MUTINY BILL. (Hansard, 16 April 1877)

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, in line 7, after "passed," to insert the words— Provided, That no Militia officer shall be eligible to command any portion of the Regular Forces, unless such officer belongs to a regiment or corps which is at the time embodied for service or assembled for training.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, as he did not wish to put any slight on the Militia officers, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General, because it provided for a contingency which was not likely to happen, and which could not happen without the cognizance of the military authorities. He could assure the hon. and gallant General that the military authorities would take care that the Regular Troops should always be commanded by officers I of the Army. He should not like, there' fore, to insert a provision which might be thought to cast a slight on Militia officers.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,
thought that the feelings of the Regular Forces as well as of the Militia should be considered.

§ COLONEL MURE
objected to the Amendment, and hoped that the Secretary of State for War would not give way.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR,
in moving, as an Amendment, in page 63, line 23, to leave out "may," and insert "shall thereupon," said, he did it in order that the clause should have the effect of rendering more effective the provisions in reference to soldiers' liability for the maintenance of their families. In past years this Bill did not excite sufficient attention, and the result was that a clause crept into it, exempting soldiers from liability to the support of their wives and children. That was the case for many years, and, although some alterations had been made, they were so qualified that they did not effect any real improvement. Under existing regulations a magistrate's order upon a soldier to contribute to the support of his family might be overruled by the War Office, and if summonses were granted at the instance of soldiers' wives against their husbands who were stationed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court from which the summonses issued, service of such processes would be invalid unless the soldier summoned was provided with sufficient money by his wife to enable him to appear at the Court, and, after 1219 the hearing, to return to his quarters. This, he contended, would in many cases deprive starving wives of any remedy against their defaulting husbands. By a Return laid on the Table of the House, he found that during the last year there were 629 wives of soldiers and 1,241 children receiving relief from the poor rate, which, he contended, was a great injury to the ratepayers. The law also as it stood prohibited a soldier, if he married without leave, from giving any support to his wife and children. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
opposed the Amendment on the ground that the soldier had no legal redress for his pay against the Secretary of State for War, and where the primary claim of the soldier could not be enforced, à fortiori, a secondary claim could not. If the Amendment were carried, it would come into conflict with the 177th Article of War, which empowered the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, to withhold a portion of the soldier's pay. For seven years past, under the provisions of that Article, there had been a perfect administration of the soldier's money, and a soldier's wife who was of good character was not put to any cost in enforcing her claim. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, inasmuch as this subject had been already fully discussed. The practice at present was that when a wife or when Guardians of the poor applied to the War Office, the question was referred to the commanding officer of the soldier. If the soldier did not object, the stoppage was made at once; but if he did object, the character of the wife was inquired into, and if the inquiries were satisfactory the stoppage from the pay was immediately enforced. In cases where a soldier married without leave, no step whatever was taken in this matter.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
moved the insertion of the following Clause:— (Return showing the number of soldiers actually maintained to be laid before Parliament.) And in order that Parliament may be in.. formed as to whether the numbers maintained during the year have been below or above the total numbers provided for in the Preamble Be it further Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall annually present to Parliament, as early as the same can be done, a certified statement of the effectives of the several arms on the first day of each month of the previous year, showing the numbers of the respective arms in the United Kingdom, in depots, in Her Majesty's Possessions, and in India, and totals thereof, with a separate column to show the numbers in excess or below the numbers in the Preamble.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the Returns were given already in the Estimates, and also in the Report of the Inspector of Recruiting, and the adoption of the clause would involve an unnecessary multiplication of Returns. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was impossible to obtain in this country information in a shape corresponding to that in which similar information was regularly published in France.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, 1221 line 12, after "numbers," to leave out "serving," and insert "according to the establishment fixed for," his object being to revert to the terms of the Mutiny Act in the time of the East India Company, so far as to limit the number of men at any time in England belonging to the Indian Establishment. If it was necessary to make up the depôts in India the men, instead of being taken from those serving in India, should be drawn from the depôts at home.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, the proposed Amendment was useless, and would not improve the Preamble in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman. The numbers in the depôts in India were known, and if the Amendment were adopted they could not be very accurately computed.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that the words "belonging to regiments in India" had always been used in Mutiny Acts, and he believed it was only in 1863 that the phraseology had been altered. He thought that the words he proposed were more in accordance with the good government of the troops.

§ MR. F. STANLEY
said, that all the depôts were now merged, which necessitated an alteration. The Preamble as it stood was in conformity with the mode of payment which was adopted as between this country and India.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that, having brought the subject forward, and being opposed by the Government, it was useless his forcing the House to a division. He would therefore reluctantly withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
gave Notice he would propose that the Bill be considered as the first Order on Thursday, and that it receive its final reading then, in order that it might go up to the House of Lords without further delay.