, there might arise cases which would require such a proceeding as I have hinted at. And again, Lord Brougham on another occasion said— I have always been one of those who were of opinion that, as a general rule, no interference with the proceedings of any naval or military court-martial, or with any part of the discipline of the Army and Navy, ought ever to be dreamt of; but still there were some exceptions to that rule. And I would myself add that unless the Press, Members of the House of Commons, and the Secretary of State act very differently from what they have done in this instance, those exceptions spoken of by Lord Brougham will inevitably become of more frequent occurrence than heretofore. The times are also changed. So long as not only theoretically, but to a certain extent practically, the Crown exercised an independent authority over the Army and the Militia through the General Commanding-in-Chief and the Lord Lieutenant, there were sound constitutional grounds for matters connected with military discipline, as distinct from military expenditure, not being brought before the House of Commons; and so long as questions of first appointment and promotion were in the main independent of the principle of selection, and regulated themselves by the received and recognized custom of the Army, the chances of interference in such matters by Parliament were comparatively few. But now the theory of the Army being what is called a Royal Army, governed and controlled by an authority outside and independent of Parliament, has been practically exploded by the subjugation, capture, and confinement of the Commander-in-Chief within the walls of the War Office, while the Horse Guards are now a mere shell, and only represent the tomb of his separate authority, with two cuirassed mutes sitting on black horses at the door. Further, by the abolition of the military authority of the Lords Lieutenant, we have practically all power and patronage now centred in the dictatorship of the Secretary of State. I say "practically," for the theory of the independent authority of the Sovereign, acting through the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State, still exists, though in a fossil state; the independent Prerogative of the Crown in matters military being only brought into play, when it is necessary on an Army question, rudely to override the decision and the will of Parliament, as was done last year on the Army Regulation Bill, as has been done this year in the super-session of the Line officers. It becomes, then, only natural, and even necessary, that men should, under the new system, watch jealously all that relates to the patronage and discipline of the Army, and that, when a legitimate occasion arises, this watchfulness should make itself known and felt within the walls of Parliament. And all the more so, when we see the great influence of the Press, and how that influence has—as I have, I think, shown—been wrongfully brought to bear upon the subject of my Motion. Such, then, being now the true practical position of Army matters, you may rest assured that, whatever may be said as to the inexpediency of such matters being brought before Parliament, there will be occasions when justice to individuals, to regiments, or even to the Army at large, will require that some Member of Parliament should, if needs be, make an appeal in this House from the injustice of officialism to the Cæsar of Parliament and free public opinion. In doing this for my hon. and gallant Relative on the present occasion—would to God he had been here to do it himself!—I trust I have been temperate in speech, that I have spoken in a becoming tone, and that what I have said may tend to vindicate the character, unjustly aspersed, of one of the most distinguished regiments in the service. In conclusion, let me add that the character of a regiment does not belong to itself alone, nor yet even to the Army alone; but that it is the property of the nation, and that as such it asks, it claims, it has a right to expect, safe keeping and protection from the House of Commons.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that with reference to the declaration of the noble Lord, that he had only brought the subject forward again on behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley, he thought that, under the present circumstances of the case, it ought not to have been brought forward at all. He would confine himself to stating their bearing upon the Motion. In answer to the complaint of the noble Lord that he had not been able to bring the matter forward earlier, he (Mr. Cardwell) could produce a list of dates in which the Notice stood on the Paper, but was passed over while other matters which followed it were discussed, thus showing that the noble Lord had not availed himself of earlier opportunities. It was no concern of his whether there was or was not an article on this case in The Daily Telegraph; it was no part of his duty to answer in the House what appeared in any newspaper. It was his duty to answer Questions courteously, sufficiently, and briefly, and in the answer he had given on this case, he had not offended against the usages of Parliament. The noble Lord did not complain of the Commander-in-Chief nor of the Adjutant General, yet he had discussed the questions whether the first was right in his finding, and the second in his advice. He (Mr. Cardwell) would not discuss either question; he assumed both were right, and as a matter of discipline the case never came under his cognizance at all until it was disposed of. When the matter became a Parliamentary question he acquainted himself with all the circumstances, and the result was to confirm his assumption that everything had been correctly done; that there was no reason for removing Mr. Tribe on the ground of his riding or his truthfulness; and that the conclusion had been arrived at upon proper evidence. Among the hundreds of answers he had to give it would not be astonishing if he had given an indiscreet one; but he still adhered to the answer he had given in this case, as to which he had consulted the Commander-in-Chief, and which simply stated the fact that there had been an inquiry, and what had been the result of it—information which it would be going too far to refuse when it was asked for in the House. It would have been indiscreet to have gone into the grounds of that decision; but in the whole course of his life he hoped he had not fallen into as many indiscretions as the noble Lord had committed that morning. Stating that he did not intend to interfere with questions of military discipline, he had brought a case under review at a time when a Court of Inquiry was duly appointed to examine all the circumstances, and when a young officer had been put under arrest and was about to be brought to trial. This was indiscretion of the most serious kind. As the noble Lord had quoted Mr. Clode's book, he would read there from a statement of the law, which was that such documents as were now moved for were confidential papers, and he hoped the House would support him in maintaining that it was undesirable to bring such a case forward in the House, and that the documents which were moved for could not possibly be produced.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that in answering the Question put to the Secretary for War on a former occasion that right hon. Gentleman had left the impression that he blamed one side and left free from blame the other, and it was under these circumstances that the Papers were asked for. He had hoped to hear it said that the officers of the regiment were not to blame; and the House might be sure that no officer would be "set upon" by his brother officers if he himself behaved properly.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he could confirm the impression of his hon. and gallant Friend as to the idea conveyed by the answer of the Secretary for War, and that idea was that there was blame attached to the officers of the regiment. He trusted that no body of English officers would ever consent to associate with anybody who was charged with un-truth, and had not answered that charge, even although they were compelled to meet such a person in the course of their duty.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

felt bound to make a strong complaint that a question of this kind should have been brought forward at such a period of the Session, because long before then the Estimates should have been far more advanced than they were. Such was the state of things, however, that they were now, on the 3rd of August, asked to vote upwards of £6,000,000 of money. Such a matter as voting so large a sum of money should have been fully discussed, instead of their being asked to hurry through Supply, and to huddle up the matter at this period of the Session as fast as they could. That had resulted from the forcing down the throat of Parliament a Ballot Bill which was really objectionable to the majority of Members in both Houses. He did not think that they had any satisfactory reply in reference to the case of Lieutenant Tribe. He agreed that, as a rule, questions of this kind should not be brought before the House; and he would not discuss whether this case should or not be an exception to the general rule. He would press, however, upon the Secretary for War that at the present period of change questions of this kind should be avoided as far as possible; and he would say no more of the case of Lieutenant Tribe than to say that it was an unpleasant one, and such as it was most desirable at this particular period, when they were re-modelling the constitution of the Army, should not arise, because such cases would tend to shaker public confidence in the propriety of the changes which were now being brought about.

SIR HENRY STORKS

held that it was not fair to the service nor Lieutenant Tribe himself to indulge in the observations made by the noble Lord opposite. As regarded the answer given by his right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Hackney on a former occasion, it was not given without due consideration or consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, who fully concurred in every word of it. Lieutenant Tribe came in under the old system, and not under the new, and certainly he was not one of the so-called "Cardwell's men."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he fully concurred in the observations made with respect to the Government delaying Supply to so late a period of the Session, and regretted the stifling of discussion upon the position of the writers in Government offices. He denied that the work done by these gentlemen was merely mechanical.

MR. AYRTON

explained that the persons referred to were mere copying clerks, who had been engaged for the special temporary purposes, and not the regular officials of the Department.