§ Supply—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £27,500, Administration of Military Law.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the state of our Military Law at this moment was a disgrace in a great degree to the administration of justice, and to the many Governments which 624 had allowed it to remain in its present position, and was almost a discredit to our Representative institutions. As far back as 20 years ago, Mr. Denison, who was then in the Judge Advocate General's department, called the attention of the Under Secretary of State, the present Marquess of Ripon, to the subject, and suggested that he should be authorized to prepare a code. The Under Secretary brought the matter before Mr. Sidney Herbert, who was then Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Sidney Herbert wrote a Minute, dated July, 1859, in which he said he could not undertake to say that it would be possible to legislate on the subject next Session, but it must be done at an opportune time. Nothing was done at that time; but 10 years afterwards, in 1868, the Government of Lord Derby took the matter in hand, and issued a Royal Commission to inquire in what respects the administration of Military Law might be amended, particularly with reference to the constitution and practice of courts martial. That Royal Commission was one of great weight; it consisted of 11 Members, among whom were Colonel Wilson-Patten, now Lord Winmarleigh, Lord Eversley, Lord Hartington, two Gentlemen who had been Judge Advocates General, the Recorder, Mr. Vivian, and four general officers—General Peel, Sir Alfred Horsford, the late Lieutenant General Scarlett, and General Eyre, and it reported in 1869. Some of the recommendations of that Commission with respect to the punishment for drunkenness and other matters were adopted, not by statute, but by regulation; but, up to the present time, their material recommendations had remained a dead letter. The Commissioners, in their Report, said that the Military Law was in the most complicated state, and they quoted the evidence of Mr. Headlam, who had been Judge Advocate General, that the Mutiny Act was confused, and contained provisions, many of which were obsolete and many unnecessary. They also quoted the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray), who had been twice Judge Advocate General, to the effect that the law was confused, uncertain, and conflicting; that it was perplexing to lawyers, and must be perplexing to military men. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief also bore testimony to the evil 625 arising from the frequent assembling of courts martial, and stated that, in his view, the law ought to be much more clear and more simple. Accordingly, the Commission reported that the simplification of Military Law ought to receive the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. From that time to the present no change had been made, and the recommendations of the Commissioners had fallen entirely to the ground. When he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) held the office of Judge Advocate General, under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), he drew the attention of the Government to this matter, and felt it to be his duty to prepare certain Bills to amend the law; but the great subjects of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Land Question, and Abolition of Purchase in the Army, which the Government then had in hand, prevented them dealing with the question of military reform. Since the present Government came into office, although unwilling to press them to take up the question before they had got thoroughly settled into their position, yet he had questioned them every Session whether they intended to deal with the subject. This Session the Judge Advocate General stated that he was most anxious, and intended to do so next Session. Now, he was most anxious to ascertain what were the views of the Government with regard to Military Law. What did they propose to do next Session? He thought the proper course would be this — At present it was necessary to pass the Mutiny Act in April. He would introduce only a temporary Mutiny Act for next year, and at the same time bring in a Bill relating to Military Law, which should be referred to a Select Committee. On what principle should the new military code be framed? Should the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War be retained, or should there be a permanent code regulating the discipline of the Army? He was entirely opposed to a permanent code. He thought the old system of the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be retained; but there were many points to be considered, and he would suggest that the Mutiny Act should define clearly who were the persons to be subjected to its discipline, what were the nature of the crimes to be subjected to punishment, and lastly, the 626 manner in which that punishment should be administered. The Mutiny Act and the Articles of War contained a great deal that might be put in the Queen's Regulations, or in an Army Service Act, to be renewed every five years. The Mutiny Act, however, should be an annual Act. It was 180 years since the Mutiny Act was first introduced, and it had always remained an annual Act. It represented, as it were, the popular feeling in the House of Commons more than any other Act, and in that respect there was an advantage in its being an annual Act. The Mutiny Act should deal with the Army in time of peace; and, in time of war, the Queen should be authorized to issue a new code to deal with armies in the field. With reference to courts martial, the present system certainly worked well, considering the great objections which had been raised to parts of it. It generally did justice between the parties; at the same time, there was great complication in it, and the Royal Commission had reported in favour of its amendment. He was rather in favour of retaining the three kinds of courts martial—general, district, and regimental. The question, however, was a very serious one, as it appeared from a Return laid on the Table on Saturday that the number of courts martial held in the last three years amounted to no fewer than 40,273. One question which arose was as to the president of courts martial. He thought military Judge Advocates should be the permanent presidents. There were now only three district Judge Advocates, and he thought that number ought to be increased. Then, as regarded the taking of evidence, instead of having the questions put in writing, he would have viva voce examinations, and question and answer taken down by shorthand writers. The expense need not be great, as shorthand could be taught in the schools of each garrison. He would also retain, and, in some respects, enlarge the scope and powers of Courts of Inquiry. With respect to the power of re-assembling a court martial, it ought to be allowed in case a mistake had been committed, but never with a view to increase a sentence already pronounced—a thing which was repugnant to British law. The subject of the abolition of the office of Judge Advocate General had more than once been debated; but, speaking from ex- 627 perience, he was wholly opposed to such a step. The appointment to the office ought not to be permanent; but it ought to be represented by a Member of the Government in that House, and be held by a civilian, and not by a military man. One other question had been raised— namely, whether the Judge Advocate should have power to quash the finding of a court martial. For his part, he did not doubt that such power should exist. It was not the Judge Advocate who quashed the finding; it was Her Majesty, for he acted in Her Majesty's name. He did not wish to prevent his right hon. Friend taking Supply; but he thought the question was deserving of notice, and hoped that the matter might be taken in hand by the Government next Session, and be fully inquired into by a Select Committee.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONjoined in the hope expressed by the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare, that the Government would next Session appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and thus let the Army know that both they and the House of Commons took an interest in what so nearly concerned them. He also trusted that a Bill on the subject would be brought forward next Session.
§ MR. WHALLEYwished that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject, as he was of opinion that a standing Army was a mistake and a nuisance. What was required was a return to the old Militia system. They should do everything in their power to prevent the people from thinking that if a man entered the Army he abandoned all the rights and privileges of an Englishman. If they wished to make the Army really popular, that was the only way to do so.
§ MR. HAYTERsaid, he had always been surprised, and regretted the fact, that some of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners had been treated with neglect by successive Governments. Their recommendation in regard to fines being instituted for drunkenness had, indeed, been adopted; and extremely good results to the Army at large had followed, for the number of trials for drunkenness had decreased from 3,900 in 1869 to 2,500 in 1875. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven to direct his attention particularly to two other re- 628 commendations made by the Commissioners, with a view to their adoption. One was to the effect that cases of embezzlement should be tried by the ordinary criminal Courts, and the other was that the power of commanding officers, so far as regarded imprisonment, should be enlarged from seven to 21 days. Many of the trivial offences for which men were now tried by regimental courts martial might then be disposed of by the commanding officers. The hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, pointed out a difference between Clause 10 of the Mutiny Act and one of the Articles of War, and expressed a hope that this discrepancy would be removed.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the House ought to be thankful to the right hon. and learned Member for Clare for having brought that important question before it, and he trusted that the Government would take some action in the matter. He agreed that the Articles of War were in a confused and complicated state. He was glad the right hon. and learned Baronet agreed that courts martial as a rule possessed the confidence of the Army. Seeing how well they were spoken of, he should only be too glad to see their procedure in some points improved. They ought not to be re-assembled for the purpose of increasing sentences; and with regard to the suggested extension of the powers of the commanding officers, he could see no reason why, in simple cases, their power should not be increased up to 21 days' imprisonment, especially as there would still be an appeal to a court martial. It was absurd that hon. Members should have the power of revising the Mutiny Act every year in that House, while the Articles of War were entirely withdrawn from their consideration. He would suggest that both should be subject to the discussion of the House.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANthought so serious a task as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare had undertaken ought not to be commenced at so late a period of the Session. Animadversions had been made on the circumstance that so many years had elapsed since the Report of the Royal Commission, and it was further said that the late Government had neglected their recommendations. But at that time his right hon. and learned Friend was himself in office, and be- 629 stowed considerable pains on the subject. His right hon. and learned Friend was succeeded by Mr. Davidson, one of the best lawyers who had of late years had a seat in that House, and who was engaged in the amendment of the Mutiny Act at the very moment of his death, the papers being in his hand when he was found dead in his bed. Indeed, the late Government had advanced so far in the preparation of a Military Code, that Mr. Ayrton was prepared to lay a Bill upon the subject on the Table upon the first day of the Session of 1874, but circumstances prevented that being done. There had been no culpable or wilful neglect in the matter; but the question was one of such great difficulty, delicacy, and importance, that it was easy to say that it ought to be dealt with, but not so easy to do it. He thought it would be better that the Government should not take the course which had been suggested to them this Session—namely, that of appointing a Committee of that House to investigate the subject, and lay down the principles on which they ought to go; but that the Government themselves, during the Recess, acting on the advice of those best qualified to assist them, should arrange, either by a Bill, or in some other form, the principles on which they thought legislation should proceed, and then that their proposal should be introduced at the beginning of next Session, and, if necessary, referred to a Select Committee. The question being of great delicacy in a constitutional point of view—both as affecting the rights of the people on the one side, and the Prerogative of the Crown on the other—was precisely one of those subjects which it was least desirable to throw on the Table of a Select Committee, and invite them to suggest what ought to be done. It ought to be dealt with by the responsible Government of the day. But in any case, he hoped that action would be taken in the matter. The Mutiny Act, the Articles of War, and the Queen's Regulations were so contradictory and conflicting that it was really necessary to do something to make them more intelligible, as well as to introduce many of the changes which had been alluded to in that discussion.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANhoped, that in the event of any changes being made, the Mutiny Act would continue to be an annual Act, otherwise they would lose what was the chief guarantee for the 630 liberties of the people next to the right of voting the Supplies. He approved the suggestion that some change should be made in the procedure of courts martial, strongly condemning the cumbrous and unnecessary formalities observed in those tribunals, and particularly the absurd routine of taking down the whole of the evidence in writing. It involved a great waste of time and trouble, and was totally opposed to the practice in civil cases.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had much pleasure in acknowledging the great knowledge which the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare had brought to bear upon the subject under consideration. He would admit that the time had come when that matter must undergo some re-consideration. He could not, however, think that the mode suggested by the right hon. and learned Baronet would be the most convenient, because under it there might be a mishap, and the Mutiny Act might expire. The Mutiny Act should, he thought, be passed at the beginning of the next Session, and should continue up to the end of the following Session. In that way, they would have clear time to go into the question. He thought it would also be of great advantage to place before any Committee which should be appointed the principles on which it was proposed to act, or even a detailed Bill. That was what he had in his own mind, and what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was preparing to do. That subject had not been lost sight of by the present Government. The War Office was never without work; it had always some very great questions before it which took up much time; and they had also had in that House abundant occupation for hon. Members without going into that matter in a separate Committee. But the time had come when it might fairly be discussed. Therefore, at the beginning of next Session, they could continue the Mutiny Act in the ordinary way till the end of the then next Session; and, in the meantime, a Committee might sit on the recommendations to be submitted by the Government, and go fully and carefully into the question. The right hon. and learned Baronet appeared to have studied the subject well. He had made a very clear statement; and if they had his assistance on the Com- 631 mittee he had no doubt they would arrive at some conclusion.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthanked the Secretary of State for War for his statement as to an inquiry into our military law, and urged on him the importance of having their military law, and also the mode of putting it into execution, clearly declared. He also thought that the unnecessary, and, indeed, in many respects, dangerous repetition, and in some instances the erroneous repetition of military obligations in the Articles of War, of the law military as stated in the Mutiny Act, deserved the most serious attention; and he ventured to express a hope that even in the present Session a Select Committee might be appointed.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENalso thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the proposal which he had made which entirely met the object which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had in view. He believed that if the Committee sat in the next Session they would be able to effect a great amendment of the present law.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £243,300, Medical Establishments and Services.
§ GENERAL SIR GEOERE BALFOURexpressed a hope that in future a statement would be given as to the number of medical officers in India, as compared with the number in this country and the colonies. The changes of late years in the War Office Estimates in showing the numbers and grades of medical officers had completely vitiated the comparison of the numbers and grades now employed with those of a few years previously. At present the medical officers employed in India were entirely omitted from the Estimates.
DR. CAMERONcomplained that there were not enough medical men in the Army, and thought that something more should be done to attract candidates. If an Army Corps was required to leave the country with its complement of medical officers, only about 50 medical officers would be left in the country.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Medical Director General believed the country was never better provided with a medical Staff than at present, and he was certain that that gentleman would not have made such a statement 632 without his having good grounds for doing so.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £534,000, Militia Pay and Allowances.
§ MR. HAYTERrose to call attention to the small number of Officers, now serving in the Militia, who had received certificates of efficiency, and the difference between the numbers enrolled in certain regiments and their Establishment. The aggregate numbers of all ranks on the Establishment for the United Kingdom was 134,500, of which number only 100,611 were present at inspection. There were wanting to complete the number on the Establishment, 19,002; while the number absent without leave was 11,392, which would leave the Force 30,394 short of its proper strength. From the remainder must also be deducted 30,000 for the Militia Reserve, who were liable to serve in any regiment and for any service, and this would reduce the Force to 73,000 men. Deducting a further number of 5,000 for sick servants, cooks, and batmen, the available Force would be reduced to 68,000. This was a state of things which no one could call satisfactory. Taking a few special instances, he found the 4th Lancashire, having an establishment of 1,200, was 578 deficient at the last training; the 5th Lancashire, with a similar establishment, was 558 deficient; the Nottingham and Rutland, with a strength of 1,400, was 563 deficient; the 2nd Surrey, with a force of 990, was 491 deficient; the Cornwall Rangers, with a force of 800, was 442 deficient; the 2nd Middlesex, with a force of 1,050, was 421 deficient; and the Aberdeen, with a force of 741, was 423 deficient; the seven regiments being short by 3,476, or, on the average, of nearly 500 each. The proportion of officers was largely in excess of that of the men, there being present at the inspection of the Cornwall Rangers, 20 officers to 323 men, or one officer to every 16 men; in the 4th Lancashire, 29 officers to 513 men, or one officer to 18 men; and in the Aberdeen, 21 officers to 301 men, or one officer to 15 men. It was, in his opinion, very unsatisfactory that such a large Staff of officers should be kept up, while it was found impossible to get their Militia regiments up to the Establishment. The right 633 hon. Gentleman had, he believed, taken some steps to improve the state of affairs by inducing men by an offer of increased bounty to re-enrol themselves; but one defect in this scheme was that no limit had been put to the number of times a man might be re-enrolled. He would like to know if, apart from what he had just mentioned, any steps had been taken to increase the Establishment of the Militia. He quite agreed with the suggestion, which he believed emanated from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, that the Militia should undergo their month's training in the ranks of the Line, and this, he felt sure, would have a very great effect on the efficiency of the men. He wished also to call attention to the fact that out of 2,552 officers of the Militia only 558, or 25 per cent, had received certificates of proficiency; while in the Volunteers, they had been obtained by 75 per cent of the officers. It was to be noticed, however, that in Militia regiments there was an inspection on each grade of promotion. The evidence of His Royal Highness the Commander - in - Chief showed that he laid great stress upon the superior utility of large schools of instruction as compared with schools at depôts, and he (Mr. Hayter) had no doubt that the Secretary of State for War would think it important that certificates should be obtained from them. But, as things were, it was plain that either the schools were of no use, or a larger proportion of officers ought to get certificates from them. He felt sure it would greatly benefit the Service if a higher number of officers were compelled to pass through the schools.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War to give the Committee some information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the numerical titles of Line regiments.
THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. and gallant Member was out of Order in discussing that point upon a Vote for the Militia.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he thought that, as the Report of the Militia Committee was on the Table, and it dealt with the amalgamation of the Militia with the Line, that he was in Order.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member could raise any ques- 634 tion as to the organization of the Militia, but not as to the Army on that particular Vote.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, in that case, he would be satisfied with making a few remarks, and he would simply ask the Secretary of State for War, if he would inform the Committee whether it was the intention of the Government to amalgamate the Militia with the Line in one regiment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Militia Committee. He asked that question, because the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary on a former occasion did not contain that information; and in any answer which he might now receive, he hoped it would not be attributed to him, as it was on a former occasion, that he was actuated by what was called a "trades union jealousy." His object was to benefit the Militia; and to show the earnestness of what he said, he would refer to a pamphlet which he wrote a few years ago, and in which he propounded an amalgamation scheme for the Militia and Line regiments. He wished also to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was intended to carry into effect any other recommendations of the Militia Committee, besides those relating to the amalgamation of Militia regiments with the regiments of the Army?
§ EARL PERCYtrusted that whatever steps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might think it necessary to take in regard to the examination of Militia officers and their entering schools, he would not press too hardly upon them, and that he would bear in mind that Militia officers already gave up one month continuously of their time in the course of a year, which was more than was demanded of the Volunteer officers. Without desiring in any way to undervalue the schools and the examination system, his experience convinced him that officers who had not passed the examinations were often as efficient for all practical purposes as those who had passed them. Certainly, the most serious point in reference to the Militia was the difficulty of obtaining recruits, and the increasing number of absentees. He found on comparing one regiment with another, that the numbers of these men were apt to fluctuate with the rate of wages, rising, for the most part, when 635 wages were high, and falling when they were low, although now and then a precisely contrary effect was observable. But there was no question, that throughout the country generally, the number of absentees had steadily increased, year by year, since 1871. Roughly speaking, he found that in 1871 there were 8,000 absent without leave; that in 1872 there were rather more than 8,000; that in 1873 the number was 11,000; that in 1874 it was 10,000; while in 1875 it rose to 10,925, and in 1876 to 11,364. It must be remembered, too, that in 1874 and in 1875 the Establishment amounted to 131,000, whilst in 1876 it was reduced to 125,000; so that while the Establishment had been reduced, the number of absentees had still increased. These figures showed not only that we had not the men we ought to have for active service, but that a large sum of money —from £8,000 to £10,000 a-year, and likely to increase — was lost to the country. He was aware that many proposals had been made for dealing with this difficulty; but he thought the best plan was, that as the circumstances and requirements of the different regiments varied so greatly as they did, some discretion should be left to the commanding officers, the more so as each was interested in seeing his regiment as full as possible. All Militiamen must regard with satisfaction most of the conclusions at which the Committee had arrived. Nothing had given him more pleasure than to find that the Committee had consistently condemned the changes which Lord Cardwell was trying to bring about, which tended to the swallowing up of the permanent Staff of the Militia in the depôts and to destroying the individuality of the Force; and had recommended that the Militia should have a Staff that would make it a really reliable Force. At the time, those who knew the Militia best, told Lord Cardwell those changes would not be successful. He was disappointed that while the Government adopted certain recommendations of the Committee which he should have desired to see rejected, they had rejected others which he should have liked to see adopted. He trusted they would receive some statement from the Government, as to how many of the Committee's recommendations it was proposed to adopt. He thought there was some reason to complain, too, that 636 some of the changes embraced in the last Circular of the War Office should have been adopted without opportunity having been given to the House for discussing them, and that the Report of the Committee was not sooner placed in the hands of Members. They had been told by the Financial Secretary that it was delayed because the gentleman who was employed indexing it had other important duties to perform, but another might have been employed for the purpose. Before it was issued, the Government had adopted almost the only change to which he would take exception, that which transferred part of the correspondence from the commanding officer to the adjutant. It seemed rather a strong proceeding to take out of the hands of the commanding officer any part of the business connected with his regiment. The command of recruits was also taken from him, and it was an unusual proceeding to deprive him of the command of any portion of a regiment. He hoped the recommendation as to undress clothing would not be adopted, unless care were taken that full dress was issued to the Militia when brigaded with other troops. The recommendation that recruits should be drilled for three months would not answer, seeing that it was difficult enough to get recruits at all; and this was one of the matters that might be left to the discretion of the commanding officer, who knew the requirements of his district.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERasked for information regarding the delay in issuing the Warrant which it was understood gave a promise of 30s. to Militiamen on re-enrolment. Its non-appearance was causing great dissatisfaction in several regiments.
§ MR. STANLEYsaid, that with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter), who had called attention to the small number of officers serving in the Militia who had received certificates of efficiency, it had to be borne in mind that there was an essential difference in the way in which the training of the two Forces—the Militia and the Volunteers—was conducted. It must also be remembered that, although out of 3,700 Militia officers, only 748 had received certificates, that by no means represented the absolute standard of efficiency in that branch of the Profession. There was no doubt 637 that many of the officers who had not received certificates of efficiency—either from the difficulty of finding the necessary time through their avocations, or from other causes—were not inferior; while, in many cases, they might be superior for all purposes of command and in general knowledge of the Service to those officers who, with whatever credit to themselves, might have passed the examination at a particular time and qualified themselves for particular service. At the same time, he did not mean in any way to detract from the credit which was due to those Volunteers who had so qualified themselves. With regard to the men, the hon. Member said that the numbers actually enrolled in certain regiments differed very widely from their Establishment numbers. He went, indeed, further, and pointed out that the men who were actually present fell short of the numbers enrolled. That, it must be admitted, was one of the weak points of our Militia system, and the Committee did not see their way to overcome the difficulty except by various subsidiary means. Desertions occurred when the Militia were enrolled in densely, and also in thinly, populated districts. In the former, when a man went away, you might as well, to use a popular phrase, "look for a needle in a bottle of hay." In the thinly populated districts, want of work and the fluctuations of employment often rendered it impossible for the recruits to remain in the district. A great number of these desertions, or the shortness of numbers, arose in the case of men who did not fulfil their first engagement. In large towns where the men were enrolled in the autumn months, it sometimes required 600 or 700 recruits to bring the regiment up to its proper strength, and it was difficult to exercise so much care in the selection of men as to secure that they should come up when called for. Major Maxwell pointed out to the Committee the difficulty of getting men to notify their change of residence; and as to the references they were expected to give, they were but little removed as a class from the men who referred to them, and were not to be relied upon. The hon. Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) gave valuable evidence of the opposite difficulty in thinly - populated districts—as to the scarcity of men. After considering this evidence, the 638 Committee, though with some doubts in their minds, did not see their way to recommend a complete change in the system of recruiting; and they rather directed their attention to other means by which men would be induced to enter the Militia, and to keep there. In adhering to the system of sub-districts in preference to the system of "territorial regiments," it was only intended that the Militia should remain in their existing position. The Committee thought that the recruiting should be carried on as now by the permanent Staff, and that they should be encouraged to obtain better references and a personal knowledge of recruits. The adjutants of Militia only received their actual expense, instead of £3 a company as formerly to cover all expenses. That allowance of £3 was complained of as in some cases insufficient; while, in others, it went into the pocket of the officer. The Committee wished to place the matter on a sound footing, and while they adhered to the payment of actual expenses, they decided to recommend a certain amount of head-money to be given to cover the expenses of enrolment. After some discussion it was settled that 2s. 6d. should be allowed for each Militia recruit, and this had been approved by the War Office, and would in future be given. With respect to the question of bounty, there were no doubt good reasons for thinking that if all bounty were stopped in the Militia, as in the Army, the change would probably in the long run have no effect on the recruiting; but the Committee, having regard to the evidence they received from all quarters as to the practical working of the system, and having regard also to the purely hypothetical character of the evidence in favour of the change, came to the conclusion that it would be hazardous, if not impossible, to do away at present with the practice of paying something down on enrolment. It was a custom in country districts to pay something down on making a bargain, and, probably, in many cases, a man who was enrolled would not think he had actually committed himself to an engagement, unless he received something on the occasion. It was also to be borne in mind that there were some men who enrolled under the pressure of immediate want. Complaint had been made of the regulation made 639 by Lord Cardwell, when at the War Office, with regard to Militia bounty, that whereas formerly a man served five years for £6, he had now to serve six years for the same sum. That was done by dividing the bounty for the first year into two halves. It had been found advisable to do away with the running account, and to pay 10s. on enrolment and £1 for each year's service. That arrangement was to take effect after a certain date. On financial, as well as other grounds, it was thought advisable to encourage re-enrolment. Besides the advantages as regarded cost, and efficiency in having re-enrolled men, there was the further consideration that it was pretty certain they would turn up, for it was very rarely the case that they deserted. It was proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee as to discharge for the purpose of joining the Regular Army, and as to discharge during the non-training period. Steps were also being taken in order to ascertain in what way schools for the noncommissioned officers could be best carried out at the Brigade Depôts. As it was doubtful whether the non-commissioned officers would attend in large numbers, it was not thought wise to establish large central schools. At certain of the Brigade Depôts, however, schools would be set up where those who wished would be able to obtain certificates. With regard to additional training in musketry, this subject had been referred to the Inspector General of Musketry. It was still under consideration, and steps would be taken to secure that such rifle instruction as the Militia had to go through during their necessarily limited period of training should at all events be as efficient as possible. With respect to the question of barracks, and the accommodation at the Brigade Depôts, it would be premature to discuss it at present, inasmuch as the Secretary of State had appointed a Committee consisting of the Quartermaster General, Colonel Bulwer, Sir Howard Elphinstone, and Major Ellice, who would visit the Brigade Depôts and see how the requirements in each case were met. This Committee had not yet reported. With respect to the grievance of officers who were called up to take charge of recruits, arrangements had been made which would give a greater elasticity to the Regulation on the subject, and which it 640 was believed would go far to meet the difficulty of the case. In the matter of clothing certain additional articles would be provided. With regard to the duties of the permanent Staff, the Secretary of State had decided to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, and to consider it as a principle that each Militia battalion should, as far as possible, have a complete Staff of its own. It was not necessary or advisable that there should in every case be an Adjutant appointed for each battalion separately; but it was thought essential to have a Quartermaster for every battalion, in order that proper care might be taken of the stores, and that there might be an officer responsible for them. As the two Quartermasters of the regiment could very well do the work of the Brigade Depôt between them, it was intended to dispense with the Quartermaster of the depôt. It was also intended to assign as part of the distinct duties of the Quartermaster, not carrying extra pay, the duty of acting as sub-accountant to the Paymaster. There was the recommendation that the non-commissioned officers should be placed on the same footing as those of the Line with respect to allowances. To carry out that proposal would cost £18,000 per annum, and it was not thought expedient to incur so large an expense. It had been decided that where the permanent Staff only discharged their former duties, they were to receive the old rate of pay; but that where they were called up to perform Army duties at Brigade Depôts, the allowances that the Committee recommended should be made to a number not exceeding 25 per cent, although it was impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the subject to the full extent. With regard to the extra training of the Militia Reserve, the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) would be aware that the general result of the inquiries that had been made on this point, was to incline the Committee not to recommend the extension of the training of the Militia Reserve, for the present. Finally, with regard to the question, whether the large increase in the expenditure which had been determined upon had been accounted for, his answer was that, with the one exception, of the cost of giving the full, instead of the 641 half-year's bounty, the whole of the additional expenditure had been charged for in the Estimates. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not been able at an earlier period of the year to announce that he had finally concluded his negotiations with the Treasury, he was now in a position to state that, with the exception of those recommendations of the Committee which he had stated could not be carried out, and of those which had been spoken of the other evening, all the remaining recommendations of the Militia Committee would be carried into effect. He apologized for the length of time during which he had occupied the attention of the Committee, but explained that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that the earliest opportunity should be taken of giving the fullest explanation on these subjects.
§ SIR JOHN ST. AUBYNasked, what had been done with regard to the uniform of the Militia regiments?
MR. GATHORNE HAEDYsaid, that no actual decision had yet been arrived at, but the Government were of opinion that it was very desirable that the uniform of the Militia should be made to correspond as far as possible with that of the Line, while the facings could be regulated as was thought desirable.
§ COLONEL NAGHTENthought that the Ballot Acts should be amended so as to allow them to be put into operation.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES - BRISEhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to point to some steps about to be taken with the view of increasing the number of Militia officers, of whom he was afraid there would be a scarcity in a short time.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that if it was important as a matter of public policy to pass a large number of men through the ranks of the Regular Army as quickly as possible, then it was strange that the Militia organization was not adapted to the object for which the Army was now made subordinate. Whilst service in the Regular Army was limited to three years, the service in the Militia was fixed at six years, with the power of allowing men to extend their service for a further period. He could not help wishing a return to the old practice of last cen- 642 tury of training the Militiamen by companies and half companies, so that no man could be taken away from home beyond a five mile radius. With this limitation, and with the aid of experienced and thoroughly trained drill instructors, there was no reason for limiting the numbers to be trained to the present small force of 130,000 Militiamen. No doubt this kind of training would interfere with the pomp and dignity of commanding officers of Militia regiments; but then the nation would be the gainer of having many hundred thousands of sufficiently trained men in the elementary part of military drills to get them to join the cadres of the Regular Army, and then, in a few weeks, to become efficient soldiers in the regimental and brigade exercises and drills.
§ MR. RITCHIEthought it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the Secretary of State for War could say when the difficulties which had hitherto stood in the way of the propagation of the new Militia Warrant were likely to be removed, and when the Warrant itself would probably be issued. He hoped it would be as soon as possible, because he believed it would have a good effect, in that it would secure a large number of troops who were now holding back. He wished also to know, whether non-commissioned officers of the Militia were to have accommodation in the new barracks? Some of the non-commissioned officers of the 2nd Surrey Militia had made complaints as to the deficiency of barrack accommodation at Guildford.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that, in consequence of a letter having been sent to him by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he had caused inquiries to be made respecting the barrack accommodation at Guildford, but had not yet received a reply. With regard to the Warrant, no date could be given at which it would appear; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the difficulties which had been referred to were practically at an end; but, at the same time, it would not do to give one regiment an advantage over another, and, therefore, practically it would apply to all the regiments of Militia before their next training. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Brise) he had no doubt the proposed change with regard to com- 643 missions out of the Militia would tend to increase the number of officers, instead of diminishing them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £74,400, Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances.
§ COLONEL HOODexpressed a hope that several of the recommendations made by the Committee of the War Office three years ago would be carried into effect. The Government ought, in his opinion, to allow the men when out for the summer drill a more liberal remuneration per day, and should provide horses for them for the time from the Regular Army. The Government should give a little more encouragement to those who wished to keep up the strength of the regiments, and to those who wished to join them.
§ An hon. MEMBER referred to the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Yeomanry Cavalry, and said that the Government had treated them in a very unsatisfactory manner. Whenever anything like reductions had been suggested, they had been eagerly seized upon by the War Office; but, whenever any compensating advantages had been proposed they had been completely passed over. Every succeeding Session fresh requirements were exacted from the Yeomanry, and they were now in a considerably worse position than they occupied some years ago. To take one example; they had no longer the advantage of being exempted from the horse duty, which, in one sense, had been a great benefit to them.
§ MR. WHALLEYcomplained of the discouragement and disfavour that the Yeomanry received at the hands of the Government. General Stephenson said that 14 days' training would be necessary for the Volunteers to be made useful, and he asked that the Yeomanry should have 14 days' training.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he had the honour of commanding a detachment of Yeomanry, and was anxious to say something in favour of that Force. The late Government did a great deal to discourage the Yeomanry; but while Lord Cardwell chastised them with whips, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) touched them up with scorpions. Certainly, they had not received much encouragement from the 644 present Government. He knew that they had to correspond for weeks and weeks about a matter of eighteenpence for stationery. A time might come when the Government might regret that treatment.
§ LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that no one complained of the Government requiring the greatest amount of efficiency for the Yeomanry, and he did not wish them to spend one shilling on the Yeomanry Force more than was requisite and advisable; but if the War Office required greater efficiency, it was bound to pay a reasonable portion of the expense of attaining that efficiency. He thought it would be well if they had an understanding with the War Office as to whether they appreciated the Yeomanry Force or not. If they did, it ought to be properly maintained.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had never commanded Yeomanry or other troops; and he hoped if he ever did, he should not be, as he had been just now, fired on from behind. He had been credited with having a Committee for the purpose of destroying the Yeomanry, when he put upon it four most distinguished Yeomanry officers, who practically carried everything their own way. As to trumpeters, they had to be paid for a whole year when they were required to blow a trumpet for only a few days, and it was thought possible to make other arrangements to obtain their services when they were required. The Yeomanry was one of the oldest and one of the best Forces of its kind, and his object had been to encourage good regiments and discourage bad ones, and raise the standard of efficiency as much as possible. He had not tried to encourage bad ones, nor would he do so. It had not been noticed that there was an increase in this year's Estimates, both in this Vote and in Vote No. 10, and yet he was charged with doing nothing for the encouragement of the Yeomanry. The increase in the pay of adjutants, the abolition of the horse duty, and the audit of accounts, would all be beneficial to them; but there were several regiments too small for adjutants. The Committee recommended that no regiment under 200 strong ought to have an adjutant, and that no regiment without an adjutant ought to be kept up, and the consequence was obvious—that the smaller 645 regiments would ultimately have to be disbanded. He had, however, given them time, in order that they might, if possible, recruit to a higher strength. His object throughout had been the improvement of the Yeomanry and its establishment as an efficient and real Force, and he believed the measures he had taken would have that result.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £468,700, Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to call attention to the rank and retiring allowances of adjutants of Volunteers, and urged that the Government should do all in its power to make the position of those officers as good as possible, as upon their exertions depended much of the efficiency of the Volunteer Force. That efficiency was increasing year by year; it was most necessary to have a good adjutant in each regiment; and those adjutants who had made their battalions efficient deserved every encouragement. His own adjutant left the Army in 1864, when he was a captain in the 10th Foot, and in 1874, under new regulations, he and others were made temporary captains in the Army, and they ranked only with Volunteers from that date, whereas many had been captains for some years, and in the instance of his own adjutant, from 1864. That was a great hardship and deserved consideration, as the rank ought to be given from the date of the first appointment, and this, as well as the rank of major, with which he would now deal, would cost the country nothing. As to the retiring rank of major, according to the old Regulations a man if retired from ill-health, provided he had been five years an adjutant of Volunteers and had 20 years' service in the Army, might retire with the rank of major; but if he had served 15 years in the Volunteers, whatever might be his service in the Army, he could retire with the same rank. That surely was not to place him on the same footing as if he were in the Militia. When Lord Cardwell first introduced his scheme, he treated the Militia and Volunteers as Reserved Forces, and the adjutants of both exactly in the same way. But since that, the Secretary of State for War had been anxious to establish a new system in 646 the Militia, and had given certain retiring allowances to the adjutants of Militia, provided they retired by a certain day, and he had been informed that some of them had even been allowed to retire since that day. But, be that as it may, he should like to see adjutants of Volunteers placed upon the same footing, and get the same chance. Inasmuch as they had as much, if not more, to do in the course of the year than the adjutants of Militia, they ought, in his opinion, at least to have the offer of the same retiring allowances, and the right hon. Gentleman would take away every grievance by granting these small concessions. He also thought it was scarcely right that these men should be required to go before a medical Board and be absolutely invalided before they were held to be entitled to a retiring allowance.
§ COLONEL MURE,concurring very much in all that had fallen from the last speaker, insisted upon the expediency of paying regard to vested interests, observing that it was hardly fair that when an officer assumed the duties of Volunteer adjutant, and was entitled to the receipt of a certain annual sum for the purpose of keeping a horse, he should receive merely an allowance for hiring one. He would suggest, too, that the officers who became Volunteer adjutants before 1872 and those who became Volunteer adjutants after that year should be put on the same footing. He should, as a Volunteer officer, he might add, like to see some compulsory audit of accounts instituted throughout the Volunteer Army, that some further allowance would be made for the formation of Volunteer camps, and a roster of the whole of the Force throughout the country properly kept.
§ MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War to give duo consideration to the urgency of this question with reference to adjutants' allowances. He would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to make a pecuniary grant for the purpose of facilitating the muster of Artillery corps in different parts of the country. On the West Coast of Scotland many Artillery corps were brought together at one spot, and the main expense of the gathering fell upon the officers, which was hardly a fair state of things.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYurged that since the Volunteers were now recognized as a permanent Force available for the defence of the country, they ought to receive more encouragement from the Government, and suggested whether for the purpose of increasing and developing that Force, it might not be advisable to divert a portion of the sum presently devoted to the Militia. He pressed on the Government the desirability of having a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House appointed to consider the best means of still further increasing the numbers and efficiency of the Volunteers, and introducing a better system into that service.
§ MR. KNIGHTcomplained of the treatment which adjutants employed in the Volunteer Force had received in the way of pay and retiring allowances, and expressed a hope that the Government would deal with them generously, especially the old adjutants who had done so much from the outset of the movement to make the Force what it now was—those who had borne the burden and heat of the day—by giving them the same retiring allowance which they would have been entitled to if they had continued to serve as captains in the Regular Army.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought it was a matter of very great importance that the Committee should be informed whether the Volunteer Force was properly officered or not, for, according to a letter written by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) which had appeared in The Times of that morning, they constituted the real Force of the country. That letter ought not to pass without notice, for it contained the statement that the Force was inefficiently led. If they were the illusory Force which some hon. Members seemed to suppose, it would be well that that fact should be made known on the authority of the Minister who was responsible for our military administration.
COLONEL BERESFORD,referring to the pay of the adjutants, pointed out that the price of the provisions was much higher than it was 20 years ago, and that that circumstance ought to be taken into consideration in dealing with the case. The pay only amounted to 15s. 3d. a-day, and out of that the officer had to pay for his horse.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that of course he could not be supposed to think the Volunteers not worth having. He drew an entirely opposite conclusion from the letter of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to that which had been drawn by the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). He thought his noble Friend had shown too much sensitiveness at the remarks made by the inspecting officer. He did not think Volunteers should be too sensitive of the remarks of inspecting officers, whose duty it was not only to applaud their merits, but to tell them their faults. Had the hon. Baronet been present at an earlier stage of the evening, he would have heard it stated that so far from the officers of the Volunteer Force being uninstructed, the contrary was the case, so far as a large portion of them were concerned. At the same time it was not, of course, to be supposed that Volunteer officers with the limited time and means of drill and manœuvring at their disposal could take their place at once on a level with the officers of the Regular Army, nor was it matter for wonder that when inspected by a member of the Household Brigade he should have made some criticisms on the manner in which they had performed their duty in the field. He, however, deduced from the statements of the gallant general who acted in that capacity that the Volunteers would, in case of necessity, be found to be a very efficient Force, although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) and those who contended that they could take the place of the Regular Army. There was much, he might add, in his opinion, in what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) with respect to Volunteer adjutants; but he must remind him that their pay had been increased from 8s. a-day and 2s. allowance for forage to 15s. 3d. The conditions, however, imposed upon them as to retiring allowances were, he admitted, somewhat hard, considering the long service of some officers, and he would undertake that point should be carefully considered. But that officers who retired from the Army, and accepted conditions with which they were perfectly acquainted, should be restored to the positions which they would have 649 occupied had they continued all the time in the Army was to take a view of their case in which he could not concur. The Volunteer Artillery he regarded as one of the most important branches of the Service, and what they had done at Shoeburyness last year and in previous years tended to show the excellence of that Force. It was intended they should try this year the new guns, which, if they were ever called upon to defend any of our fortresses, they would have to use, and he trusted that the trial of these guns would still further increase their efficiency. He could assure the Committee that the efficiency of the Volunteer Force excited the deepest interest in his mind.
§ MR. WHALLEYdid not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that there were impediments to the Volunteers becoming an efficient Force. He denied that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and regarded the Volunteers as a most efficient Force. With regard to the Regular Army, which was jealous of the Volunteers, he thought it was twice as expensive as it ought to be. Encouragement ought to be given to the Volunteer Force, and that might be done by placing them under the command of skilled officers.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that what he desired was that the Volunteers should be encouraged by all possible facilities of drill and other means of increasing their efficiency. The whole character of the Force, however, so much depended upon the officers and the relation in which they stood to the men, that he had not the slightest intention to propose that they should be replaced by officers of the Regular Army.
§ MR. DILLWYN,as a Volunteer, had always found the War Office ready to listen to any reasonable representations, and so far from any jealousy manifesting itself on the part of the Regular Army, he had always found the greatest disposition to assist the Volunteers. He was sorry to see the House to-night resolving itself into a committee of grievances, instead of considering and agreeing to the Army Votes.
§ MR. BULWERbegged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for promising to consider the question as to the retirement of 650 Volunteer adjutants. After 17 years' experience as an officer of Volunteers, he most emphatically repudiated the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough, that the Regular Army were jealous of the Volunteers. On the contrary, the Volunteers had invariably received from the Army the greatest assistance, and from the officers of the Army the utmost kindness and cordiality. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had spoken of the limited opportunities which Volunteer officers had of acquiring a knowledge of their duties. On behalf of officers commanding Metropolitan Corps, he would give an instance in which their opportunity was limited indeed. Many of them were annually ordered out into Hyde Park for instruction in brigade drill, and when they got there, owing to the crowds of people who were allowed to interfere with them, it was impossible for men or officers to see or hear what was going on. For all purposes of instruction, such drills were worse than useless; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take some steps to remedy this, so that on future occasions it might be possible for one battalion commander to see at least what the battalion next to him in brigade was doing.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £132,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances (including Enrolled Pensioners), which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1877 to the 31st day of March 1878, inclusive.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANcommented at some length on the condition of the Reserve Forces, which he argued were a complete failure.
§ Shortly after midnight,
MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved to report Progress. He objected to voting away public money at that late hour. The protests of hon. Members against unnecessary expenditure were never attended to at that time, when the only object of the Government was to hurry 651 through the Votes as speedily as possible. The people of Ireland contributed to the expense of the Volunteer Force of England, but was not allowed to have Volunteers of her own. ["Question !"] Surely it was the right of the Members from Ireland to raise the question of the justice and expediency of this when they were asked to vote the money. He moved that the Committee do now report Progress.
§ Motion made, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYopposed the Motion to report Progress; observing that there was nothing unusual or inconvenient in the Committee considering Votes in Supply—sometimes of considerable amount and importance— at a much later hour than had then arrived. The Vote now before the Committee had nothing whatever to do with the Volunteer Force, nor did there appear to be any opposition to it.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo, relative to the Volunteer Force in Ireland. If there was not time to answer the objections raised by hon. Members, it was time that the discussion should be postponed, and he should support the Motion to report Progress.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the question of the Reserve Forces had already been fully discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms). It was impossible, on taking Votes in Supply, to enter into such criticism of details as was raised by the hon. and gallant Member. He hoped the Vote would be allowed to be taken.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was impossible to give an answer to objections raised at that hour of the night. Surely that was a sufficient reason why the Committee should now report Progress.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, no answer was given to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, and he thought his Motion to report Progress was perfectly reasonable.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 8; Noes 128: Majority 120.—(Dir. List, No. 199.)
§ AYES — Bowyer, Sir G. Callan, P. O'Beirne, Cap. O'Donnell, F. O'Gorman, P. Parnell, C. S. Power R. Whitworth, B.
§ TELLERS—Captain Nolan and Mr. O'Connor Power.
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. If the hour was so late that the right hon. Gentleman could not give an explanation of the Votes proposed, it was time that the Committee should cease.
§ Motion made, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYtrusted the hon. Member would not resist the large majority by which the Motion to report Progress had just been negatived. There was no question of principle involved. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Mayo, the subject of Volunteers in Ireland was not before the Committee, and therefore he had not answered the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 127: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
§ AYES— Nolan, Captain O'Beirne, Capt. O'Gorman, P. Power, J. O'C. Power, R. Shell, E.
§ TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Parnell.
§ Motion made, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major O'Gorman.)
§ The Motion being received with expressions of disapprobation,
§ MR. GREENEurged the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford not to persist in his opposition. For himself, he was prepared to sit to any time to prevent the policy of obstruction which appeared to have been adopted by some hon. Members opposite.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas understood to describe the speech of the hon. Member for Bury as "hypocritical." [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that what he had said, or meant to say, was 653 not that the speech was "hypocritical," but "hypercritical." [This explanation was very unfavourably received, and was the commencement of a long period of confusion.]
§ MR. ANDERSON,referring to the argument of the hon. Member for Mayo, that the Irish people contributed to the expense of the English Volunteers, desired to point out that a good deal of English and Scotch money went to pay for the Irish police.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERinterposed, and said, that the hon. Member for Glasgow had travelled equally out of the record. The Irish Volunteers were not before the Committee, neither were the English—it was simply a Vote for the Reserve Forces. But he rose to express his hope that the Committee would be allowed to proceed with the Vote, and that nothing would occur that might render it necessary to make a change in the established Rules of Debate.
Mr. PARNELL, Mr. O'DONNELL,and other Members addressed the Committee, speaking amid great confusion and continued cries of "Order! Order!" "Chair! Chair!" "Question! Question!"
§ MR. O'DONNELLaddressed the Committee in support of the Motion to report Progress, at great length and with little relevance to the Question.
The uneasiness and displeasure of the Committee was such that at length an hon. Member (Sir William Edmonstone) rose and moved that the Committee be counted.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ [A.M. 1.50]
§ MR. O'DONNELLproceeded in his speech, being continuously met with cries of "Question ! Question !" "Divide ! Divide !" and calls to Order.
§ MR. O'DONNELL,however, continued his address; urging, with constant iteration, the impropriety of debating important questions or voting away large sums of public money at midnight. The hon. Member enforced his argument by repeatedly referring to 654 the examples of the Senates of Greece and Rome, which conducted their deliberations by daylight; and the more modern examples of Germany and France, whose Assemblies met at midday and separated at an early hour of the afternoon.
§ MR. PULESTONrose to Order. The arguments of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were utterly irrelevant to the Question before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had repeatedly pointed out to the hon. Member that he was transgressing the rules of debate. The hon. Member, he must say, seemed disposed to treat the Chair with hardly the usual respect.
§ MR. O'DONNELLresumed his address, with complete disregard of the reproof—
§ MR. PULESTONagain rose to Order. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was turning the House of Commons into ridicule.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had not the slightest desire to turn the House of Commons into ridicule: and then resumed his speech at the point of interruption, referring to the procedure of the German Reichstag—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already pointed out to the hon. Member that he was breaking through the Rules of Debate. If he persisted, he would look upon his conduct as disrespectful to the Committee, and would be compelled to submit to the Committee whether such conduct should not be brought under the notice of the House.
§ MR. O'DONNELL,expressing his desire not to infringe the rules of debate, nor to act in any manner disrespectful to the Committee, at length sat down.
§ MR. LOCKEreferred with some indignation to the conduct of the hon. Member, whose expressions of deference to the authority of the Chair, he said, only pretended to be sincere.
§ MR. PARNELLasked the Chairman if such an imputation was Parliamentary.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the expression was not necessarily un-Parliamentary, unless it imputed personal insincerity to the hon. Member.
§ MR. LOCKEexpressed his regret that the Rules of the House did not permit them to put a stop to speeches such as this, the only object of which seemed to be to waste time and obstruct 655 the Business of the House. I have, said the hon. and learned Member, seen the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the first time to-night, and Heaven knows I do not wish ever to look upon him again. And as for the other hon. Member!—
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not long been a Member of the House, and perhaps did not know the Rules. Opposed Business was not begun after half-past 12 o'clock. He thought the minority was unreasonable, and that the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was irregular—to say the least of it.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was always fair and conciliatory; but the Members of his Party were always ready to throw insult on the Irish Members. He had heard Members on that side say, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan was speaking—"Let us see how much he will stand."
This statement called forth disorderly cries from Members on the Government benches; which led to a severe call to Order from the CHAIRMAN, and a threat to call one hon. Member by Name if he did not desist.
§ MR. C. B. DENISONstrongly denounced the course now taken by the hon. Members opposite, in obstructing the proceedings of the Committee.
§ MR. WHALLEYdeclared that, so far from being ashamed of the conduct of those hon. Members, on the contrary, the part taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan and those who acted with him filled him with admiration and envy.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 106: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 201.) [A.M. 2.35]