APPLICATION OF MILITARY LAW, SAVING PROVISIONS, AND DEFINITIONS. (Hansard, 10 July 1879)

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that several Amendments appeared upon this clause, the general effect of which was to preclude half-pay officers from the operation of the Act. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when he brought in the Bill he stated that he believed the law in reference to half-pay officers had never been brought into operation. He found there was considerable objection to bringing officers upon half-pay under this Act; and he, therefore, proposed to leave out the words from "full pay," in line 37, page 91, to the end of line 2, page 92, and to insert— And if not otherwise subject to military-law, officers on the staff of the army, and officers employed in military service under the orders of an officer of the regular forces. He thought that would cover the case of all officers who ought to be made amenable to discipline.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, lie had the first Amendment upon the Paper; but the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was entirely satisfactory to him, because it conceded the principle he had intended to call attention to—namely, that, in future, no officer upon half-pay should be subject to military law. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had conceded the point, he would not take up the time of the Committee by arguing it further, more especially as he spoke upon it at considerable length on the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
did not rise to speak to the Amendment, but merely to ask a question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He was anxious to know whether he would undertake, after the Sitting that night, to have the Bill reprinted as far as it had been got through the Committee. Amendments had been proposed and accepted upon every clause and it was a difficult matter to ascertain how the Bill now stood. It would be a great convenience to the Committee if, unless the sanguine hope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would get through the Bill that night were realized, the Bill could be reprinted, showing the Amendments which had hitherto been adopted.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he had no objection to place a copy of the Bill, as amended up to the present, in the Vote Office; but he did not think he could undertake to have the Bill reprinted.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
asked, if there would only be one copy, or would the Bill be printed and distributed to Members?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
could not guarantee to have it distributed to Members but he would place one or two amended copies in the Vote Office for reference by Members.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
asked for a little explanation respecting a subsequent section of the clause they were now discussing. On page 92, the 4th sub-section was as follows:— Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such persona of any Act passed by the Legislature of a Colony. 32 From that Proviso it would appear that the Legislature of a Colony might pass an Act including in its provisions corporal punishment, and that in that case the provisions of the Imperial Act would not apply. He did not quite understand why the Legislature of a Colony should be allowed to override the provisions of an Imperial Act in relation to persons serving Her Majesty under military orders.

THE CHAIRMAN
asked if the hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out the sub-section?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
Yes.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, it had been understood that the Legislature of a Colony almost always followed; in effect, the Imperial law. A right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that, in his great experience, he had found that Colonial legislation, in all matters, was very similar to that of the Mother Country.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not quite understood the point raised. If he would turn his attention to the clause, he would find it there stated that— "All such persons not otherwise subject to military law, as may be serving in the position of officers of any troops or portion of troops raised by order of Her Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kindom and of India, and serving under the command of an officer of the regular forces; and then it went on to say— Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such persons of any Act passed by the legislature of a colony. That was to say, that an officer so serving would be under the Imperial Act; but the Imperial Act reserved to the Colony, which raised and paid Forces, the right of legislating with regard to the discipline of those Forces. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the explanation given, and would withdraw his opposition.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
was not quite clear as to the bearing of the clause, as it now stood, after the explanation just offered. He thought it would be desirable that in the case of Colonial troops or Colonial officers, serving in an Imperial Army, and under Imperial command, and for Imperial purposes, should be subjected to the same common and general discipline that was maintained for the Imperial Forces. He took 33 it that when a war arose in one of our Colonies, and was of such a character as to require the interposition of the Imperial Forces, then, in consideration of the Imperial assistance extended to that Colony, the least we could require from the Colony was that all the Colonial Forces serving under our command should be absolutely subject to the general provisions of our Imperial Discipline Acts. This was a matter of the first importance; for if we were conducting an Imperial war for the defence of one of our Colonies, it was quite intolerable that that Colony, or any portion of it, should have power to conduct the war according to conditions prohibited to the Imperial Forces. He would venture to give an instance. In The Standard newspaper of yesterday it was reported by a correspondent, in relation to the recent surprise of the Colonial Forces by the Basutos, that after the defeat the Colonial Forces in the morning rallied, and went out to discover the Basutos; but none of the enemy could be found, except two wounded men, who, the correspondent wrote, "were forthwith shot." The correspondent proceeded to say— It is to be hoped that these wounded Basutos were only shot for resistance to capture; but, I must admit, the Colonial opinion would fully justify the knocking on the head and shooting of wounded natives without more ado. Well, now, the discipline of the British Army did not, and could not, tolerate the assassination of wounded enemies; therefore, were they to allow an exception to be introduced between the Imperial and Colonial Forces, by which the latter, whom they were protecting and assisting against an enemy, who would otherwise overpower them, should practice acts of atrocity of that description, which would not be tolerated, and could not be tolerated, within the scope of the Imperial authority? He thought that they ought to insist, that where the Colonies asked for our assistance, in cases where the Colonial Forces required to be aided by the Imperial Forces, so long as we were aiding them—so long as we were holding the aegis of Imperial power over them—we ought to insist that they should do nothing which should disgrace the Imperial name. He thought hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite would recognize that if Colonies 34 could raise troops and volunteers of all descriptions, and could refuse to submit to the authority of the Imperial Discipline Acts, that, then, the door was opened to the very gravest abuse. He could give two other instances directly bearing on the point. He would not be in Order in referring explicitly to a Question addressed to the Secretary of State for War, and to the answer given; but he could put the case hypothetically. A Member of the House, on inquiring from the Secretary of State for War as to the use of dynamite, and some other forbidden engines of war, in a Colonial war, received for an answer— That such Colonial officers using these forbidden engines of war are in no way under the control of the Imperial Government. Why, there at once a serious difficulty was presented. In the one common Imperial enterprize we could have one portion of the Forces bound by Imperial Discipline Acts, and another portion of the Forces feeling themselves at liberty to have recourse to methods of warfare discarded by this country. They ought to render it impossible for any Force—Colonial or otherwise, when engaged in the same field of war—to adopt any mode of warfare than that recognised by the Imperial Parliament. Again, an instance had just been reported in reference to another body of Colonial Forces. The Cavalry, known as Lonsdale's Horse, had been the subject of comments in this country for their conduct and yet the Government, through the responsible Minister, had been unable to assure the House that they could in any way control the action of those Forces. The intelligence had justreached home that Lonsdale's Horse, in consequence of their incurably bad conduct, and in consequence of their not being bound by any Discipline Act, had had to be entirely disbanded, as a set of worthless fellows, capable of the most reprehensible practices. They had been accused of thieving, highway robbery, continual drunkenness, disobedience to orders; and yet these men had been raised under a Colonial Act, which did not press upon them any obligation to obey discipline; and because of the inability on the part of their commanders to insure discipline in their ranks, they had had to be disbanded, Now, he took it, 35 that in order to prevent cruelties which would disgrace the Imperial name, in order to prevent want of discipline and bad conduct amongst Colonial Auxiliaries acting with Imperial Forces, they ought to insist that these Colonial Forces must be absolutely subject to our Discipline Acts, the existence of Colonial Acts notwithstanding. He did not think he had said one word more than was required, for this was a point of the very first importance. He thought that where a Colony required Imperial assistance in any grave matter—and for less than a grave matter Imperial assistance ought not to be rendered—the Colony ought to submit to the common discipline imposed on the Imperial Forces.

MR. SULLIVAN
thought they ought to be very careful about interfering with the Home Rule principle on the part of the Colonies. Yet, on the other hand, let them contemplate whether Colonial troops engaged under the Imperial standard could not bring disgrace upon it. He would ask the Government to recollect the recent troubles in Jamaica, where Governor Hennessy came into contact with the Legislature. And it was true, although he was sorry to have to say it, that even in South Africa the locally-raised troops were proved to be more severe and less humane than the Imperial troops themselves.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the point raised was one of considerable importance, although he could not exactly say whether it could be dealt with by the omission of the words at present under consideration. Undoubtedly, it might be necessary to secure respect for the Legislature of a Colony, so that their resolutions might not be entirely interfered with by an Act of this House; but, at the same time, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that in carrying out the Imperial policy of the present Government wars were undertaken in different parts of the world; that in those wars the Colonial Forces took a very considerable part; and that if they excepted those Colonial Forces from military law they could not have the same discipline kept up; and they would not have the same respect for the laws and usages of war on the part of those Forces as they would have from their own or Regular troops. At the present moment there was a very good example in Zululand. A war was being carried on there—not a Colonial, 36 but an Imperial war—a war which, had been entered into as part of the Imperial policy of the present Government. Of course, he did not mean to say that the Colonists were not entirely in favour of it. They were favourable to it, because it put money into their pockets. It was not, strictly speaking, a Colonial war, but an Imperial war, which would not have been undertaken by the Colonists by themselves. In the first place, they would have been unable to undertake it; and, in the second place, they would never have afforded it. Under those circumstances, they proposed, by the Bill as it now stood, to leave the Colonial troops, who were fighting side by side with the British troops, exempt from the operation of the military law, and subject only to the law of the Colony. That was a very great mistake. He would draw a distinction between a war which was being carried on by Colonial and Imperial Forces combined, and a war conducted by Colonial Forces alone. If the war at the Cape was being carried on entirely by Colonial troops, we would have no reason to seek any right to interfere in the conduct of the war. The Colonists would be responsible for it; they would be responsible for any act committed; and they would be liable for the result of the war. He would, therefore, not include the Forces engaged in such a war under the operation of the present Army Discipline Act; but when they had a war that was being carried on by the Imperial Government, and Colonial Forces were assisting the Imperial troops, then those Forces, whether they were fighting side by side with the Imperial soldiers, or whether they were carrying on the war separately in another district of the country—so long as the war was an Imperial one, the Colonial troops should be subjected to the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act. Were they going to insure that? If they left out the words proposed, he agreed with the remark of a previous speaker, that they would establish a very serious interference with the Colonial Legislature; that the interference so made would be of too wide and too general a character; and that, perhaps, it might be possible to provide for the matter in some different way. What he would suggest would be this—that after the word "Colony" there should be inserted— 37 "Always provided, that whenever Colonial Forces are acting in conjunction with, the Imperial Forces the former shall he subject to the conditions of this Act. He thought that by the adoption of an Amendment such as that they would meet the difficulty of the case which had lately arisen in Zululand. The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Dun garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been drawn to the operations of the Colonial Forces in Basuto-land against the Basutos, in which those Forces had used dynamite for the purpose of blowing up the caves in which were women and children, and had also lighted fires at the mouths of other caves, proceedings which, at the time, caused great consternation in this country, rivalling, as they did, the exploits of Marshal Beaugeaud in Algiers some years ago. Undoubtedly, our troops could not escape from the odium caused by excesses. Though the Imperial Forces might not be responsible, yet the state of the law was responsible and so long as these troops were allowed to act in concert with Colonial Forces, and the latter were governed by a different military law, there must be a lax state of discipline. The contagion of example must spread; and if the Colonial Forces committed atrocities towards the Natives—if they applied fire to the mouths of caves, or used dynamite to the caves where Natives had taken refuge, or made use of explosive bullets—of which there was evidence in Zululand—then the Imperial Forces would come to do the same things; and thus the discipline of the Imperial Army would become destroyed, and a bad name become attached to the Army and the country. Therefore, it was an important question by the hon. Member for Birmingham and to meet it, he would propose to leave out the words at the end of the section, in order to add a Proviso— "That wherever the Colonial Forces are acting in conjunction with Imperial Forces, all shall be subject to the military law of this country. In this way would be met that difficulty which had been referred to as arising in Zululand. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, a few days ago, said the Government had no control over the Colonial Forces, and was not respon- 38 sible; but he said he would make representations to the Colonial Government, to request that the operations might be carried on in accordance with the rules of war. But this was not sufficient. Let there be a clause that would show every Colony that if they expected aid from the Imperial Forces of the Crown, then the whole Force in the field must be subject to the rules and regulations of the Bill.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
pointed out that the present section referred to officers only and asked the Committee to consider what would be the position of an officer selected to serve in a Colony, and in command of Forces raised under a Colonial Act? Necessarily, that officer would be governed by the regulations and discipline of the Colony in which he served. Ultimately, of course, his allegiance would be to Her Majesty; but his direct allegiance, in the meantime, would be to the Colony in which he was serving. By this section it was provided that he would remain under those regulations and that discipline, even though he might temporarily come under the command of an officer of the Regular Forces. Surely this was absolutely necessary, and what was desired by the Amendment was really secured. The moment an officer commanded in the Regular Forces, he came within the purview of the Bill; and while in a Colonial Force, he remained under the Colonial Act. The words in the section implied he would come within the purview of the Act they provided that the persons mentioned were subject to military law as officers, and then the section went on to declare— "All such persons not otherwise subject to military law as may be serving in the position of officers of any troops or portions of troops raised by order of Her Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) said troops raised in Canada or the Cape were not troops raised by order of Her Majesty; but these would come under the Colonial Act, and to these the present Act was not intended to apply. The clause appeared to him a reasonable one, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, no doubt the last explanation was an admirable one but it was not consistent with that given by the Secretary of State for War, 39 The right hon. and gallant Gentleman in answering the Question—for it was only a Question originally—said there were always discrepancies between the treatment of troops serving partly as Colonial and partly as Imperial Forces, and he said usually the Colonial Legislatures deferred to the Imperial law. But he (Mr. Chamberlain) supposed that, in some cases, this deference was not shown; and if not shown in all cases, then it might fail to be shown in any case. Then they would have the Colonial law either more or less stringent than the Imperial law; they would have British troops serving under the same General Officer with Colonial troops and they would have the British troops flogged under this Bill, while the Colonial troops, for the same offences, escaped scot-free. The hon. Member for Meath had suggested his object might be obtained by retaining the Proviso in the Bill, and adding another thereto; but the effect of that would be to make the Colonial law, in every case where the Colonial Forces acted with Imperial troops, as stringent as the Imperial law. He was not certain that would be an advantage and he did not think that any English-speaking Colony would adopt the barbarous punishment of flogging, and he was not anxious to increase the severity of Colonial military law. But he would not trouble the Committee to divide, because he was willing to leave the point to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it was desirable to assimilate the Colonial military law; and not having given Notice of the Amendment, he had no wish to take the Committee by surprise. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,
in reference to the hon. Member's (Mr. Chamberlain's) remarks upon the different treatment of Colonial and British soldiers, said, if the Amendment was carried, the result would probably be that under both Codes a soldier would be fined first and flogged afterwards. In the allusion made to the war against the Basutos, it should be remembered that those operations were carried on under Colonial authority and by Colonial, not Imperial, Forces. In Natal, however, it was not so for there the troops were under an Imperial commander, subject to military law. He would like the 40 Attorney General to clear up a doubt as to whether a Colonial Force, raised under such circumstances as the Force known as "Lonsdale's Horse," came under the Colonial administration, or came within the meaning of the paragraph referring to troops "raised by order of Her Majesty?"

§ MR. O'DONNELL
thought that the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Chamberlain) would defeat his own object. If the Act should be extended, without limitation, to the Colonies, then Colonial troops would come within the flogging clauses of the Bill; but if, on the other hand, there was this contract that Imperial troops were subject to flogging—a punishment to which Colonial troops refused to submit—this would work in the direction of the policy supported from these Benches—the abolition of flogging altogether. Government would find that they would, in every case, have to make it part of the bargain with the Colony that flogging should be abolished. Besides, the Bill had not yet passed; and it was by no means certain that the flogging clauses would remain in the Bill until the end. The Government might appeal to the country on this issue—flogging in the Army or not? So there was not the slightest reason for the hon. Member to be anxious about the flogging not yet having existence in this uncompleted Bill. In all probability, before the Bill became law those clauses would disappear.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, it had recently been the recognized policy to encourage our Colonies to provide for their own military defence, and, under their local Acts, provisions for pay, clothing, promotion, & c. had been made. When the Army was in the field, brigaded with Her Majesty's Army, it became necessary that the whole Force should be under one discipline, and this the Bill would provide. But if some such words as those in the Bill were not introduced, then the Colonial Acts would be inoperative, and the Imperial Government would have to provide for the charge and internal economy of the Colonial Forces. It was necessary, therefore, to put all the Forces under one Act for purposes of discipline, leaving the internal arrangements under the Colonial Acts.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, this difficulty had only arisen through 41 changing the words of the original Act into the words now proposed—"troops raised by order of Her Majesty." Troops raised in the Colony could not be said to be raised by order of the Sovereign, and the clause gave rise to much uncertainty.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
was rather inclined to oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment, for the matter had been very fairly ventilated and if the discussion was closed now, to be revived on Report, all the ground would have to be travelled over again. He could not quite understand the argument of his hon. Friend, unless he proceeded on the assumption that the discipline in the Imperial Forces was more humane than that in the Colonial Forces, an assumption not altogether proved. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had referred to instances of cruelty practised by the Colonial Forces; but this was cruelty practised towards the enemy, not upon their own men, and how were they to make provision so that such cruelties might not be repeated? This point required clearing up. The Imperial Government did, of course, exercise influence over the Colonial action in that respect; and, indeed, it was not an unusual thing, when any cruelty was practised under the Government of any State in Europe, it was not unfrequently the case that the Government made certain representations to prevent a repetition of such cruelties. This course was followed in the case of Turkey, and in the case of Russia as against Poland. Surely, it was presumable the same thing could be done with the Colonies, even though the Colonial Army were not directly included under the authority of Her Majesty the Queen. He could see that much difficulty would be removed by the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
again expressed a hope that it would be clearly defined by the Law Officers how far the Act was to apply to Colonial Forces.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, such Forces could only be raised under the authority of an Act, and an Act required the assent of the Crown. He was sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member's (Mr. Chamberlain's) Amendment; but it had been so well answered by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and the right hon. Gentleman opposite 42 (Mr. Childers), that it was unnecessary to add more. He looked upon this as a protection clause for the Colonies, and giving to the Colonies such jurisdiction as was necessary. With regard to his general assertion, that Colonial law usually followed Imperial law, of course it was covered by the understanding that in all cases the assent of the Crown was required to local Acts.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, Her Majesty was Commander-in-Chief in every Colonial Act of Parliament.

§ MR. PARNELL
was sorry that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was not present. Upon the Colonial law, of course, it was not to be expected that the Secretary of State for War had any practical knowledge, and the Committee were left to the guidance of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins),who had taken a personal interest in the Colonies, and gave the Committee the benefit of his information. Now, the question had been raised with regard to India—

THE CHAIRMAN
hoped the hon. Member would see he was going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought that the officials of the Crown in charge of Departments should be present when those parts of the Bill connected with their Departments came on for the consideration of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he had not felt it his duty to interpose before but the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing the general conduct of the officials of the Crown.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
rose to a point of Order, and suggested that if his hon. Friend thought it necessary that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should explain the point, then his hon. Friend might move to report Progress until the right hon. Gentleman could be present. At the same time, he did not advise such a course.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member was at liberty to move to report Progress, if he thought proper to do so.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved to report Progress, not for the purpose of taking a division, but in order to express his opinion with regard to the Officers of the Crown, who were responsible for parts of this Bill. He thought the Under Secretary of State for India, and the 43 Secretary of State for the Colonies, should be in attendance -when parts of the Bill were reached which affected their Departments. Otherwise, the Committee was placed in a very false position and it was the business of those Gentlemen, who were in receipt of large salaries, to inform the House on questions affecting their Departments. Some Members of the Government appeared to take an interest in the discharge of their duties. The Home Secretary, for example, had always attended when clauses of this Bill were under consideration which related to his Department. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Under Secretary of State for India treated the Committee and the Bill with that lofty disdain with which they seemed to treat every question which was asked of them in reference to their Departments. As the Secretary of State for War, of course, knew nothing about those points, they were driven back upon the opinion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who, although he was acquainted with these subjects, yet could not deal with the matter with the authority of a Member of the Government. They wished to avoid what had happened recently in Zululand, and to provide that when Colonial Forces were serving with British troops in the field, they should be subject to the same laws and regulations as the British troops. It was a very important question, whether these Colonial Forces were exempt or not. Yet they were entirely dependent upon amateur assistance for an explanation of the point.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
did not think the presence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies would result in the communication of any information to the Committee. All the Officers of the Government could not be considered to hold important positions; for, in his opinion, the Judge Advocate General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland simply filled sinecure posts, intended for the more ornamental Ministers of the Administration. They were receiving most discordant views from the Treasury Bench. They were now told that 44 the Colonial Forces in the field under Imperial command would be subject to this Army Discipline Bill; yet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told them, a short time ago, that he was not responsible for throwing dynamite into caves in which were women and children. He should like to know which of these two statements was the correct one?

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,
on subsection 5, suggested that it might be amended so as to read— Officers of the yeomanry, and officers of the volunteers, whenever they are in actual command of men, who are in pursuance of this Act subject to military law. That would meet the case of trainings; and then he would also add the words—" or when their corps is on actual military service."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
moved, in page 92, line 27, before "orders," insert "general or special." His object was to cover a point raised the other day.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, the clause seemed to have a most serious and important effect. By it a political officer, or a Civil Commissioner, or even an envoy travelling with Military Forces, was liable to be tried by court martial, and that seemed to be very extraordinary. Sir Bartle Frere, according to this clause, if he were with the troops, might be tried by martial law. He would like to know whether it was the intention, if, for instance, a political officer differed from an officer in charge of the troops, that he should thereby subject himself to be tried by court martial?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
observed, that this clause placed certain persons in the position of officers.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that was all very well; but he wanted it clear, whether officers, such as he had mentioned, were to be tried by court martial?

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
moved, in page 92, lines 27 and 28, after "Governor General of India," to insert "subject to military law."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment, for it seemed to him absolutely indispensable that persons accompanying a Force should be under the control of the officer in command. Nothing could be more dangerous than to have a person accompanying the Forces not under discipline and with no recognized status. He himself, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, were subject to Naval law when on board ship; and it would be enforced against them if they violated it. He was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt).

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
pointed out that this might produce very serious results.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
wished to understand whether a Governor or Ambassador, travelling in one of Her Majesty's ships, was liable to be tried by court martial, if, for instance, he failed to put out a light?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said he would be.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
pointed out that there were a number of provisions in the Naval Discipline Act which were very peculiar to which he had, at an earlier period of the Session, called attention, and which the Committee ought not to sanction. Under certain circumstances, even a Colonial Bishop on board a ship commissioned by Her Majesty might, it was said, be liable to be flogged; and, for some reasons, it was to be hoped that a Bishop might be placed in such a position, because nothing could so perfectly demonstrate the extravagance of such law.

§ MR. PARNELL
opposed the Amendment. If they agreed to it, they would require a new scale of punishments. The present scale only referred to officers and soldiers, not to other persons who were now proposed subject to martial law.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, the early parts of this clause subjected certain persons to military law as officers, followed by a qualification that where such persons were Natives of India they should be subject to the Indian military law. This was one of several clauses which took Native Indians in the employment of this country out of this Bill and relegated them to what was 46 called the Indian military law. He thought that ought not to be, and that the Natives of India ought to enjoy all the benefits of any amelioration of our Military Code, and not be subject to the mercies of vague Articles of War. Englishmen were far too prone to regard persons with black skins as entirely different beings. In the Cape papers he found the Zulus constantly described as "niggers" and he had often seen similar language used with respect even to the Natives of India. Under these circumstances, the House of Commons ought to be very careful to give Native soldiers exactly the same protection that they gave their own countrymen. He moved, in page 92, line 30, to leave out from the word. "seas," to the end of the clause.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
remarked that, so far as his recollection went, the Indian Code was less, not more severe, than that in force in this country.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
protested against the impression that the Indian Code was more severe than English military law. That was not at all the case and, if he were in Order in discussing the point, he should be able point out that it was not by any means so severe. He should also like to observe that this exception was favourable to the Natives—as, for instance, a Native of India could be tried by court martial composed partly of Native Indians.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
remarked, that he did not intend to press the matter; but he might point out that the Indian Army was subject to Articles of which they in that House knew nothing; and he should be glad to know whether there was any objection to lay them on the Table of the House?

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the Indian Articles of War were printed and in the Library. The hon. Member was incorrect in another point, for he said that it was the custom of Indian officers, and other public servants, to speak of the Natives as "niggers." 47 No Native was ever so spoken of, except by some young Englishmen, just come out, who knew nothing of the Service.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
begged to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His statement was that he had seen it in the Cape papers in reference to the Natives of Africa.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
observed, that the clause, as it stood, was unnecessary. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would look at page 97, he would find that it was there stated that— Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the Indian military law respecting officers or soldiers or followers in Her Majesty's Indian forces.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
understood that his hon. Friend did not wish to divide but he had no doubt that any modification of the law which was necessary, in consequence of the changes in this Bill, would, as far as circumstances justified, be recommended by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope).