§ Clause 137 (Exemption of officers and soldiers from tolls).
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 72, line 34, after " regular," to insert " and auxiliary." His object in moving that Amendment was to make it perfectly clear what powers were to be conferred upon the Volunteers. He knew that, at certain times, the expression Regular Forces included the Volunteers of all arms; but he did not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could object to put in the words he had moved, in order to make it perfectly clear. Let 1621 them consider, for one moment, the powers conferred upon a commanding officer. He could pass over regular ferries, with his soldiers, as passengers, and pay for himself, and each soldier, one-half only of the ordinary rate payable by single passengers, and he might have the ferry-boat for himself and his party, depriving others for that time, and should, in such cases, pay only half the ordinary rate for such boat. That was a very considerable power, and it was only right that the Volunteers should possess it. It was uncertain, as the clause stood, whether Volunteers on the march would be included in the term "soldiers of Her Majesty's Regular Forces on duty or on the march," or whether they would be entitled to do the various things which soldiers on service could do. He thought it was advisable to show perfectly, beyond any doubt, what powers were conferred upon Volunteers. It would be extremely inconvenient, unless it was thoroughly understood by the public in general, and by the Volunteers, that they had the same power as Regular soldiers; or, if they had not, that that also should be understood.
§ COLONEL STANLEYthought that the clause did not require amendment. If not perfectly clear, he hoped to make it so. He would prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown), if he altered the clause at all.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought that the intention was not to include the Auxiliary Forces under the clause; and that by Regular Forces was meant those who served under continuous service. This clause, as it stood, did not include Volunteers, and he did not think it advisable that it should do so.
§ MR. A. H. BROWNobserved, that this clause, undoubtedly, included Volunteers, because Clause 168 governed it, and placed the Auxiliary Forces in the position of the Regular Forces for the time being. The expression Regular Forces in this clause, therefore, included the Volunteer Forces, if they were subject to military law.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it desirable that this clause should include Volunteers. They were raised and armed for the Public Service, and it was right that they should enjoy all proper facilities. In many parts of Scotland 1622 the tolls were absolutely monstrous, and unless some power were given to Volunteers to travel at a cheaper rate, they would, in many cases, be prevented from assembling.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that it would be dangerous to insert the words suggested in this clause, as some conflict might arise with Clause 168.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERthought it better to amend this clause, as, otherwise, there would be a difficulty in referring to the other clause to see what was meant.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood; but if it were necessary to make it more clear it could be done on Report.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee that when they came to Clause 168 it was proposed to enact that when officers and soldiers of the Auxiliary Forces were subject to military law they should be treated as if they were a part of the Regular Forces, and the Regulations enforced under the Act should apply to them. The matter only came to this—that if the Volunteers were subject to military law, then this clause would include them; but if they were not subject to military law at the time, this clause would not include them. The Committee was asked to go upon the assumption that the Volunteers were to be subjected to military law. But he must say that there would be a difference of opinion when they came to the part of the Bill by which they were made subject to military law. It was not right that Volunteers should be obliged to pay heavy charges for tolls. In Scotland tolls of 2s. 6d. or 5s. were not uncommon, and in England many turnpikes were still in existence. He was happy to say that in Ireland—where he hoped soon to see Volunteers —the roads were in a more advanced state, for they were made at the expense of the county in general, and there was no charge demanded of any person going along them. He believed that the roads in Ireland were the best roads in the world, and they were entirely free from all tolls. He certainly thought that this clause should be amended. It would be an anomaly if they did not give the Volunteers those facilities in Scotland which they would enjoy in Ireland. The Volunteers in 1623 Scotland would be obliged to pay very heavy tolls, while the Volunteers that were to be established in Ireland would pay nothing.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLunderstood that Volunteers on the march for the purposes of drill were exempt. The object in view might be attained by merely omitting the word "regular."
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERreplied, that Volunteers were already exempt from toll by the Volunteer Act, which was not superseded by this Bill; while even when this Bill was passed they would be exempted under the clause, because they were included as Regulars. He had only moved his Amendment in order to make the matter quite clear.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 138 (Exemption of soldiers in respect of civil process).
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 73, line 32, after the word " exceeds," to leave out the word " thirty," and to substitute " forty." He pointed out that the purchasing power of money was one-third less now than what it was when this Regulation was first introduced, and that, therefore, the change was desirable.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 73, line 32, to leave out the word thirty," in order to insert the word " forty."—(Major O'Beirne.)
§ Question proposed, " That the word ' thirty' stand part of the Clause."
§ COLONEL STANLEYdid not think it would be very desirable to make the alteration. Practically, there was not much difference between £30 and £40; and he should not like to disturb the present arrangement, which was well known, and was a very reasonable one.
§ MR. PARNELLthought that one of the provisions of this clause was of a very extraordinary character. A soldier was not to be compelled to appear in Court, except for a debt or damages, where the amount exceeded £30. He could not understand why a soldier should not be compelled to appear before a Court of Law in reference to a smaller sum than £30.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the clause made no alteration in the present state of the law. It was desirable that soldiers 1624 should not be compelled to appear for comparatively small sums, for the obvious reason that he had not got the money to pay his expenses. He might be summoned from one part of the Kingdom to another, and then the loss would fall upon the public.
§ MR. PARNELLthought that the provision was a very extraordinary one, and that it might be limited by making his appearance depend upon the will of his commanding officer, otherwise he might refuse to attend important trials as a witness.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that this might give rise to some difficulty.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment. [" No, no! "]
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 11: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 146.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 139 (Liability of soldier to maintain wife and children) agreed to.
§ Clause 140 (Officers not to be sheriffs or mayors).
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he wished to move, as an addition to the clause, after the words " United Kingdom," in line 43, page 75, of the words " or and sit as the Representative in Parliament of any county or borough." The Amendment could not be a surprise, because it had been on the Paper for a considerable time, although it did not happen to be there now. He knew it was impossible for the Committee to make so serious a change as that proposed, and he merely moved it in order to ventilate the subject. Everyone who had sat in that House must have seen the effect upon all military questions, and especially upon the questions touched in this Bill, of the presence among them of hon. and gallant Gentlemen belonging to the Military Profession. They must feel that that Profession had a very large, and, possibly, a very unfair influence in that House. It was time, in his opinion, when the country should consider whether, as civil servants were excluded from Parliament, there was really any reason why military officers should be allow ed to represent, not only a con- 1625 stituency, but really the Military Profession in the House. The influence of the Army was really abnormal, and was altogether too great. Many military questions were decided in the House in a manner which was inherently unsatisfactory in principle, and was, certainly, very often injurious to the true interests of the country. It would not be difficult to show that, in this Session, instances of military influence had been allowed to stifle discussion, and to prevent certain matters being properly brought before the judgment of the House and the country. This had really brought him (Mr. E. Jenkins) to feel that they could not have a fair discussion on military questions so long as an enormous number of military officers were allowed to sit in the House. He had restricted his opposition to officers on full-pay, and who, therefore, ought to be on active service; and he thought the House must feel, in regard to them, at any rate, that there was a greal deal to be said against allowing officers to absent themselves from their duties in order to take part in their discussions. On the contrary, he had observed how very closely officers were kept to the grindstone in Austro-Hungary. Officers, Counts and Barons, were turned out every morning at 4 o'clock, and kept at drill for five hours; then they had to see that the horses were properly attended to; and then some six or eight of them might be ordered to ride 60 miles, and on the next morning make a sketch of the road, with military notes. It could not but be believed that there was an advantage, to both officers and soldiers, in keeping the officers close to the grindstone. In the Report of the Commission of 1869, they would find a statement by Major General Crealock, with reference to the German Army, that the esprit de corps was very great in consequence of the closeness with which the whole of the regiments were kept to their work. He could not but think that English officers on full-pay should not be allowed to indulge in the luxury of Parliamentary life. He simply raised the question; but he believed the day would shortly come when this change would be made.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would not attempt to discuss the point, for it properly was not an Army question, but 1626 was rather of a constitutional character, and ought to be settled when some electoral measure was before the House, if not made a separate measure by itself.
§ MR. E. JENKINSexplained that he merely wished to raise the question.
MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONregretted that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was not in his place to hear what his Friends were saying about him.
MR. SULLIVANreplied, that the Friends of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) were present, and could speak for him, if necessary; but they did not want to waste time over a purposeless discussion.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, if the Amendment were carried, they would, of course, lose the services of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and they would very much regret it; but if they on that side lost his services, hon. Members on the other side would also lose those of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir William Edmonstone).
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERpointed out that officers serving in the Army, and who, of course, had had long practical experience, were the very men who could criticize the Bill with advantage. It would have been a very great disadvantage to the Committee if they had lost the services of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).
§ MR. BIGGARremarked, that the Amendment was moved on the general question, and with no reference to any particular Member.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas inclined to agree to the Amendment, although, undoubtedly, the military Members of the Committee had been most useful in the discussion of the Bill, and they could not well have got on without them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.