MR. SULLIVANI believe, Sir, you are aware that no stranger in the Galleries is allowed, by the regulations of this House, to take notes of our proceedings. The question was asked, with the Speaker in the Chair, the other day, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was by his orders, and by his permission, that a new functionary was introduced? It was pointed out that a person was making certain notes with pencil and paper in one of the Galleries, and more especially was noting the words of certain, and only certain, Members of this House. He noted when they rose, and how long they spoke. Mr. Raikes, I wish to ask you whether it is in Order, and whether such a practice should go on? I wish to know, from whoever can tell me, by whose direction this new functionary has been constituted, and with what purpose? I now call attention to the fact that the young gentleman is now engaged in the Gallery on your left. As regards the young gentleman intrusted with this delicate and responsible work, I am sure 48 he has not done it without proper direction, and to him, personally, not the slightest blame can be attached. But we desire to know in what character this proceeding is attempted; why this—I do not want to use the word in any offensive way—sort of espionage is to lead up to any punishment, or to any menace of punishment, to a Member of this House? I now ask, Mr. Raikes, if it is allowable any more to such gentlemen than to any stranger s who happen to be present at our debates to take notes of our proceedings? In calling your attention to this serious matter, I would beg to remind you that when complaint was made about the want of accommodation for the legitimate representatives of the Press of the country in this House, barely a year ago, that an application was made, or rather it was suggested, that the representatives of the Press might be allowed to take notes in the ordinary Strangers' Gallery, and that that application or suggestion was refused, on the ground that no one whatever outside the Reporters' Gallery should be allowed to take notes of our proceedings. I have seen gentlemen of importance immediately rebuked by the ushers in attendance, and ordered to give up their papers and pencil. I believe it, Sir, to be unprecedented, and appeal to you for direction in this matter. I ask, by whose authority this is done? Let the person on whose authority this has been done avow it and tell us his purpose.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member has put a question on a point of Order, which certainly, under ordinary circumstances, is one which should be rather addressed to the Speaker in full House than to the Chairman of the Committee. But I would point out to him that the Rule to which he has referred is one which is not an actual Order of the House, but a recognized Rule, which prohibits strangers from taking notes of the proceedings of this House in the Galleries. I did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the person to whom he has referred is a stranger. [Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes.] But if he is an official of this House he is not a stranger, and his performance of any act in this House must, in the first instance, be presumed to be done with the sanction, and under the authority, of those under whose respon- 49 sibility such a person is covered. It would be impossible for the Business of this House to be carried on if the subordinate officials of this House were to be, in the first instance, responsible to the House for their conduct. The Speaker is presumably the fountain and source of the action of all the officials of this House and it seems to me that if the hon. and learned Member wishes to raise any question on the subject, that the question should rather be addressed to the Speaker, than to any Member of this House.
MR. SULLIVANIn order that we may have the Speaker in the Chair, I beg to move to report Progress. I am simply carrying out your suggestion.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERI would respectfully suggest that, if possible, the Motion should be accepted without any unnecessary debate. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend has no desire to interrupt the progress of this Bill; and wish, at the outset, before any discussion on the subject is raised, to point out that if this Motion is assented to, we shall have an opportunity of having an authoritative statement from the Speaker, and have an opportunity of debating it before the Speaker. If hon. Gentlemen choose to exercise it, they have, no doubt, a right to debate the question whether we shall report Progress. Undoubtedly then, however, we shall have a long discussion, and then, probably, have the debate all over again, with the Speaker in the Chair. I merely rise, in the interests of the despatch of Business, to suggest that no undue obstacle should be placed in the way of making an appeal to the Speaker in the Chair.
THE CHAIRMANI understand the hon. and learned Member to move to report Progress, not for the purpose of stopping the Bill, but to ask a question of the Speaker; and, therefore, it would be better that he should put on paper the Motion he will make—namely, that I should report Progress, with a view to report the circumstances to which he refers to the Speaker.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, in order that, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, a
50
question may be raised as to notes being taken by a person, in the Members' Side Gallery of the House, not being a Member of the House."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIt is clearly desirable that this point should be disposed of without delay, if, by doing so, we do not interrupt the progress of the Bill—that we resume our work when the question is disposed of. I think we ought clearly to understand that the Motion being agreed to, and the point decided, that you, Sir, can again take the Chair, and proceed with the Bill.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out that when a special reference is made with the object that the conduct of Members, or any similar matter, may be taken into consideration—after that has been disposed of, the Committee can resume its sitting.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think then, Sir, we should save time by agreeing to the Motion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair:—and Mr. RAIKES reported Progress accordingly.
MR. SULLIVANMr. Speaker, with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair put a question which, I believe, may be more fitly put to you, and more efficiently answered by you. I believe there is a Rule that, except in that portion of our House set apart for the legitimate representatives of public opinion—namely, the representatives of the Press—no one who is not a Member of the House has a right to take notes or records of our proceedings with pencil or with pen and paper. Nevertheless, a Question was put the other evening in the House, calling attention, on the part of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), to the appearance, in one of our side Galleries, of a gentleman, not a Member of the House, engaged in taking notes—notes, apparently, of a very peculiar kind—namely, notes having reference to the conduct of special individuals of the House. I, myself, have seen and called the attention of the Chairman of Committees to the fact that there was present in the Members' side Gallery—not in the Gallery of the gentlemen of the Press— 51 a stranger, not a Member of the House, engaged in making such, notes and record of our proceedings. I was desirous of knowing, Sir, whether this was not, in the first place, an unusual proceeding, whether done by or without authority? If done by authority, wanted to know by whose authority it was done; and wanted to know, secondly, with what purpose or object such proceedings were taken? I, myself, saw the young gentleman so engaged. at once addressed him, and said—" Of course, if take any notice of your proceedings in the House, it must not be considered that am casting any reflection upon you." thought it right to indicate to him that some notice must be taken of his proceedings. do not wish to cast any blame upon him. That young gentleman is a stranger to me; but, presume, he must be engaged in some way about the House, and that he is acting by authority, and intend to deal with that authority as far as respectfully may. Sir, the question of reporting our proceedings is, as you are aware, a very old and very ancient consideration in the House of Commons of England. It has been very jealously guarded in the way of bringing men to the Bar of the House, from time to time, for the offence of making a record of our proceedings. The representatives of two of the greatest journals of the country were once brought to the Bar of the House for this offence. If this is a fair report of all that was passing in the House, certainly should be blind and deaf to it; and, need hardly say, should not raise any objection on the technical point of its being written in the Members' side Gallery but if this is to be an instruction to note any particular individuals in this House—their rising and sitting down, the words they use, the Amendments they speak upon, and how often they speak—then, Sir, resent it as most offensive. resent it as being, in some way, as though intended to lead up to censure and punishment; and resent it as not being the open-handed way of dealing with Members which ought to characterize punishment, or any step towards punishment, by the House. And now, Sir, respectfully ask you if it is in Order for anyone, not a Member of the House, to sit in the Members' side Gallery, and be habitually 52 employed, with pencil and paper, in making notes and records of our proceedings, and especially with reference to particular Members of the House secondly, by whose authority this unusual course has been taken; and, thirdly, with what views such course is being taken?
§ MR. CALLANMr. Speaker, I wish to supplement these questions. I can fully corroborate the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. Last week my attention was directed to the matter, and I noticed that the arrangement only applied to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. Sir, I remember, before I became a Member of this House, when seated in the Gallery, receiving a peremptory order not to take a note in my book. Since I became a Member of the House, I have repeatedly seen the officers of the Sergeant-at-Arms exercise the same control over others. We have a Gallery for the reporters. "We have had a Committee sitting on the question, of reporting, and we are now waiting for their final decision upon the Report. It is within the recollection of all the Members of the House that you, Sir, decided that the seats in the side Gallery were seats within the House, and that from them any Member so pleased could address you therefore, they are as much the seats of hon. Members as the seats upon, which we sit. But it is not a stranger who has been taking notes in that Gallery; it is one of our own officers, who has been directed, by some authority in the House, to take notes. It is of no use blinking the question. An attempt has been made to intimidate Members by infringing upon the freedom of debate, and by means of officers of this House appointed, I am sorry to say, not by this House, but by the Chief Clerk, as understand. Those officers, in communication with some higher officials, have been directed to spy—and it has not been thought derogatory to the officers of this House to set them to spy—upon a particular section of Members of this House. Sir, we resent that; and those of us who are connected with the Press are proud to think that the individuals who have been so deputed are not members of the Press. This charge is made against Mr. Jenkinson and Mr. Le Marchant, two of the Committee Clerks of this House, who have, on Monday and Tuesday of last week, 53 during the time that the Army Regulation and Discipline Bill -was in Committee, taken notes of the number and duration of the speeches of Irish Members.["Hear, hear!"] Am I to take that "hear, hear!" to mean that Conservative Members approve of this system of intimidating Irish Members? Am I to take it that they approve of a Clerk of the House being used as a spy upon the Irish Members? I again say, Sir, that on Monday and Tuesday I saw one of these gentlemen taking notes, and he is again taking them to day. But, yesterday, he was remarkable for his absence, for there was an English question before the House, and no note was taken of the speeches made upon that occasion. I hold it to be a most improper and dishonourable proceeding to allow a Clerk of this House, sitting in the place of a Member—
§ MR. SPEAKERI hope the hon. Member does not apply the epithet of "dishonourable" to any officer of the House.
§ MR. CALLANI spoke of the act, and not of the officer. believe the two Clerks who took the notes are as honourable—
§ MR. DODSONI rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir—apart from the question whether the taking a note—[Mr. CALLAN: Systematic] Systematic, or otherwise—is or is not inconsistent with the Rules and practice of the House—whether such an act as that which has been referred to should be characterized as dishonourable?
§ MR. CALLANI am sorry, but not surprised, at the support given to these proceedings by the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson).
§ MR. DODSONI rise to Order. gave no support to the act—I expressed no opinion concerning it, except that I asked whether such act—and I ask it again—can be fairly characterized as dishonourable?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn my, judgment the hon. Member for Dundalk is bound to withdraw such words used towards an officer of this House.
§ MR. CALLANI never intended to apply it to any officer of the House, and, therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing it. I said that had not the slightest intention of applying it to any officer of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the time has now come when I ought to interpose in this matter, and to say that if the act in question be dishonourable it is an act done by my authority. If the House will allow me I will state, in very few words, what I authorized to be done; and after I have stated what have authorized I am persuaded that I shall give satisfaction—at least, I trust so—to every quarter of the House. As the House is aware, according to the practice of the House, Minutes of our proceedings are taken from day to day. These Minutes are published in the Votes as hon. Members see them every morning. Lately—for some time at least—it has come to my knowledge that there has been great delay—unexpected delay—in the progress of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill through Committee; and on my own responsibility, and for my own information, I desired that Minutes should be taken of the proceedings on that Bill of a more full character than those which are taken from day to day. I may say that those Minutes have no reference whatever to particular Members of the House. They are fair and impartial reports of the proceedings of the House—and I am surprised that any body of Members should suppose that I was having reports taken in reference to particular Members. I should be exceeding my duty if I were so to do. I again say to the House that the Minutes I have had taken have no reference whatever to individual Members of this House—whether Irish, Scotch, or English Members—that they are fair and impartial reports of the proceedings of the House, and taken upon my own responsibility.
§ MR. PARNELLMr. Speaker, I rise merely to ask you a question. You have just now informed the House that, acting upon your own responsibility, you have directed certain Minutes to be taken of the proceedings of the House, and that those Minutes are not in reference to any particular Members, or to any particular section of Members. May I ask you, Sir, as to the nature and extent of those Minutes—whether they constitute a verbatim report of what is said by each Member of the House in the course of the debates upon the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill? And 55 if that be not so, may I ask you to describe to the House the nature of those Minutes?
§ MR. SPEAKERI can only say, in answer to the hon. Member, that there was no idea of making verbatim reports of what is said in the House. I can only describe them as Minutes more enlarged than those which hon. Members see upon their tables every day, specifying the Members who speak.
§ MR. PARNELLAll?
§ MR. SPEAKERAll.
MR. O'CONNOR POWER:Mr. Speaker, I think it will be generally admitted that the House has always been jealous of allowing its proceedings to be reported, and I think it will be also admitted that the act which you were pleased to authorize is without precedent in the history of the House of Commons.[" Oh, oh !"] If I am wrong in making this statement, hon. Gentlemen will have ample opportunity of contradicting me. I make that statement again, and believe it cannot be contradicted. At all events, it can be tested by reference to the Records of the House. It appears to me, Sir, that if you felt it would be an assistance to you, in the discharge of your duties as Speaker of this House, to have a more enlarged report of its proceedings, it would have been only fair to the House to have come down and asked for the consent of the House to a proceeding which, however necessary it might be, was without precedent in the annals of Parliament. I must say, as one of the Members of this House, that I do not see, Sir, from the statement which you have been pleased to make
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Committee has reported to the House a question to be submitted to me. That question has been put to the Chair and has been answered from the Chair; and I presume that the proceeding is thus terminated, and that the Committee will resume. If the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), or any other hon. Member, desires to raise a discussion on the proceedings of the Speaker, he is entitled to do so by Motion in the House. That is the proper course to take. The Report of the Committee has been made to the House, and I consider that the question has been fully answered. The House will now pro- 56 ceed to the consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill in Committee.
§ ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL, again considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Amendment again proposed, in page 92, line 80, to leave out from the word "seas," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Chamberlain).
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. O'CONNOR POWERMr. Raikes, beg leave to move that you do report Progress. The reason why I make this Motion is that I am not satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee at an earlier stage—namely, that of reporting a certain matter by you to Mr. Speaker. Well, Sir, the Speaker decided that the Business for which the House was called upon to resume, and the discussion which followed upon, the Report from the Committee, had concluded when he had answered the question which was put to him; and I was, therefore, unable to make, as I had intended, a Motion for the adjournment of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) explained to you the grounds upon which he moved that you do report Progress. I am not entitled to say whether there were other grounds in his mind or not; but I supported his Motion, because was thoroughly dissatisfied with the discovery which he made of a person engaged in the Gallery in reporting our proceedings. I feel it is a restriction upon the Privileges of the House for any gentleman sitting in the Gallery to report our proceedings, whether authorized to do so by the Speaker or anybody else. I rise to move that Progress be reported, in order that the House may not be deprived of its jurisdiction on a matter unheard of in the annals of the House of Commons, and that it may resume the full exercise of its functions.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI hope, Sir, that the Motion will not be pressed, or made the beginning of what I think may become a very unseemly discussion. I must remind the Committee that the position is this. A question was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, upon, which it was thought right that the Committee should report Progress, in order to put a question to the Speaker as to certain notes which were being taken in the Gallery. The question was put, and the Speaker has answered it—he has stated that it was by his authority that the notes were taken. I presume we are not thinking of disputing the ruling of the Chair? [Mr. PARNELL: Yes.] At the same time, the Speaker pointed out that if any Member of the House desired to dispute his ruling, and had a desire to bring this matter before the House, the proper course for him to take would be to submit a Motion on the subject: and I apprehend that if the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), or the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), or any other Member, wishes to raise the question, the proper action would be to take the course pointed out by the Speaker. I apprehend, however, after what has been said, that there will be no necessity for taking any such step; but this is a matter upon which I do not presume to speak with authority, and, possibly, some ton. Members may take a different view of it. I hope that we may not have the Business which we are upon interrupted by a discussion which may take a very irregular range. We must consider that we are now discussing the clauses of a Bill, and that we are not competent to discuss a question of the character which has been raised.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman appears to me not only convenient in reference to the course of Business this evening, but absolutely necessary, from the point of view of common fairness. Nothing can be a more well-known and recognized 58 rule of our proceedings than that, when the conduct of any Member of the House is called in question, it should be done upon Notice, and when the House is fully prepared to take into consideration the matter which is thus raised. I understand, from some observations by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was interrupted, that it is proposed by some hon. Members to call in question the conduct of the Speaker. Well, Sir, I have nothing to say against the right of hon. Members to take that course but, surely, it is perfectly obvious that that course ought not to be followed without due Notice? I must say, after the statement of the Speaker had been made, that I expected the discussion would, at all events for the time, have concluded, and that the hon. and learned Member for Louth would at once have risen to express his regret at having inadvertently accused the person whose proceedings have been mentioned of taking one-sided and partial notes in the Gallery, when he had been told that those notes. were of a general and impartial character. I cannot help thinking that a decision upon this subject in Committee would be extremely inconvenient, and I think, also, scarcely fair to the highest authority in the House, whose conduct in this matter is impugned—whose conduct ought not to be impugned—and whose conduct, I am sure, no one would wish to impugn—except in the most deliberate and solemn manner.
§ MR. CALLANThe statement of the noble Lord is just one which I should have expected to hear from him, and the course suggested by him is one in which I entirely concur. It is the course which I intended to adopt, with this exception. If you give Notice of bringing a matter of this kind before the House, you lose your right of privilege and precedence. Therefore, I intended, before raising the question, to give private Notice to the Speaker, and the other parties who may be conceived to be interested in the case. It is quite evident that Notice will be given but I advise my hon. Friends to give private Notice, so as not to lose their right of precedence, and of bringing it forward as a Breach of Privilege. But, pending that decision, I ask, is it respectful to this House, that any portion of the House itself, set apart exclusively 59 for Members of Parliament, and laid down by the Speaker himself as a portion of the House from which hon. Members can speak—is it right and proper that we should have, what we conceive to he, a kind of intimidation and restriction on the freedom—
§ COLONEL STANLEYI rise to Order. I ask whether, after the Speaker has, from the Chair, stated that the course to which the hon. Member refers is one taken by his directions, it is right for the hon. Member to refer to it as "a course of intimidation?"
§ MR. CALLANI make no imputation whatever on the Speaker.
THE CHAIRMANWhen the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rose I was about to point out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that the word "intimidation" is one which is never allowed in this House to be applied to any Member of this House. Do I understand the hon. Member to say it is not so applied?
§ MR. CALLANIt is not so applied. I said it was conceived by the Members of the House that the course complained of had been taken for that purpose. I may say that nothing of the kind would intimidate me. But pending this question, which is to be raised at an early date, I ask, is it not right that the party who is conceived to have offended should be asked to withdraw from the portion of the House which is the property of Members?
THE CHAIRMANI beg to point out to the hon. Member that the question which he now proposes to put is one which should have been put at an earlier stage of the Business of the House, and not in Committee. It is not in the power of the Chairman of Committees to exercise the jurisdiction to which the hon. Member refers.
§ MR. CALLANI believe that if a stranger—a bucolic farmer from the Agricultural Show, for instance—were to sit down in that Gallery, it would be the duty of the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him?
THE CHAIRMANThe two questions are entirely and wholly dissimilar. The authority of the Chairman of Committees can unquestionably be exercised with regard to strangers but when an official is performing a duty to which he has been appointed by the highest autho- 60 rity in the House, it is clearly not within the power or the duty of the Chairman of Committees to interfere.
§ MR. PARNELLThe advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—I do not want to enter into the debatable question whether he is Leader of the Opposition or not—is one which we might be better disposed to take if it was in accordance with the Rules and precedents of the House, and if it had not come from one who has shown himself, during the discussions of this Bill, a deliberate partizan of the Government in attempting to carry it through the House with all its imperfections. He has upon several occasions shown himself to be such a Government partizan—such a Government supporter—that, at first sight, any advice that came from him must be more or less tainted or discredited. How can we go on with this thing hanging over us? It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Speaker left the Chair without giving an opportunity to Members of this House to raise the question of Privilege, which they desired to raise. This is a question of Breach of Privilege by the Speaker of this House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI must ask you, Sir, whether that is language which ought to be applied to the Speaker? The words were "Breach of Privilege by the Speaker of this House."
THE CHAIRMANThe words appear to me to be extremely improper, and such as trust the hon. Member, upon his attention being called to them, will be prepared to withdraw. I did not understand the hon. Member absolutely to impute to any Member of the House direct Breach of Privilege. What I understood the hon. Member to say was, that it was a question whether such Breach of Privilege had been committed. I am not prepared to say that, in putting the question in this form, the hon. Member is directly out of Order; but think he will see, on reflection, that the words were such as he would be sorry to have used in reference to a Member of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLI said this was a question of Breach of Privilege, and we feel that we cannot go on any longer with the discussion of this Bill without having the decision of the House upon 61 the question. The Speaker of the House is no more than the servant of the House. He is for certain purposes—on questions of Order, and so forth—the mouth-piece of the House; but the Speaker has no original jurisdiction whatever. He has no jurisdiction but what is given him by the existing Orders, Rules, and Regulations in this House; and any Member has at any time the right to call in question the conduct even of you, Mr. Raikes; and any Member of this House is entitled to call in question the conduct of the Speaker of the House. And we do call in question the conduct of the Speaker of the House, and we do impugn the conduct of the Speaker in having directed
§ MR. DODSONI rise to Order. I wish to submit to your judgment whether, in Committee of the House on this or any other Bill, it is in the power of hon. Members to discuss the conduct of the Speaker of the House, or the Rules and Forms of the House?
§ MR. PARNELLMay I explain? ["Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANI point out to the hon. Member that he may speak to Order after the question which has been addressed to the Chair has been answered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) has asked me whether the hon. Member for Meath would be in Order in impugning the conduct of the Speaker? I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Meath that such a course would not be in Order. A Committee of the House is not the place, and this is not the occasion, when such a course could, with propriety, be taken; but I must also point out to the hon. Member and to the Committee that the practice of endeavouring to raise questions as to what has passed in the House on the Motion to report Progress is one which ought to be avoided. The hon. Member and other hon. Members have alleged, as reasons for reporting Progress, their dissatisfaction at the course taken in the House, and I have not felt it my duty to stop them. The reference, however, to what has taken place in the House as a matter of discussion would be entirely out of place and out of Order.
§ MR. PARNELLWe wish to impugn the conduct of the Speaker of the House, before the House, and with the Speaker in the Chair. We do not wish to take 62 that step in Committee, and I am aware that the Committee has no authority to take such a course, or entertain such a proposal. We wish the Committee to consent to the Motion to report Progress, in order that we may raise the question with the Speaker in the Chair. The gentleman alluded to sits in the Gallery, and, as I am informed, has resumed the practice. Whether that information is correct or not, we shall continue to do our duty under circumstances of great disadvantage as long as that one-sided practice is continued.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSI rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the practice to which he objects is one-sided. He says that, having distinctly heard Mr. Speaker say that it was impartial and applied equally to ail Members. I wish to know whether the hon. Member is in Order in making such a statement?
THE CHAIRMANThe observation of the hon. Member is one which I cannot say is out of Order. The hon. Member expressed his opinion as to this practice, and so long as it is expressed in Parliamentary terms I cannot say it is out of Order. At the same time, I point out that it cannot be considered respectful to the Committee to indulge in the tone which he has throughout the whole of his address manifested, in declaring himself openly against the decision of the highest authority of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLBut there is a still higher authority, and that is the House itself. We desire to submit to the House, and we are willing to abide by its decision, a question of importance to hon. Members. We ask from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will give us an opportunity, without further delay, to take the opinion of the House upon a question which is of the highest importance to us in the discharge of our duties. I presume the young man now taking notes takes down the name of each Member who rises; but, so far as I know, he does not take down what they say. I submit that that practice is surely derogatory to the power that we enjoy as Members of a Committee of this House. It renders it exceedingly difficult to us to discharge our duties, and it renders us exceedingly liable to misapprehension. This practice is not sanctioned by any Rule or 63 Order of the House—on the contrary, it is directly forbidden. No outside persons can take notes of the proceedings of the House. And if we allow such a practice to continue now it will grow into a precedent, and, as a precedent, it will become the rule of Parliament. We desire that the House of Commons should, at once and without further delay, be afforded an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion, "Yes" or "No," as to whether the practice which the Speaker has directed is an authorized practice or not, and as to whether it is according to the law of Parliament. This is a very simple request. The absurd opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Leader of the Opposition is really standing in the way of the conduct of Public Business, and, but for this, we might have had the opinion of the House long ago. We are told we can raise this question at the proper time; but when will be the proper time? If it is not a question of Privilege, no hon. Member would have time to raise it during the Session because Government have announced their intention of annexing all the Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the remainder of the Session. Now is the proper time for raising this question; and we ask the Government to agree to the Motion to report Progress, in order that, with the Speaker in the Chair, we may put the question to the House.
MR. SULLIVANThe noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his astonishment that I, who brought forward this question, did not rise on hearing the explanation of the Speaker, and express my regret at having made use of the term "one sided." I wish to make my position in this matter clear. I desired to bring this question before the Speaker, without making any reflection upon the conduct of the young gentleman alluded to. I move in this matter entirely from a Parliamentary point of view. With reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, I beg to say that did rise to express regret, but found that the Speaker had left the Chair. I should be glad that we should have an opportunity of discussing this question, but not necessarily immediately. And have no doubt, if the Leader of the House could satisfy my hon. Friend that he would not be precluded from raising it 64 as a matter of Privilege, that the Motion might be withdrawn. The question is a grave one. I believe that a precedent has been established to-night reflecting on the freedom of Parliament; but I appeal to my hon. Friends not to hasten on a discussion of the subject to-night.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThere will be no difficulty at all in raising this question in a way which will give it precedence of other questions. I believe I am right in saying that it is so. At all events, no objection will be raised to such a course on the part of the Government. I wish to impress upon hon. Gentlemen the hope that, now they understand that is to be the course taken, they will not waste time by further discussion of that point. We agree that the matter shall be brought forward as a question of Privilege, and it will, therefore, take precedence.
§ MR. GRAYI think we ought to be satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman will give us his assurance that the objectionable practice will be discontinued until the decision of the House be given. If that cannot be done without the authority of Mr. Speaker, then I trust that my hon. Friend will persevere in his Motion to report Progress. We have an objection to be spied upon in this way. And we are not inclined to wait until to-morrow to have this matter decided. If, however, the practice is at once discontinued, agree that the matter should be laid before the House to-morrow, and that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI am perfectly sure that it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that a considerable body of Members of the House object to the presence of this unprecedented reporter. We trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker of the House of Commons—whom we all so much respect—will withdraw this reporter, pending the decision of the House. I do not, in making this suggestion, even imply that it is wrong; but everyone will agree that it is unusual; and, pending the decision of this unusual matter, I trust that the reporter in question will leave the Benches of Members of this House.
§ MR. CALLANI think I may ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion to report Progress, for this reason—that since we alluded to the fact that the officer of this House had returned to his place I find that the official has disappeared. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Motion should be withdrawn, on the distinct understanding that it will be renewed when next that official takes his place in the Gallery.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERI have noticed that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has ventured to give advice on many occasions, and that his advice has been rejected. He has joined in the appeal addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer but I wish to point out that I shall not accept suggestions because the Leaders on both sides of the House have recommended them. Both have endorsed the same comments, and both agree that we are wrong. But this is a question of Order. I have acted throughout—as I shall be prepared to show on a future occasion—thoroughly in accordance with precedent and strictly in Order. I have been appealed to to withdraw my Motion to report Progress, on the ground of Order. I reject that appeal, because it is recommended to me on the ground that my Motion is not in accordance with Order but I am willing to withdraw it, because I believe it will be more in accordance with the convenience of the Committee that I should do so. On that ground I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion. But I must protest against the disorderly character of the proceedings that seem to find favour with certain hon. Gentlemen. I contend that it would have been right to have gone on with the question of Privilege. The highest authority in the House is compromised in that subject; for, without putting the Motion that "I do now leave the Chair," he left the House. I am in a peculiar position—I have shown that, technically, I am in Order; but think it better that the Rules of Order should be subservient to the convenience of the Committee. There has been already—or it is said that there has been—so much disorder on both sides of the House that I think we may appeal to Mr. Speaker that as this question has been raised—and it is one on which differences of opinion may arise—whether it would 66 not be courteous to withdraw this obnoxious person until the House has assented to the arrangement? If my hon. Friends are correct in saying that this objectionable person has been withdrawn—of course, for other reasons than the considerations that have been pressed upon me, and not at all upon the ground of Order—I shall ask leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress. It is difficult to talk to a great many persons at the same time on the same points; but I wish to point out that in asking leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress I do so for the convenience of the Committee. I say that, because I am informed that that gentleman has been withdrawn from the Gallery; but if the gentleman re-appears in the Gallery I shall hold myself at perfect liberty to renew my Motion.
§ MR. PARNELLI do not wish any misunderstanding to arise on the form in which this Motion is withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he believed that if the Motion were withdrawn this question could be raised at the commencement of our proceedings to-morrow as a question of Privilege. That I believe is the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself; but I wish to ask him, supposing his belief is not well-founded, and that we cannot raise this Motion at the commencement of our proceedings to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for its being raised?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERYes, Sir; we will give the opportunity referred to by the hon. Member.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment again proposed, in page 92, line 80, to leave out from the word "seas," to the end of the Clause.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. GRAYI beg leave to move that the Chairman do report Progress, as the young gentleman has re-appeared in the Gallery. So far as my powers go, I shall endeavour to prevent the continuance of the discussion of this Bill in Committee while this young gentleman remains in that portion of the House 67 reserved to Members, and takes no subordinate place.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gray.)
§ MAJOR O'GORMANI want to ask a question which will require a simple answer only. Sir, is any Member of this House, including Mr. Speaker, privileged to seat in this House—in the very body of this House—a stranger?
THE CHAIRMANThe question can be easily answered. No Member of this House, including Mr. Speaker, has any power of seating a stranger in the body of the House. But the person to whom the hon. Member refers is an official of the House, and is charged, in performance of his duty, to take a place in some part of the House.
MR. SULLIVANMay I suggest that there are parts of the House set apart for Members, and that there are other parts from which they cannot speak or vote, and that it is to the former portion that this gentleman has access. I appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary to withdraw his Motion on that ground. I think we can better accomplish the object we have in view, and save ourselves from misconception, if we adopt the course of raising this matter as a question of Privilege; but I give fair Notice that I shall spy strangers in the Gallery so long as this young gentleman remains.
§ MR. O'DONNELLHon. Members have not touched upon one side of this question, for it should be remembered that this person is not a stranger. With great deference to your ruling, Sir, believe the officers of the House stand either below the Chair or in the Stranger's Gallery; they might find places amongst the gentlemen of the Press, and I do not know why they might not shelter themselves in a still more sacred precinct. But we object, Sir, to this sort of reporter being placed in the seats of hon. Members. Any hon. Member who chose might take his seat in the Gallery, and those seats should not be occupied by officials of this House. If this man is still in the House, we do consider, Sir, taking the views we do, that there is very scant courtesy being shown to Members of this House. We are perfectly desirous of proceeding with Business; but after 68 the excitement that has evidently been raised on this subject, I do think that it is surprising to find this person still taking notes of our proceedings. There are two sorts of reports—a fair official report, taken at the Table of the House, and the reports of the Press; but we do object to this amateur sort of reporting. I fully sympathize with the position taken by the hon. Member for Tipperary; and I do not think he would be doing his duty unless he persisted in his Motion.
§ MR. WHITBREADI wish to suggest to hon. Members that we should uphold our dignity in approaching this question by treating it in a calm and formal manner after fair Notice. The course of spying strangers may be open to some misconception out-of-doors, if adopted by hon. Members. The part of the House to which reference has been made has, within my knowledge, been often used by officials of this House. I can call to mind having seen the Chaplain and a number of Clerks sitting there; and I think, so far as I can see, we should not mix up any question of this sort with a really secondary consideration. As far as my experience goes, a Clerk of the House would be perfectly in Order in being there, so long as no inconvenience was caused to hon. Members. That being the ease, and considering the heated character of this discussion, would it not be better for hon. Members who wish to impugn the action of the highest authority of this House to do so in a calm and temperate manner, after we have had time to consider the precedents? I do think that hon. Members would consult our dignity, if they would allow us to proceed with the Business before us. There is no question of reporting our speeches outside, or of any communications being made to strangers. The question is entirely one of Privilege, and we ought to discuss it in a proper spirit.
§ MR. CALLANWe all cordially agree with the advice addressed to us by one whom we so much respect, and who is such an authority in this House as the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think it has been assumed that it is a mistake to bring this matter forward in the manner it has been without previous Notice to Mr. Speaker. I had intended to give private Notice of it; but, Sir, as attention has now been called to the matter, I hope that no hon. Member will 69 espy strangers, but will allow our proceedings to be reported. If strangers were spied, we should be sitting here in camera—a mode of procedure we so strongly objected to yesterday in the case of even a small Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) will, however, use his influence to endeavour to obtain a discontinuance of this objectionable practice as to this young person. It is a small concession, and so eminently one of good feeling towards Members of this House, that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should rise in his place and add the influence of his position to ours, and join in the suggestion which has been made, that this objectionable practice should be discontinued pending the decision of the House.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERI do not want to take the responsibility of initiating these proceedings. The knowledge of Parliamentary procedure shown by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and other hon. Members, do not make me disposed to take the initiative.
§ MR. CALLANThough I suggested to the hon. Member for Mayo that he should withdraw his Motion to report Progress, in order that we might proceed to Business, pending the decision of the House to-morrow upon the point, yet will appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary to persist in his Motion to report Progress, even at the risk of delaying important Business, if the practice, which we cannot but regard as anything else than an attempt at terrorism, is persisted in.
THE CHAIRMANThe word "terrorism," used by the hon. Member, is entirely out of Order, as applied to the conduct of any hon. Member of this House.
§ MR. CALLANI stated that it would be regarded as an attempt at terrorism.
§ MR. CALLANI withdraw it; but I do feel that the person in the Gallery, spying on my proceedings here under exceptional circumstances, is a proceeding that certainly must influence me, and exercise a deterrent influence upon me in my place here.
§ MR. DILLWYNI now rise respectfully to appeal to the Chancellor, of the Exchequer, whether it would not be desirable that he should suggest to the highest authority of the House that this person should be withdrawn from the Gallery until such a time as the House should arrive at a decision upon the matter? What is the position in which we are now placed? Circumstances have taken place, and the action of the highest authority of the House has been called in question. I am not going to state my own opinion—we shall all have an opportunity of discussing the matter at the time to which it has been postponed. The question of Privilege has been raised, and it is agreed now that it shall come on to-morrow. Pending that discussion, is it desirable that the proceeding in question shall go on? Whether right or wrong, it is a question affecting the Privileges of this House—a very serious and large question—which I do not wish to express any opinion upon now. It may prove a very serious matter to call in question the action of the highest authority of this House and the question is one of such a serious nature that it is upon all hands agreed that we shall be acting rightly in postponing it until to-morrow. Will it not be better—as there can be no great object in continuing the services of this person—that the practice should be discontinued in the meantime? I will venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would facilitate the proceedings of the House, which we all wish to do, if he will lend the great weight of his influence to the suggestion which has been made that this practice should be discontinued.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI do not see, Sir, in what way I can interpose in this matter. The question which has been raised was originally addressed to Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker informed the House that the gentleman who had been introduced into the Gallery was acting under his orders, and that he was employed in taking certain notes for the private information of Mr. Speaker himself. It has been known, apparently, for some time, that this practice has been going on because the hon. Member for Dun-dalk (Mr. Callan) called attention to the circumstance by a Question, and had communications with Mr. Speaker on the 71 subject. Mr. Speaker has told us that he considers that he has authority to employ this gentleman in the -way in which he has been employed. It is, as I understand, the intention of some hon. Gentlemen to bring forward a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker ought not to take that course, and when the time comes—as it will to-morrow—for that Motion to be made, it will be made and discussed. At the present moment, however, we are quite incompetent—and I do not think that it would be courteous—to call back Mr. Speaker to make this proposal to him. As to making such a suggestion privately, I must altogether decline to do so for to take such a course would be to commit an imprudence. If hon. Gentlemen think it necessary to divide the Committee upon the question of reporting Progress they can do so, and it will then be seen whether the Committee desire that Progress should or should not be reported. I venture to submit that hon. Members are entirely out of Order in discussing now the details of the matter of which I have been speaking.
§ MR. GRAYI wish to substitute a Motion, which I will read to the House, for the one which I have already moved. It is—
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to report to the House that an Official of the House is engaged in taking notes of the Proceedings of the Committee, without the authority of the House or of the Committee, from a place reserved for Members of the House, and that, in consequence, the Proceedings of the Committee are interfered with.A great breach of Privilege has been committed; and it is desirable that a Member should not be liable to misrepresentation in discharging what he considers to be his duty. I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on this matter; it is my belief that it was agreed on all sides that it was a great inconvenience for the matter to be raised now, and that it would be better raised to-morrow. I, for one, understood that, in the meantime, the objectionable practice would be discontinued. I find, however, that I am mistaken in that belief; and I am now desirous of placing upon the records of the House the fact that one Member of this House, at least, objects to the transaction as a breach of Privilege.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to report to the House that an Official of the House is engaged in taking notes of the Proceedings of the Committee, without the authority of the House or of the Committee, from a place reserved for Members of the House, and that, in consequence, the Proceedings of the Committee are interfered with."—(Mr. Gray.)
§ MR. O'DONNELLWhile I originally agreed with the Motion for simply reporting Progress, as a protest against the continuance of this proceeding, I cannot agree to the Motion which has been now made by the hon. Member for Tipperary, for I think that Motion distinctly commits the Committee to the re-opening of the whole question which we have been considering, and upon which both sides are agreed that the consideration should be reserved until to-morrow. Although I was in favour of reporting Progress, in order to call attention to the continuance of this proceeding, I am not in favour of any further step tending regularly to re-open this question. I shall, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Tipperary that, in deference to the views such as we have just heard from one of the most respected Members of this House, he should not persist in his protest against the continued presence of this person, but should let us go on with the Bill for the rest of the evening. I think, however, that it is not courteous to continue this proceeding to which objection has been taken when so much has been said with regard to it. But if it is continued, we must do our best to put up with the inconvenience and proceed with the discussion.
§ MAJOR O'GORMANwish to say one or two words in defence of this unfortunate official who now remains in this House taking notes. It is his duty—he is here by the order of the Speaker; and he cannot retire without orders. But I must say this—that it is disrespectful to the House on the part of the Speaker, and after what has taken place, not to remove this person from the Gallery.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERIf I may make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Tipperary it is that he should allow 73 his Motion to be negatived. If he allows his Motion to be negatived without going to a Division, his protest will be recorded, and will appear upon the Journals of the House, and that will be sufficient.
§ MR. PARNELLI think that the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer all through the proceedings has been unfortunate. If he had agreed at the commencement to allow Progress to be reported, we should have had the question decided a whole hour ago, and we should now have been proceeding with the clauses of the Bill. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately-wasted public time—an observation very frequently applied to us—we can only make the best of a bad business, and after the protest—the very proper protest—of the hon. Member for Tipperary has been placed on record, I think we shall have to submit for the rest of the evening to the inconvenience of the unauthorized presence of this gentleman in the Gallery. If we are to be afforded an opportunity to-morrow of discussing the whole question, I think, under all the circumstances of the case, we may allow the Motion to be negatived, and proceed to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. CALLANThe Government have not acceded to the course which we have suggested, and I cannot but think that the silence of the Government shows some kind of complicity on their part in this objectionable course of procedure. There are rumours afloat as to the use which has already been made of the notes taken up to this time. It is rumoured—and I wish to give public notice of the rumour, in order that, if not true, it may to-morrow receive a full and ample contradiction—that the superior authorities of this House, other than Mr. Speaker, have met and considered, and that a form of indictment has been drafted recording the number of times certain hon. Members have spoken, and stating that their conduct amounted to obstruction of the Business of the House—a course which is in contravention of the ruling of Mr. Speaker two years ago. It is also rumoured—I will not say Mr. Speaker, but that the high officials of this House have made use of these notes—I will not say that they conspired, but they have met together and consulted as to how they can best 74 utilize the information which they have obtained from the lists that have been made, and that the form of the indictment has been already drawn up for the purpose of being utilized, if occasion shall arise. There is also a rumour that the Government have complicity in these proceedings, and also that the superior officials of the House have already utilized the information for the purpose of entrapping Irish Members into some breach of Order. Unless contradicted to-morrow, I think these rumours may be taken as facts.
§ MAJOR NOLANAs this practice will probably go on until Mr. Speaker takes the Chair to-morrow, I should like the Committee to know what is really being done. I have made it my business for the last half-hour—being at liberty to go to what part of the House I like—to sit next the official who is engaged in taking notes, and to observe the manner in which he takes them. It seemed to me that his proceeding was an entirely novel one. I saw it stated in the Press the other day that certain Members had spoken so many times, and certainly I was surprised to find that was I credited with having spoken 18 times; but now have seen how the notes are taken can understand the matter. If, for example, the hon. Member for Meath got up to address the Committee he was credited with speaking once. If the hon. Member for Mayo got up to interrupt him for a moment and he got up again, being still in possession of the Committee, this was marked down as a second speech. You Sir, will perhaps then call the hon. Member for Meath to Order, and the hon. Member explains. This is put down for a third speech, and so it goes on. I think it necessary to point this out; because, when we are discussing this matter to-morrow, it is well that we should know the system upon which these notes have been taken for some time. I do not consider that the system upon which they are taken is a candid one. It is not a nice thing to have to go and sit next an official of the House to observe what he is doing. I have not the slightest fault to find with the official who was taking the notes, and who was, no doubt, strictly obeying orders; but the whole circumstances are unpleasant. I have, to the best of my ability, informed the Committee of what I believe is being done. 75 It is, however, a very miserable thing for us to have to go into.
§ MR. GRAYI do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and I do not think it would be just to take a Division upon my Motion unless the Committee should desire it. If my Motion is put and negatived by the Committee it will go upon the records of the House, and I shall be quite content. I do not wish to trouble the Committee unnecessarily; I only wish to place a protest on this matter permanently on the records of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLI am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way for the information which he has given us as to the manner in which these notes are being taken. After what we have heard from him, the Committee must not feel surprised if my speeches should be considerably longer while this person remains in the Gallery than they have been up to the present time. Hitherto, I have been in the habit of endeavouring to compress my observations as much as possible. But the habit of compressing observations is, unfortunately, attended with this disadvantage—that you are liable to omit some things that you require to say, and which you are obliged to say afterwards, in answer to some false argument brought forward by the other side. Henceforward, I shall answer all arguments that may be advanced against my contention, so that there shall be no reason for my speaking a second time, and making myself liable to a charge which, I suppose, will be brought against me in what I must call a most un-English fashion.
§ MR. CALLANTo-morrow we shall discuss this matter as a question of Privilege. I hope that these notes will not be used to-morrow, but that they will be left with the Librarian for our inspection. We ask for an inspection of the notes taken officially by one of our paid officials for the use of the House. Are we to have the Star Chamber back again? Are Irish Members to be prevented from seeing the official notes taken by the direction of the Speaker—by the paid officials of the House? I But will not further discuss the question now, for I am quite certain that my suggestion will be sufficient to cause these things, like the cat-o'-nine-tails—and these things are a moral cat-o'-ninetails—to be produced. The cat-o'- 76 nine-tails were left with the Sergeant-at-Arms for our inspection, and I ask that this moral cat also shall be left with the officers of the House for our inspection.
MR. SULLIVANI have listened with pain to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan); and I can only say that if such a statement had been made in the House of Commons in the days of Pym and Hampden, I know who would be in the Tower on the morrow morning.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had asked a question with regard to a matter upon which it would be satisfactory that the Government should give an assurance. He asked whether, in case the Indian Articles of War should be found more stringent than this Bill, the Government would use its influence with the Indian Government in order to modify them?
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not answer the question at the present moment. At the same time, he had no doubt that after his right hon. Friend had inquired into the matter he would give such directions.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had the authority of the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLremarked, that this question had been before the House on a previous occasion, and the hope was held out that the Government would place the Indian Mutiny Act upon the Table of the House, so that they might really know what it was.
§ COLONEL STANLEYIt is in the Library.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it had not been distributed to hon. Members. It was only right that the Act should be laid on the Table of the House.
§ Amendment (Mr. Chamberlain), by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL STANLEY,in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, in page 92, line 32, at end, to add— 77
"(8.) Any person, not otherwise subject to military law, accompanying a force on active service, -who shall hold from the commanding officer of such force a pass revocable at the pleasure of such commanding officer entitling such person to be treated on the footing of an officer.
§ MR. PARNELLhoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the kindness to inform the Committee who the persons were to whom the clause would apply, and what the exact position was which it was intended they should occupy?
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he could not tell the hon. Gentleman exactly who all the persons might be to whom the clause would be applicable. The question was one which had, on a recent occasion, been the subject of discussion for several hours, and the Amendment which he proposed was the result of that discussion. The clause would cover such cases as those of newspaper correspondents or photographers accompanying the Army. Persons of a superior class would be treated on the same footing as officers, while others would be placed on the footing of private soldiers.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at all satisfactory. It was now proposed to make a change in the law which, in his opinion, it was by no means advisable to introduce. Newspaper correspondents were not placed under the operation of martial law either by the provisions of the old Mutiny Act or the Articles of War, and he objected to the alteration as affecting them to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the Committee to assent. He should be glad to see the position of newspaper correspondents with the Army improved; but he did not think' the Amendment would effect that object, and he should deem it to be his duty to take a Division upon it. He should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army in the field were now subject to military law?
§ COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that they did not come under the operation of the Mutiny Act, but that they were liable to be governed by the law of the camp. All, he might add, that it was sought to do by the Amendment was to place them under the protection of military law, and to give them a recognized position.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERpointed out that the Amendment would not only give those to whom it related a recognized position, but that it would enable them to draw rations and forage as officers. Under these circumstances, newspaper correspondents ought to be placed under the operation of military law. He should like, however, to ask whether the case of newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army did not come within the scope of sub-section 11 in the next clause?
§ MR. PARNELL,having referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for War, that newspaper correspondents were now liable to be governed by the law of the camp, expressed a wish to know what that law was? Were they under the jurisdiction of the provost marshal? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to say so but he would submit to the Committee that neither under the Mutiny Act nor any other Act was a newspaper correspondent with the Army subject to the provost marshal. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the law of the camp, did he mean that newspaper correspondents might be tried by the provost marshal? If so, he could only say that he doubted the accuracy of such a statement exceedingly. It had no foundation in either the Articles of War or the Mutiny Act. It appeared to him to be simply an invention of the Secretary of State for War.
THE CHAIRMANOrder! The hon. Member is not entitled to speak' of a statement made by any other Member of the House as an invention. I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.
§ MR. PARNELLCertainly. His object was merely to direct the attention of the Committee to the ingenuity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he did not intend to use the word "invention" in any offensive sense. He was under the impression that it was a very harmless phrase and he would point out that there had been a recent ruling from the Chair which, in his opinion, would, if strictly acted upon, very much limit the freedom of discussion.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The expression which I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw was one in which he attributed invention, to the 79 right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War, as applied to a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in this House. The hon. Member, in using such an expression, appeared to me to be casting an imputation on the good faith and honour of another Member of this House, the Secretary of State for War. [Mr. PARNELL: Absurd.] The hon. Member then proceeded to comment on the ruling of the Chair, and to put upon the words which he used some exceedingly remote and far-fetched interpretation. I must say that the hon. Member seems to me to be trifling with the Committee.
§ MR. PARNELLI altogether deny that you are entitled to put such a construction on anything that I have said.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSrose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether, if the hon. Member for Meath disputed the correctness of his ruling, it would not be necessary, if the matter was to be discussed, to have the Speaker in the Chair.
THE CHAIRMANThe expression used by the hon. Member to I which called his attention was not in Order, and he has no right to dispute the ruling of the Chair in the matter. He is out of Order in doing so.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had done nothing of the kind, and contended that the noble Lord the Postmaster General had not the slightest ground for stating that he had disputed the ruling of the Chair; for the moment the Chairman called upon him to withdraw the word to which he objected he did so. Really, before a Member raised a preposterous point of Order he ought to be sure that he was acquainted with the facts of the case, and ought to be able to substantiate the charge which he made. He (Mr. Parnell) had cast no imputation whatever on the good faith or honour of the Secretary of State for War and, at the request of the Chairman, he had at once withdrawn the allegation with respect to invention on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the Chairman was of opinion that the word which was used was un-Parliamentary. He altogether denied, however, that the phrase was intended to be of an offensive character. Certainly not. He should be very sorry to use any expression of that kind with regard to the 80 right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He had been a witness, a constant witness—a more constant witness, at all events, than, perhaps, any other Member of the House during the last two months—of the courtesy, kindness, and forbearance of the Secretary of State for War, and he should very much regret making any imputation against him. But he felt he must say he was excessively indignant that one of the Colleagues who sat by the side of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was so rarely in the House as not to be in a position to form a just opinion on the bearing of any of its Members, and who had no knowledge whatever of the Bill under discussion, should obtrude himself, as the noble Lord had done, on a point of Order which he had no justification for raising.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must again rise to Order. The point to which he had called attention had been ruled by the Chairman against the hon. Member for Meath; and he wished to ask the Chairman whether, in his opinion, the hon. Member was justified in contesting that ruling? The hon. Member, he submitted, was out of Order in doing so.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not contested the ruling of the Chair. He begged distinctly to deny that he had done anything of the kind.
§ MR. J. BROWNrose to Order. He thought the hon. Member for Meath was out of Order in making any further remarks on the point. He might add that he had distinctly heard the hon. Member use the word "absurd" while the Chairman was giving his decision.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not trifle with the time of the Committee by continuing so absurd a discussion.
THE CHAIRMANI have to state, in answer to the noble Lord the Postmaster General, who addressed a question to me on a point of Order, that it appears to me the hon. Member for Meath was certainly out of Order in contesting the decision of the Chair, and denying the justice of its ruling as to the un-Parliamentary character of the expression which he used.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to make a few remarks on the Amendment, as he supposed the point of Order which had 81 been raised might now be regarded as having been disposed of. He could not help thinking that it was very undesirable that persons who accompanied the Army as representatives of the Press, for the purpose of giving what they believed to be a fair and correct report of what they saw, should be subject to the operation of military law. It was perfectly reasonable, of course, that such persons should be required to conform, as far as possible, to the conduct which was expected from officers and gentlemen, and that the commanding officer should have the power of removing them from the camp if they were guilty of any transgression which rendered such a course expedient. That was the course which had recently been taken by General Roberts in Afghanistan in the case of a correspondent for pursuing a line of conduct to which he objected. For his own part, he thought there was considerable inconvenience in allowing irresponsible persons to be with the Army at all; and the justice of that view was borne out by what had occurred in the instance of the Prince Imperial. But it was absurd that the agent of a London, or any other newspaper, should be subjected to military law in the way in which was proposed.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee that the Amendment, if agreed to, would make a decided alteration in the existing law. Newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army had never hitherto been put under any description of military law. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War talked about the rule of the camp but he must be aware that it was a rule which was never enforced, in the way that it could be, against the correspondents of the newspapers. The Amendment, in fact, was nothing more or less than an attempt to place a bit in the mouth of newspaper correspondents, and to keep them under the control of the military authorities, so that they might send home no intelligence of which the General in command did not approve, and which was not subjected to his criticism and alterations. The justice of that view was borne out by what had been done in Afghanistan, where a newspaper correspondent—who refused to do something, for not doing which the Committee was now asked to subject an 82 offender to military law—was turned out of the camp. Well, let a correspondent be treated in that way, by all means, if his acts were of such a kind as to prejudice or imperil the operations of the Army; but let him not be subjected to a code of law which it was never intended should be applied to a person occupying his position. He should like, for a moment, to call the attention of the Committee to some of the provisions of the Bill which they were asked to extend to the case of newspaper correspondents, under the operation of military law. It was provided, for instance, that any person subject to military law who "gives intelligence to the enemy" should be liable, on conviction by a court martial, to the punishment of death that was to say, that if a newspaper correspondent, in the discharge of his duty, unwittingly wrote anything which was afterwards published, and which, in the opinion of a commanding officer, came within the definition of "intelligence to the enemy," the correspondent might have sentence of death pronounced upon him. Now, that he could not help regarding as a monstrous proposal. If it were deemed to be necessary that a correspondent's letters should be inspected before they left the camp, there was ample power to exercise that supervision over them; but that a correspondent should be made liable to have the penalty of death inflicted on him, merely because he happened to have written something in one of his letters which might be held by a court martial to be in the nature of "intelligence to the enemy," was a proposal which was perfectly preposterous. Again, the provision of the Bill that any person subject to military law who "knowingly" did anything calculated "to imperil the success of Her Majesty's Forces, or any part thereof," was liable to be put to death, would also apply to the case of newspaper correspondents if the Amendment before the Committee were agreed to; and the question, whether the Act complained of was or was not of the nature set forth in the Bill, would have to be determined by a court martial, who would have the power of deciding whether the letters of the correspondent of a London newspaper, written under circumstances of great difficulty, came under the operation of the sub-section 83 which contained the words which he had just quoted. He could very well imagine that a court martial in the field might, owing, perhaps, to some spite entertained by its members against a particular correspondent, give a verdict in such a case of which they might afterwards have cause to regret. Clause 4 of the Bill also provided that every person, subject to military law,
"Who treacherously holds correspondence with or gives intelligence to the enemy, or treacherously or through cowardice sends a flag of truce to the enemy,should, on conviction by a court martial, be liable to suffer penal servitude. Now, what, he would ask, was the vocation of a newspaper correspondent? His vocation was to furnish intelligence to the public, and the necessary consequence of the publication of that intelligence was that it must come to the knowledge of the enemy. In these days of newspaper enterprize, anything which appeared in a newspaper, or anything which was sent through the telegraph wires by a correspondent, must, from the very nature of the case, be intelligence to the enemy; and there was nothing said in the Bill as to the meaning which was to be attached to the word "intelligence". It was absurd, on the face of it, he contended, to subject the correspondents of newspapers, under such circumstances, on conviction, it might be at a moment's notice, to the punishment of death or penal servitude. Even Cetewayo, he had seen it stated, had all the Cape newspapers at his camp, or kraal, containing the most minute intelligence as to the movements of his opponents. Yet the intelligence thus supplied might be twisted by a court martial into intelligence given to the enemy, and the correspondent who had supplied it to the newspaper of which he was the representative might be condemned to death for an act which he had done in the ordinary discharge of his duty. Now, that was a proposal so monstrous that he hoped the Committee would not tolerate it for a single moment. It was sought to put down, in black and white, a provision in the Bill which would, he repeated, make a complete change in the law as it now stood, and which was open to the greatest objection. The right hon. and gallant Gen- 84 tleman the Secretary of State for "War said that newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army were at present subject to the ordinary law of the camp but nobody knew what that law was. It had never been embodied in an Act of Parliament, and rarely or never been enforced against any of those persons. Of course, the officer in command had the power of turning a correspondent out of the camp if he considered that he had done something which was prejudicial to the interests of the Army; but no correspondent had ever been put to death because it was supposed he had furnished intelligence to the enemy and there was nothing, he might add, to show that the intelligence supplied must be of a harmful character, in order to render the correspondent liable to be so punished. It was, further, provided in Clause 5 of the Bill that every person subject to military law,"Who, by word of mouth or in writing, spreads reports calculated to create unnecessary alarm or despondency,should, on conviction by a court martial, be liable to penal servitude. But how often, he would ask, had not correspondents sent reports to the journals in London, or elsewhere throughout the country, which were calculated to create alarm and despondency with respect to the position of the Army? Did it not happen that letters of that kind were brought by almost every mail which arrived from the Cape? Were the authors of such letters, he' should like to know, to be muzzled by Act of Parliament, and to be placed at the mercy of a court martial in the field? The clause was not limited in regard to time. Any man who, six months previously, had used words calculated to create alarm or despondency, might be sentenced to death. There were a variety of other offences mentioned in the clause, none of which ought to entail a punishment of this kind. The Government, instead of seeking by this section to implicate newspaper correspondents, ought to bring in a separate Bill relating to newspaper correspondents in the field and they should take council with those officers who had had experience of these gentlemen. No doubt, there were plenty of officers who were capable of giving advice to the Government on a matter of this kind, and who would 85 assist them in drawing up a Code of Rules for the regulation by Government of newspaper correspondents during war. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Government, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee.
§ MR. E. JENKINShoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider this clause; because, although he was not prepared to go so far as the hon. Member who had just spoken, yet he thought it would be a pity to introduce into this Act a clause about newspaper correspondents. The 166th and 167th sections appeared to him to give ample powers for dealing with all persons who accompanied an Army in the field. At present, it was admitted that, supposing a newspaper correspondent indiscreetly conveyed information to the enemy, it was in the power of the commanding officer to order him out of the camp. Then came the question, was it advisable or politic, in view of the relations existing between the Press and the public in this country—there being no doubt that the Press had done great service in exposing the weakness of military commands and operations in the field—to put a clause into an Act of Parliament which, seemed to recognize the right of a commanding officer to bring these gentlemen before a military tribunal and subject them to the penalties of military law? He did not think this was a politic thing to do and it would be far better to leave the matter in the general terms in which it at present stood in the Bill. These general powers were amply sufficient to deal with the cases which might arise.
§ COLONEL STANLEYI wish, in the first place, to say, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I explained why, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I moved his Amendment. Having accepted it in principle the other night, I was bound to carry out the undertaking I had made with him. The question originally arose in this way. The Select Committee on this Bill recommended that all camp-followers, and all persons accompanying the Forces, should be brought under military law where the offences and procedure would be specified, and the punishments limited. They would, in fact, be brought under a regular Code and it appeared to the 86 hon. and learned Member for Oxford and the other Members of the Committee—for I believe they were unanimous on the point—that this would be a protection to them. It was, however, suggested that a distinction should be made, and that these persons should be placed rather on the footing of officers than that of common soldiers, and in that I agreed. These persons must be under some law, or no law and if they are brought under military law it is a distinct protection to them, and it is not unreasonable that they should be treated as officers. That is the reason why I accepted the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was quite true, in all respects, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had just stated. The discussion originally arose on Clause 36; and it was promised that, at a later stage of the Bill, some words should be proposed to meet the case of these newspaper correspondents.
§ MR. E. JENKINSasked, whether they desired to put newspaper correspondents in the English Army on a worse footing than they would be if they were accompanying the Russian Army? There was no doubt no Russian General would think of shooting an English newspaper correspondent. They all knew perfectly well that a number of correspondents accompanied the Russian Army during the late war, and that the Grand Duke, who was in command, felt aggrieved at much of the information conveyed to the public; but he did not put these gentlemen under military law. He hoped the Committee would forgive him for pressing this matter. It was one of policy and good-feeling, rather than one of mere technical rigidity. A newspaper correspondent, to a certain extent, ought to be a privileged person; but all they proposed to do in that direction was to place him on the footing of an officer, the result of which must be that he would write with a sort of cord round his neck. He was certainly not to be liable to be flogged: but he was to be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude if he committed an error. At present, if a newspaper correspondent committed an improper act, he should be treated as General Roberts treated the correspondent of The Standard, and ordered out of camp. If General Roberts had had such 87 a clause before him as that now proposed he would have felt obliged to treat the correspondent under military law, and subject him to military discipline. Now, would it be advisable to do such a thing as that? Would it not be far better to leave the matter as it at present stood?
§ SIR HENRY JAMESwished it to be understood that this Amendment was not intended in any way to restrict the powers of military correspondents. It was rather intended to protect them, and give them a status which they had not hitherto enjoyed. If such a clause was not passed, these correspondents would be liable to be dismissed from the camp by any commanding officer who felt annoyed at them. No doubt, it was proposed that they should be subject to the punishment of officers; but they would also receive the protection of officers, and no commanding officer would bring them arbritrarily before a court martial. All who had the interests of these correspondents at heart would vote for this clause, because it was clearly a distinct protection which was about to be given to them.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsuggested that they should postpone coming to a final decision on the matter until the Government had communicated with the parties likely to be concerned, and ascertained what their view of the matter was.
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not consent to a postponement, and could not withdraw the Amendment, because it was part of the understanding that he should move it in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had taken this Amendment from some words which he himself had suggested in the course of one of the previous discussions; and he suggested those words distinctly in the interests of the newspaper correspondents, and that was the direction in which he believed the clause would work.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, if the Committee divided, as at present advised, he should not know how to vote. He was extremely anxious that newspaper correspondents should receive the fullest protection whilst abroad, or anywhere else; but he thought the insertion of this clause would tend to give an officer 88 an undue control over them, and they might incur very disagreeable consequences by speaking out fully. No doubt, it was said the clause was intended for the advantage of these gentlemen, and if that was really so he should be glad to support it; but, under all the circumstances, he thought it would be advisable to postpone the matter until they could get the opinion of those who were best able to judge whether the adoption of the clause would be to their advantage or not.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought it would be a most unusual thing to postpone the decision of the House of Commons until they had ascertained what the opinion of certain newspaper correspondents was. From an occasional reading of the newspapers, he must say he was not very much enlightened as to what was the way in which he ought to conduct himself. Therefore, instead of referring their differences to the newspapers, they had better settle them amongst themselves; because if they were to shape their conduct according to the opinion of the newspapers, they would often find themselves in a position of great difficulty. In the interests of the passing of this Bill, he protested against any postponement. The simple question for them to decide was, whether it was to the advantage or not of newspaper correspondents to be brought under the operation of military law? As things at present stood, a commanding officer might expel a correspondent from the camp; while, under the proposed new clause, it was proposed there should be power to place him under military law, and elevate him to the status of an officer. Now, for his part, he thought it would be better to let matters stand as they were now. It would be far better for a man to be expelled the camp, if he did anything wrong, than to be continually writing under restrictions which must affect his liberty of thought and action. Under the new law, the correspondent would be in a worse position than he had ever occupied before. He was not in favour of civilians criticizing the operations of commanders in the field, and he did not sympathize with fireside criticisms; but he did approve of any machinery whereby newspaper correspondents, or anybody else, would be enabled to give an independent 89 review of military operations of which they might have no other report than that of the officers themselves. If they put these correspondents under military law, they would be entirely at the mercy of the officers.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that this matter had already been once postponed. On a former occasion, he had pointed out that, as the Bill then stood, a correspondent was liable to be tried and flogged just the same as a private soldier, and he said he thought that an improper power to give to the military authorities. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford agreed in that, and supported the suggestion that newspaper correspondents should be omitted from the class of private soldiers; and he promised at a later stage to propose words placing them on the footing of officers, and that was the Amendment now before them, and he thought it would fully meet the case.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, such a thing as a newspaper correspondent was unknown during the Peninsular War, and their presence with an Army was of quite a modern date. The question they had to consider, therefore, was, how were military operations promoted by their presence? and he repeated that he thought the best thing to do would be to postpone the decision on the matter until the opinion of the gentlemen themselves had been obtained.
§ LORD ELCHOunderstood that if this Amendment were carried General Roberts would not have been able to act towards the correspondent of The Standard in Afghanistan as he did, and to tell him he should not be with him in the Army any longer. If that was so, he should be disposed to vote against it, more especially with reference to what took place in the War in the Peninsular. It was evident that a General must have absolute control to decide whether correspondents should or should not remain with his Army; and he hoped they were not going to do anything which would take away or minimize that power.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, there must be a certain amount of give and take; and if a newspaper correspondent made his position one such as was not consistent with the public welfare, a General in command would naturally feel it his duty to request him to leave the Army. Of course, the Public Service must come 90 first; but, subject to that, they were now going to put these persons clearly in a better position than they occupied before. He might be biassed, but he did not think correspondents could be better off than when occupying the position of a British officer.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the Public Service got very great benefit from the independent comments of the newspaper correspondents. Our commissariat and transport service was in the most wretched state in the Crimea, and, but for the reports of the newspaper correspondents, would have continued so. They wanted independent reports by gentlemen who wrote of what they saw; and, for that reason, he thought it was very undesirable that correspondents should be liable to be tried by courts martial. If that were done, each man would always be writing with a rope round his neck, liable to be called before a court martial and subjected to personal inconvenience that must interfere with his independence as a writer.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEshould certainly vote for the Amendment. It was a power that must be given, and nothing more.
§ MR. E. JENKINScould not advise his hon. Friend to go to a Division, as on this point he did not see his way to vote with him.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent a correspondent from being ejected from a camp. His proposal would not have that effect. It left to the commanding officer all the power which he originally had of ejecting a newspaper correspondent from the camp if necessary; and, at the same time, gave him, or any field officer, the power which he did not now possess of bringing the newspaper correspondent before a court martial on any of the charges which were breaches of this Army Discipline and Regulation Act. He wished to point out to hon. Members, who supposed they were doing newspaper correspondents a benefit, that they were giving additional powers to the commanding officer, and taking away none which already belonged to him. They were making these persons subject to military law and unless they passed this clause, or passed new clauses, they would not be subject to military law. Therefore, no case whatever had been made out by the Government, or its supporters, for their contention that they 91 were putting correspondents in a better position than they occupied before. If they wished to extend the powers of officers in this respect, they should do it, not by a few words extending the provisions of the whole Act to newspaper correspondents, but by special clauses dealing particularly with them, and then they would know what they were about. This sub-section would have been smuggled through, and nobody would have known anything about it, but for his question. Hon. Gentlemen must remember how wide were these powers. If this section were passed, they could try a correspondent for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. [" No, no ! "] The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) appeared to be going into hysterics over that statement; but it was nevertheless the fact. [" Oh! oh ! "] They could also try him under the Devil's Clause. That seemed to him absurd. He knew the Committee would be against him but, so far as logic and argument went, they had proved this sub-section to be a monstrous absurdity, which ought to be rejected by the Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 167 (Persons subject to military law as soldiers).
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to amend the clause by inserting the following sub-section:—
"(12.) All civil officers "who may be employed by or act under the Secretary of State for War at any of Her Majesty's establishments in the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and the Islands thereto belonging, or at foreign stations.He did not see why these officers should not be on the same footing that they were on in the existing Mutiny Act. He had had occasion to state, more than once, that a variety of persons were in this Bill to be tried under the operation of the Mutiny Act, who had not hitherto been brought under the operation of that law. The tendency of this Act was to draw more persons under military discipline than formerly. Here they found, however, with regard to civil officers, a contrary course had been adopted. Those officers had had the very good sense to take themselves out 92 of the Act. The effect was, that civil officers in charge of stations could not be tried by court martial, and could only be disposed of by the civil law.
§ COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that though, technically, these civil officers had been subject to military law, that had never been enforced, and they had always been tried by the civil power. He, therefore, thought it better to put them on the footing on which they were to be treated.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought he could find cases where civilian officers could be tried by court martial. He rather thought he had tried one himself.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would not put his experience against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and if he said there had been cases he was bound to take that as a statement of fact; but he was sure it was not generally the case.
§ MR. E. JENKINSobserved, that there was, undoubtedly, a strong feeling in the Army that the clerks at the War Office should be brought under the discipline of the Military Act; but, of course, it would not do to propose that just now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, in page 92, line 36, sub-section 1, after "all," insert "non-commissioned officers and." He did not wish to raise this question again but he might point out that in the very next sub-section they had the words "all non-commissioned officers and men." The omission here seemed to make the clause read very badly.
§ COLONEL STANLEYdid not think these words were wanted, as, in the interpretation, the word "soldier" would include non-commissioned officers. It was rather a matter of drafting; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would leave the matter, they would deal with it in the Interpretation Clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. DILLWYN,in sub-section 3, proceeded to move an Amendment dealing with the cases when British and Colonial Forces were serving together. He thought it was very unreasonable that the British soldiers should be placed in an inferior position to the Colonial soldiers when they were serving together.
THE CHAIRMANIt is questionable whether this Amendment can be moved at this point. This clause only contains definitions of the meaning of different persons.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, if that was the opinion of the Chairman, he would ask when it would be proper?
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would move it as a new clause.
§ MR. E. JENKINSasked to be allowed to say that he did not quite see why this Amendment should not be moved, and he thought it would be better to take it at once.
§ COLONEL STANLEYrose to Order. The Chairman had ruled that this Amendment was not admissible, and he submitted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was not in Order in rising.
§ MR. E. JENKINSwas only respectfully submitting a point, and did not intend to challenge the decision of the Chairman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved, in page 93, line 20, to leave out "or their corps."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, in page 93, sub-section 7, to leave out lines 26 to 31. The effect of that was, he said, to place all non-commissioned officers and men of the Yeomanry Force under military law. He hardly thought it was necessary, in time of peace, to place this Force under this regulation. He was afraid it would cause unpleasantness, and he did not think there was any necessity for it, as the men in that Force were usually of a superior class.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. It was necessary, if these Forces were called out, that they should be under discipline and he could not conceive why the Committee should wish them to be treated in a different manner to all other Forces. He did not think the Committee would wish him to go into any arguments on the subject, for he thought it was self-evidently important that these men should be placed under military discipline.
§ MR. HOPWOODcould not agree that this was a matter to be settled off-hand and at once. Why were these thoroughly voluntary Forces placed under this stringent Act of Parliament? Government ought to be content with the concluding part of this clause, which placed every corps under the Act when it was on actual military service. That, he thought, was highly necessary; and that also, of course, would only be in a time of public need, which would make every man a soldier.
§ MR. EVANS,as a Yeomanry officer of long experience, hoped this sub-section would not be omitted. He believed he could say that both officers and men, of all things in the world, would dislike nothing more than this proposal. It would be very injurious to the corps, for it would place them in an unpleasant comparison with the Militia. Speaking from a good deal of experience, he should be exceedingly sorry to see the Amendment carried.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ COLONEL STANLEYmoved the insertion of an Amendment which would have the effect of rendering members of the Yeomanry Service subject to military law as long-as they were serving in aid of the civil power of the country.
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Amendment proposed was quite new, and must not pass unchallenged. No explanation had been given of the matter, which was not in the Mutiny Acts as they existed.
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he should like to observe that the Yeomanry, when they came out, were under the Mutiny Act.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he must object to the insertion of the words, because he thought that the Yeomanry was not a body that ought to be brought in to the aid of the civil power. They were not trained men, and were not fitted to deal with a turbulent mob. They were liable to lose their patience and he could not imagine circumstances arising when men in their senses would bring in the Yeomanry to aid the civil power. They knew that trained and disciplined soldiers, when called upon to suppress riots, were with the greatest difficulty able to keep their temper and restrain their action. Under no circumstances whatever should the Yeomanry be brought in to cope 95 with civil disturbances. He objected to the words sought to be inserted, not so much because they gave power to bring in the Yeomanry, but because they indicated that Yeomanry might be brought in. They had evil recollections in Ireland in connection with the Yeomanry of 1798. Nearly all the atrocities of 1798 were committed by Yeomanry. The Regular soldiers were distinguished for their quiet and forbearing demeanour; but the Yeomanry behaved in the most scandalous fashion, their atrocities being handed down as tradition. He objected, in consequence, to any sub-section bringing in such an objectionable body to the aid of the civil power.
§ COLONEL STANLEYthought the hon. Gentleman misapprehended the point. It was now under the Act to call out the Yeomanry. That was the law; and now it was proposed, when they were called out, to put them under the Mutiny Act.
§ MR. HOPWOODrose, and was received with a groan of disapprobation from a Member opposite. He asked, whether the sound which came from the hon. Member opposite was to be tolerated to repress his expression of the views he entertained on this question?
THE CHAIRMANcalled for Order, and said he had, as the hon. and learned Member must have heard, called Order to reprove the noise referred to.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was met, on rising, by a noise which disturbed Order, and he protested against that gross breach of Order. He would now proceed. This was a most unfortunate Amendment. This sub-section was put in as a reminder to the military authorities that this was a power which not only might be called into force, but which it would be laudable and desirable to call into operation. He thought it undesirable; and he should take the opinion of the Committee on the point. He objected in toto to the calling in of the Yeomanry to the aid of the civil power. It was said—" Oh ! we want to put them under the Mutiny Act when they are called out; "but why call them out at all to aid the civil power? There was no doubt this was a scheme for giving direct sanction for using the Yeomanry in aid of the civil power. Let him remind the Committee that this was one of the Volunteer Services but they would not venture to 96 call out the Volunteers in case of civil strife; and there was nothing in this Bill which referred to the Volunteers in the same sense. Yet there was this attempt to include the Yeomanry. So far from this being a well-considered proposal, it was clear that it had only been thought of at the last moment. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deny this statement.
§ MR. EVANSsaid, the Yeomanry was not a Volunteer Force in the strict sense of the term. Since he had been a Yeomanry officer, it had been found necessary to call out the Force and he was old enough to remember, in his own county, three several occasions on which the Yeomanry were called out, and rendered very efficient service, and that at a time when the police was entirely inadequate. He could not admit what had been said of the Yeomanry was altogether justified. It was not justified so far as England was concerned—he said nothing about Ireland. He was speaking of his own personal knowledge.
§ MR. MACDONALD,who was met with cries of "Oh! "and other sounds, said, it struck him that some of the Gentlemen on the opposite Benches were unwell, and he might have to take the opportunity of asking that Progress be reported in order that they might have time to look to the state of their health. If allowed to proceed, he would state his strong objection to bringing in the Yeomanry to the aid of the civil power. The hon. Member above the Gangway who had just spoken said these Yeomen had rendered useful service. Well, in his (Mr. Macdonald's) time, he had seen the Yeomanry out in the County of Lanark something like a dozen times. It was said it was to aid the civil power; but the fact was, they were set to watch potato fields. Now, it was notorious that more potatoes were stolen when the Yeomanry were out than when they were not out. That was their efficiency. He had seen them out in the County of Ayr, and he did not think they were in the slightest degree better than in the County of Lanark. So far as his experience went, the Yeomanry corps was not an efficient corps, and ought never to be brought out to aid the civil power. The military was trusted and respected but the Yeomanry was despised, distrusted, and condemned.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General—the only learned person present on the Ministerial Bench—a question on a point of law. He wished to know whether the power of calling out the Yeomanry was a power that was given by Common Law or Statute? [An hon. MEMBER: Statute.]
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKBy Statute.
§ MR. PARNELLPerhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add to his kindness by informing me what Statute?
§ COLONEL STANLEYThe Statute of 1804.
§ Amendment agreed, to.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not think that the Government had sufficiently considered this portion of the Bill, which, if passed into law, would have a very bad effect on the enlistment of Volunteers. That Force had been admirably successful up to the present time. It was continually increasing in numbers; and he did not think the Volunteers would submit themselves to the considerable penalties and risks involved in the clause as it was now drawn. When "on active military service," it seemed to him, there ought to be no distinction. But it was customary for crack regiments of Volunteers to train at certain periods with the Regular Forces; and, under these circumstances, they would at once be brought under military discipline as defined in this Bill. He was, at first, afraid that the Volunteers might subject themselves to corporal punishment; but, clearly, that was not the case, for corporal punishment was only to be inflicted when the troops were on active service. That, of course, would not cover the mere calling out of the Volunteers for training with the Regulars. But they subjected themselves to very penal clauses, indeed. For instance, take drunkenness. The offender was subjected, for drunkenness, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding two years. Now, he did not think that the ordinary artizan in our towns would ever join the Volunteer Force if he was aware that for yielding to temptation when off duty on one of these training occasions he would 98 render himself liable to imprisonment for two years. In the same way, he was liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the court, if he "disobeys any garrison, general, or other orders." This was a very wide phrase, indeed; and he could conceive that some Volunteers might easily commit some slight breach of discipline, might break some order, which would at once bring them under the purview of this clause. All offences against general discipline in Clause 40 subjected the soldiers of the Regular Forces to imprisonment for two years, and the same offences would, under this clause, subject the Volunteers to the same imprisonment. This appeared to him to be a matter which had not been sufficiently considered by the Government. He could conceive of lengthened terms of imprisonment being given for, apparently, very trivial offences in the case of the Regular soldier; but he could not conceive that it was desirable to extend such power to the case of a Volunteer who had offended. Anything that would in the slightest degree discourage the Volunteer Force would be a very serious mistake. He begged to move that sub-sections a and b be omitted.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not assent to leave out these words, because they would, practically, by so doing, repeal the Army Regulation Act, 1871. He did not think the hon. Gentleman appeared to know what the provisions of the Army Regulation Act of Lord Cardwell were. Section 9 of that Act provided—
That any part of the Volunteer Force training and exercising with the Militia or Regular Forces, the Articles of War shall apply to them in the same manner as to the Regular Forces.Carrying out the spirit of that Act, he understood that the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) intended to move that when men were brought under this provision they would be given clearly to understand that they would not be brought under it without their previous consent. No harm, therefore, could possibly ensue for, if a Volunteer did not wish it, he was not obliged to come under the operation of the Act. The Volunteer could not be placed under military discipline against his will. Well, as to the other point, when they came up for training with the Regular Forces, were 99 they not to be brought under military discipline? Were they to place men side by side, under different regulations? He did not believe, for a moment, that the Volunteers wished to escape from military liability. So far as he had the opportunity of consulting men, he had found, so far from any indisposition to resent coming under this clause, the "Volunteers, on the contrary, had a strong feeling to be placed under the same law as the Regulars. The hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs seemed to clear up the only point of difficulty—namely, that the men should know beforehand that they were placing themselves under the Mutiny Act. He did not think it necessary to take up the time of the Committee further. He wished to point out that these sections carried out the Act of 1871, and that they were in accordance with it.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he could only state, from some little experience, that he had not heard a man or non-commissioned officer state the slightest objection to come under the Act under the circumstances.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that the objection to this provision was very strong, because it seriously endangered the Volunteer movement. There really was no necessity whatever for' such a power as was asked for being given. Suppose an artizan in Lancashire joined the Volunteer Force, and left his home expecting to have, say, three days' outing in camp with the Regulars, and, through intemperance, or irritation by arbitrary conduct, was tempted to use language not, perhaps, quite consistent with military discipline. That man, not like the Regular soldier, trained and drilled to the control of his feelings, would then be tried by court martial; and though by the law under which he was enrolled he might get rid of his services in 14 days, he would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for three or six months. He thought that that was an absurdity. It ceased to be a Volunteer Force the moment they coupled it with this military enactment. It was their duty to encourage, not to discourage, the Volunteer Force to train with the Regulars and he was sure it was not the wish of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to weaken the inclination of the Volunteers to do so. But that would be the effect if this 100 proposal became law. It would damp the ardour of the Volunteers to act along with the Regular Forces. He thought the precaution was quite unnecessary.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwould like to know exactly how this clause would be interpreted? Would a Volunteer, each time he was called out for training with the Regular Army, have to give his consent, or would it be understood that on his entering the Volunteer Service there would be occasions when he would come under this law?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the meaning of the Amendment which he intended to move was that it should be imperative that any Volunteer, non-commissioned officer or man, should know what he was doing when he went out to join his corps in connection with the Regular Forces. It was not a question of the ordinary training or drill; but it was a question as to whether, when they joinedt he Regular Forces, these Volunteers were to be under an entirely different system to that of the others? His own impression was, that they would not like to be placed under different regulations. They could not make Volunteers go to Aldershot unless they chose to do so and it was only right, when the man engaged to go and serve in conjunction with the Regular Forces, that he should know exactly what he was doing, and not be allowed to say afterwards that he had been led into a trap. It was with a view of preventing anything of that kind that he had placed his Amendment on the Paper.
§ LORD ELCHOapprehended that this would not affect the position of the Volunteers under the Act of 1871. Previous to 1871 the Volunteers only came under the Mutiny Act when they were called out for active service. Before that time they had been brigaded with the Regular Forces, and there had been no difficulty in maintaining discipline. In 1871, however, the feeling appeared to be that when they were brigaded with the Regular troops or Militia, they should, as far as it was possible, be placed under the same law. They could not be placed under the same law entirely, because the Army and Militia were in receipt of pay, while the Volunteers were not. In the old Mutiny Act there were fines and punishments 101 which, could only possibly be made applicable to Forces in receipt of pay, and which were utterly inapplicable to the Volunteers. The Volunteers, however, accepted the change which was proposed in 1871 and he hoped the Government would be very careful in making any further alteration in that direction, because it should be borne in mind that Volunteer officers held in their hands a power which no General commanding either the Regular Army or the Militia had, and that was the power to dismiss a man who might misbehave. While on the subject of the Volunteers, he should like to touch upon another important point, and that was how were the Volunteers to be tried? Was the court, constituted for the trial of a Volunteer, to be composed of officers of the Regular Army or of the Militia, or were Volunteer officers to be included in the judges of the court? To restrict the court to officers of the Regular Army might be a very serious matter; because, he was sorry to say, there were some military men who did not look with the greatest possible favour on the Volunteers. Therefore, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would be very careful as to making any such change; and that he would look to the constitution of these courts as being such that there would be some security that when the Volunteers had to be tried some Volunteer officers would form the court martial. This was essential in the interest of the Volunteer Force itself.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, if the Secretary of State for War was about to accept the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), of course the objection which he had urged would be removed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not intend to move the exact words which he had placed on the Paper, but other words to the same effect. What he proposed was this—after "service," in line 42, to insert—
Provided, That it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of any volunteer force, except when on actual military service, to obtain the consent of every non-commissioned officer and man belonging to such force before such non-commissioned officer or man shall enter on any service in which he shall be subject to military law.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 93, line 42, after the word "service," to insert the words "Provided, That it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of any volunteer force, except when on actual military service, to obtain the consent of every non-commissioned officer and man belonging to such Force, before such non-commissioned officer or man shall enter on any service in which he shall be subject to military law."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. PARNELLmoved that the consent of the Volunteer should be in writing, or else it might be of a very informal character.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "consent," to insert the words "in writing."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'in writing' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought it might save many unpleasant questions before the court martial, if the consent of the man was produced in writing.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhad no objection to the insertion of the words "in writing." If the roll was called, and the man signed it, it might be useful evidence before a court martial.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided,:—Ayes 66 Noes 206: Majority 140.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
§ MAJOR NOLANwas afraid he had led some of his Friends wrong. He had told them to support Her Majesty's Government, because he understood the Secretary of State for War to accept the words "in writing;" but he found he had gone into the opposite Lobby, and had voted against the adoption of those words.
§ MR. PARNELLalso wished to express his regret at having put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, because he did so under the impression that the Government would support the proposal which he had made. Had he known in time that they were not going to vote for it, he would not have troubled the Committee with a Division. Certainly, the Secretary of State for War said "Aye;" yet when the Division took place he voted "No."
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he, too, had told his Friends, under a misapprehension, that they could not do better than follow the Secretary of State for War.
MR. SULLIVANhad thought he was about to enjoy the rare luxury of supporting Her Majesty's Government, when he was told the Secretary of State for War had accepted the Amendment, which it now appeared he had voted against.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERconsidered they were discussing a mere bagatelle. The consent of the Volunteer would have to be formally obtained, which was, practically, the same thing as obtaining it in writing.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was not present in the House during the discussion; and upon asking, not how he should vote, but what was the question? he was told the Secretary of State for War had accepted this Amendment. Now the question was, did he accept that Amendment or not? If he had, why should his decision be overriden by the after-dinner audience below the Gangway?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 94, to leave out sub-section 10, stating that the sub-section would have the effect of extending military law to a class of persons who had not hitherto come within its operation, and who ought not, in the opinion of many competent authorities, to be so included. For instance, if the sub-section was agreed to, wagon-drivers, whether in military service or not, would be under military law if employed beyond the seas. If military law was to be made so stringent as was now proposed, it would not be possible to induce persons to take service in such capacities as that to which he was alluding. Under existing circumstances, it was often difficult to get transport—and this had recently been the case in South Africa—but if all persons engaged in that service were to be put under military law, the difficulty would be largely increased. The plan which had been pursued hitherto had worked very successfully and he was not able to see any reason why it should be altered, no evidence having been adduced to show any necessity of the kind.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the subsection had been introduced for the purpose of dealing with persons who were employed in connection with the Army in a semi-civil capacity—such persons, for instance, as storekeepers, sutlers, and others, of a similar kind. Both this and the next sub-section were carefully considered by the Select Committee which inquired into the whole question, and which recommended that these persons should be brought under military law.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of sub-section 11. He said, the proposal of the Government would make a very extensive alteration in the class of persons who were in future to be subject to military law; and, therefore, he thought the alteration ought not to be made until after very careful and serious consideration of all the circumstances. He saw no reason why a special set of rules should not be adopted in relation to wagon-drivers, camp-followers, and persons of that kind, who ought not to be brought under strict military law, which included penal servitude, flogging, and shooting, in its list of punishments.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESthought this was an important question and, on the whole, he was of opinion that camp-followers should not be subject to martial law, but should be under military law, when in an enemy's country. At the present time, camp-followers were under the sole and arbitrary power of the commander of a Force, and he might exercise that power humanely and well; but, on the contrary, he might do no such thing; and it would, therefore, be wise, in his opinion, to put such persons under military law as was proposed in the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had intended to make a proposal in reference to newspaper correspondence published in Great Britain and Ireland but as that question had been discussed on a previous clause he should not move his Motion, and the more so, because he thought such an account would be given of corporal punishment as would have the 105 effect of putting an end to it altogether. There was one point, however, on which he must make an observation. Throughout the Bill it was provided that Native Indian troops should remain under Indian military law, and should not be included in the provisions of the present Bill. "When, on a previous occasion, he called attention to this fact, he was met by the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that he knew very little about it. That was perfectly true but it was also true that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his notion that the Indian military law was more lenient than the present law in this country. That not being the case, he thought it important that the Indian military law should be assimilated to that of this country.
§ COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that he had no power to alter the Indian Articles of War; but he was able to say that any representation made to the Secretary of State for India would receive careful consideration.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), said, he had not described the Indian military law as being more lenient than that of this country. What he (Sir George Campbell) did say was that it was in advance of the English law; and in support of that view he pointed out that corporal punishment in time of peace was abolished, as far as the Indian troops, including the Sepoys in the cantonments, were concerned, long before British soldiers were exempted from this degrading punishment.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should like to know, in regard to the statement which had just been made, whether blowing Sepoys from guns—which had been done in India—was a distinct step in the direction of leniency and humanity in the treatment of soldiers?
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, still further security had been afforded by the fact that when the constitution of the Council of India and the powers of the Governor General in Council were fixed, a limitation was provided to the effect that no laws should be passed in India which were subversive of the Mutiny Act for England. That was a direct precedent for bringing the laws of the two countries into harmony and, therefore, it might be fairly 106 assumed that the authorities would insure the realization of that which was asked.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 168 (Mutual relations of Regular Forces and Auxiliary Forces) agreed to.
§ Clause 169 (Modification of Act with respect to Royal Marines).
§ MR. W. H. SMITHmoved the insertion of the words—
Unless such officers and men are serving as seamen under the immediate command of a naval officer on shore.The object of the words was that when officers and men of the Royal Marines were serving with the Land Forces they should be subject to the Marine Mutiny Act; and that when they were serving with sailors under the command of a naval officer they should be subject to the Naval Mutiny Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 170 (Modification of Act with respect to Her Majesty's Indian Forces).
§ MR. E. JENKINSmoved the omission of all the words after "India," inline 9,to the end of the clause. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that when the discussion took place with regard to the removal of the Indian troops to Cyprus the question was asked, under what Act the troops would come, the reply being the Indian Mutiny Act. The present seemed to be an entirely new clause; and what he wished to inquire was this—seeing that Her Majesty's Government had introduced a new policy, and proposed henceforth to assume the right to employ Indian troops outside India, would those troops, when brigaded and serving with English troops, come under the English or the Indian Mutiny Act? It appeared to him that they ought to be brought under the English Act, especially after the decision which had been arrived at with respect to the Colonial Forces; but he simply raised the question for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State for War to make an explanation.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas not perfectly conversant with the Indian Articles of War; but understood, from the best 107 information he had been able to obtain, that this clause substantially re-enacted the present law. He had no power to make any change in the Articles of War relating to India.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that if the Amendment were agreed to, it would utterly break the contract of every soldier in the Indian Army.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted that, at first sight, it seemed an anomaly that Indian soldiers serving Her Majesty out of their own country should be subject to a different law than was applicable to English soldiers. On further consideration, however, it would be felt that the thing was right, inasmuch as Indian soldiers had manners and customs peculiarly their own; and it would be inexpedient, if not dangerous, to put them under the same laws as applied to soldiers whose manners and customs were entirely different.
§ MR. E. JENKINSregretted that Her Majesty's Government had lately introduced the policy of employing Indian troops on service outside India. The Secretary of State for War had assured the Committee that there was nothing in the terms of the clause which interfered with the existing law. But the existing Mutiny Act had never contemplated the use of Indian troops outside India; and the question was, whether, if those troops were employed, say for the purpose of suppressing a rebellion in Canada, or quieting disturbances at the Cape, they would remain under the Indian Mutiny Act, or come under the cognizance of the English Act? The question was an important one because, if the Indian differed from the English Act, there would be an unfairness with reference to the Colonial Forces who, when acting with English troops, came under the English Act, and, at the same time, remained under the Colonial Act.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Indian troops would remain under their own Articles of War. This subject was not in any way affected by questions of policy. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) went to the very root of the matter, when he said that the Indian Articles of War differed from the English, because they applied to persons whose manners and customs were entirely different from our own.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was quite mistaken in supposing that it was an entirely new thing for Indian troops to be employed out of their own country. Sixty or 70 years ago, for instance, they served in Egypt. The Colonial troops were in a different position. As most of the Colonies had independent Legislatures, there was no guarantee that they would provide an efficient Mutiny Act; but in the case of India, England could control legislation, and Her Majesty's Government would take care that the law was as it should be.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MAJOR NOLANwished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the 4th paragraph of the present clause, and the end of Clause 42. Contrasting the two, it would be perceived that they ran on parallel lines, and as one had been left out the other ought to be. The only variation in the two cases was that different channels were prescribed for the making of complaints. He moved the omission of the paragraph he had referred to.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas quite ready to deal with the paragraph in the manner suggested. The two clauses ran on the same lines. He had overlooked the retention of this paragraph, and he would see to the matter before Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 171 (Modification of Act with respect to Auxiliary Forces).
§ MR. A. H. BROWNsuggested that if a court martial should be held on a Volunteer, when the Volunteers were brigaded with the Regulars, the court should be composed of a certain proportion of Volunteer officers. Under the Bill, as at present framed, it was possible for the court to consist entirely of military officers. He would be satisfied if the Secretary of State for War would undertake to consider the matter before Report.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas bound to admit that the subject was fairly one for consideration, though he could not pledge himself to deal with it in the Bill. Where it was found practicable, the suggestion of the hon. Member might 109 be acted upon; but it would be unwise to lay down any hard-and-fast line, as a prisoner might then sometimes be subjected to a long period of detention before trial. It was desired to raise the status of the Volunteers, and to put Volunteer officers on the same footing as the Regulars when serving with them and, provided they were properly qualified, there was no reason why they should not take part in the ordinary duties of Regulars. But, of course, if this rule were applied one way it ought to be applied the other, the officers being made interchangeable.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 172 (Special provisions as to warrant officers).
§ MAJOR NOLANmoved the omission, from line 34, of the words "to be reduced to the ranks or." This clause gave power to a court martial, among or punishments, to reduce a warrant officer to the ranks. The power would be injurious to warrant officers, who held a very important position. There were not a large number of such officers in the Service, though in the Artillery there were many who held somewhat similar positions. They often had stores under their charge, and were jointly responsible with the commanding officer. It would be utterly ridiculous to make such men liable to be reduced to the ranks. They might be reduced to the ranks nominally, but not for the purpose of serving there. He would have no objection to the clause if it were so framed that warrant officers might be reduced to the ranks only for the purpose of being dismissed the Service or imprisoned.
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not speak with positive certainty; but his impression was that, practically, a warrant officer was discharged if reduced to the ranks. He would inquire into the point.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consent to put in the words on the Report he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would consider the matter, and make a statement on the Report. He could not undertake to put in the words now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
110§ Clause 173 (Special provisions as to non-commissioned, officer).
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had proposed two Amendments in the clause, which he thought practically met the views of many Members of the Committee, and especially of several hon. Gentlemen behind him. He proposed, in page 101, line 14, to leave out "in the case of," and insert—
His commanding officer shall not reduce a non-commissioned officer more than one grade, and that in the case of suchand in line 16, before "court martial," insert "district." The effect of that would be that a non-commissioned officer could not be punished except by reduction of one grade. He proposed to leave power in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and of the Commander-in-Chief in India, to reduce at once to the ranks; but the reduction of a non-commissioned officer by a commanding officer would not be as it now stood in the clause. It would simply be by one grade. [Colonel ALEXANDER: That is from sergeant to corporal.] That was so. He had known cases where it was very hard to try noncommissioned officers by court martial, and yet where an officer could not pass over everything. He would accept the Amendment, giving an appeal in every case to a district court martial, and not to a regimental court martial.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERwas very sorry that, as far as he was concerned, he could not accept the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He proposed to keep the law as it now stood, and to prevent an arbitrary exercise of power by a commanding officer. He had referred back, curiously enough, to the year 1750, and found a debate then arose on the Mutiny Bill, and that Colonel George Townsend then proceeded to add a clause to prevent any non-commissioned officer being broke, or reduced to the ranks, except by sentence of court martial. They were told that certain persons attended on that occasion at the House of Commons who had been broke without trial, or without any cause assigned, and that he expatiated not only on the iniquity of such proceedings, but on the danger of leaving such arbitrary power in the hands of one individual. It did seem a curious thing that in the year 1750 a strong protest was made against such arbitrary power being committed to 111 one person, and that now, in the year 1879, it was proposed to confer that power upon commanding officers. He could not only quote this old authority, but also a much more recent authority against the proposal—and no less an authority than His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who was examined before the Committee which sat last year to consider this subject. He was asked by the Financial Secretary to the War Office—his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay)—
"Would your Royal Highness think that the power given a commanding officer should he as much as that?That is to say, the power of reducing non-commissioned officers to the ranks. His Royal Highness replied—I think it should not he so much as that. I am of opinion that you ought not to give a summary power to a commanding officer to break a non-commissioned officer. It should he done by a regimental court martial, because, otherwise, you might have very arbitrary acts. I do not say it would be so. It is quite possible a commanding officer might take a dislike to a non-commissioned officer for some small matter, and if he had power to break him offhand the result might be serious. If he was a non-commissioned officer, and particularly if he was a sergeant, I think he ought to be broken by a regimental court martial, and not by the authority of a commanding officer.In face of that evidence, given by no less a personage than the Commander-in-Chief, he contended that the Committee were entitled to know who were the unknown individuals who had recommended the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take this step? If there were any commanding officers of opinion that they should be intrusted with this power, why were they not called before the Committee of last year? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did certainly propose to make one concession, by allowing a commanding officer to reduce a noncommissioned officer only one step. He thought the concession really was not a concession at all. What the non-commissioned officer required was security in his position and without that security the position lost more than half its value. Further, he wished to remind the Committee of what a noncommissioned officer would be liable to lose; that not only would the non-commissioned officer be liable to lose his position at the pleasure or caprice of his 112 commanding officer, but also of an acting commanding officer. When the commanding officer went away on leave his representative at once acquired all the powers of a commanding officer; so that when a colonel went away, and a major was left in command, or perhaps even a captain, they would have the power of summarily reducing a noncommissioned officer from the rank of sergeant to the rank of corporal, or from corporal to the ranks. That was a power he did not think ought to be given to commanding officers. It had been stated that some non-commissioned officers turned out failures. But whose fault was that? In most cases the fault of the commanding officer himself because non-commissioned officers were always appointed, in the first instance, on approbation to acting rank—such as lance-sergeant, and lance-corporal. While they were so acting, it was the duty of the commanding officer to find out if they were fit to be promoted to either of these grades. In his opinion, if this power were given, it would only encourage carelessness on the part of the commanding officer. A noble Friend of his near him said that the power which made should be able to unmake. Surely, that proposition, if carried out, would be a great blow at the irremovability of Judges. The Crown could make them, but it could not unmake them. They had the greatest difficulty, even now, in getting good non-commissioned officers; and if this power were conceded they would have ten times more difficulty. Therefore, unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept his Amendment he must divide the Committee as a protest against this change. He might add that ample power was at present given, in the event of necessity, in the 137th Article of War. The commanding officer of a regiment might, in a case of urgent necessity, or of proved inefficiency, apply for special leave for the purpose to the Commander-in-Chief, or the full colonel commanding the regiment, and so reduce a man. That power had worked well up to the present time, and it would be much better to leave it as it was.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, as he had an Amendment of precisely the same character to that which had just been proposed, perhaps he might be allowed to add one or two words to what had been said. The position of a non- 113 commissioned officer under this clause was very unsatisfactory. They now had greater and greater difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers, among the young men who were now serving, in consequence of the system of short service; and it was to him inconceivable that this should be proposed. He served as a Member of the Committee which sat last year; and if there was one thing more than another which they desired to impress upon the future military law, it was that the position of non-commissioned officers should be fenced about in every possible way, and be made so secure that they might be certain that nothing could reduce them except the sentence of a court martial. The one case in which exception was made was that of the 137th Article of War, which was intended to apply to the case of a non-commissioned officer who had been promoted without sufficient inquiry into his capability, or who had subsequently been found to be totally incompetent. In such cases, generally by the consent and by the desire of the individual himself, he was allowed to retire to the ranks. That, however, had nothing to do with the proposal now made; and he must express his astonishment that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should suppose that this alteration would, in any degree, be for the benefit of the Army, or tend to raise the position of the noncommissioned officer. To his mind, it cut at the very root of that position, and rendered the rank of a non-commissioned officer insecure. It would, therefore, add to the difficulty, now already experienced, of obtaining proper men for non-commissioned officers and, therefore, he trusted the Committee would not assent to it. The non-commissioned officer should be in such a position that, when accused of any crime, he should have a guarantee that he should only be tried by court martial, and only punished by court martial.
§ COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that that was the case now, for an appeal was given to a district court martial, and the point he particularly cared about was that a non-commissioned officer could not be reduced to the ranks altogether. He felt rather strongly upon that point. He had very often seen cases where an offence by a non-commissioned officer had been passed by, because the punishment of reduction to the ranks was 114 really disproportionate to the offence. They ought not to pass offences over; they ought to be dealt with; and, at the same time, they ought not to be punished too severely.
§ COLONEL MUREobserved, that it was quite true that the power of appeal was given; but, still, the clause left the noncommissioned officer in the power of his commanding officer, unless he appealed. He was a Member of the Committee which considered all these questions, and he knew how earnestly they desired to raise the status of the non-commissioned officer. He was, therefore, astonished to find, when he read this Bill, that this clause had been put in. He should really like to ask the Secretary of State for War on whose authority he had included the clause? He had no hesitation in saying that if an appeal to the Army were made the clause would be condemned. It would make it far more difficult even than it was now to get men to serve as non-commissioned officers, and he should certainly support the Amendment.
§ MAJOR NOLANremarked, that this clause turned the man from a respectable soldier into a flunkey; and it would be hardly safe for him to differ from his commanding officer in religion, smartness, or anything. A private soldier was protected against the caprice of his commander, because he was protected by court martial in all matters of pay and clothing, and because he did not so much rub up against the officer; he rubbed up against the non-commissioned officer. The commanding officer depended very much on the non-commissioned officers for the smartness of his regiment, and he got very indignant if they did not follow his views. No doubt, those views were generally right; but, still, there were some commanding officers who had fads. In a good climate, where all enjoyed good health, that did not matter so much; but in a bad climate, where men got ill, the non-commissioned officers would lead a very bad life, if they did not become entire flunkies. The appeal to a court martial was quite illusory. It might be satisfactory in some gross cases; but he might say that he had known some thousands of private soldiers receiving punishment for which they could legally appeal, and yet he only knew of one case in which a man appealed, and there the non-commissioned 115 officer was going mad. If the commanding officer, however, were merely unmerciful, it would never do for the man to appeal; for, unless he was absolutely innocent, the court martial would feel bound to support the commanding officer, and would, probably, give an increased punishment. The men did not appeal, because they knew it was not then a question of getting one, two, or three days' imprisonment, but that the court martial would give them 21 days while the sergeant would never appeal, because he knew the sentence would be total reduction to the ranks. Besides, by this clause, they destroyed the public opinion of the regiment. At present, a man did not like to send a bad case to a court martial, and was ruled in that way by the public opinion of the regiment. It was one thing to do an act on his own authority, and quite another to submit his action to four or five other people. Besides, in some cases, the officer might decide in a pet, and when angry. The appeals then would be very few, and would give no practical control; while this clause would have the very unfortunate effect of taking away from the noncommissioned officer the idea that he had a fixed position, and of making him think he must toady his commander, or else he might get broken. Even if he did not toady his commander, the idea would get abroad that somebody else had the commander's ear, and he would toady that somebody else. If a man spent 10 or 12 years in climbing to the rank of sergeant, why should he be treated differently from the ensign or lieutenant just appointed? He might not hold quite so important a position; but he ought to have the same protection. It could not be said that the clause was necessary to deal with extreme cases, because those cases were already provided for. He would not yield to anybody in. his desire to keep up the position of the non-commissioned officer; and he, therefore, thought they would do well to leave out the words "and also any officer in any case." He also proposed to leave out sub-section 2.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to put in the word "colonel."
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, practically, the colonel of the regiment took action upon the officer in command of 116 the regiment, and he imagined that that would amount to exactly the same thing as if the action were taken through the Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps that was a question which he might be allowed to reserve for the Report.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that he was very glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had acceded to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He, however, was waiting for the discussion to terminate, in order to ask the Secretary of State for War when he intended to report Progress. He need not remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the arduous labours the Committee had undergone since they met in the afternoon at 4 o'clock, and the very important work that would require their presence in the House at 2 o'clock the next day.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MAJOR NOLANinquired whether the Secretary of State for War had made arrangements as to taking power for the convening officer to remit punishment?
§ COLONEL STANLEYreplied that that would be done.
§ On Motion of Colonel STANLEY, the words "corporal punishment" were omitted from sub-section 4.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he would not now consent to report Pro-Progress? ["No, no!"] In consequence of that expression of opinion, he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would consent to go a little further. They had proceeded very fairly up till then; and, so far as he could see, there was every reason to believe that the Committee was disposed to discuss the remainder of the Bill in a fair spirit.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that Members would have to come to the House at 2 o'clock on the next day; and if they were to go on for another hour, the Government might tell them just the same 117 thing at the end of it. He wished to know how far the Government proposed to proceed? One hon. Member said—"Finish the Bill." That was his idea. It was not his (Mr. Parnell's) and he thought they ought to understand what the Government wished to do, how far they wished to go, and at what time they intended to stop.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he hoped that, at all events, they would be allowed to proceed to the end of the Bill. He did not think it was a very great request to make to the Committee. As regarded the postponed clauses, if there were any that were not substantially opposed, he thought they might make some progress with them. At any rate, they were now on Clause 174, and he did not think there was anything that would lead to prolonged discussion up to Clause 180.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought the disposition shown by hon. Members opposite was really not a very fair disposition. He considered, when a temperate appeal was made to the Secretary of State for War, that hon. Members opposite ought not to shout a speaker down, and to cry—"The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He apprehended that that was not the spirit in which the Government intended to deal with the opposition. He thought the statement of the Secretary of State for War was very unsatisfactory. They had made very satisfactory progress with the Bill; and he trusted that after they had disposed of the very important question they had to argue the next day—which he hoped would not take long—they would be able to proceed with the further consideration of the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not only suggested that they should endeavour to get through the remaining clauses of the Bill, but also had hinted at some postponed clauses. If that was to be the declaration of the Government, he did not see how they could answer it in any other way except by dividing on the Motion to report Progress. He was as much disposed as any Member of the Committee to take a fair and impartial view of the situation; but he, for one, could not accept that proposal. He presumed that if the majority of the Committee wanted a Division they would go to a Division; and, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection to one Division or 20; but he was prepared to 118 go on so long as there was a prospect of making fair and intelligible progress.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, it seemed to him that their great object should be not to waste time. If he understood the Secretary of State for War aright, he proposed that they should go on with the Bill till they came to the postponed clauses, and then take some of the least objected to of these. He would suggest that they should not proceed with those clauses, because, if they began them, they would very soon arrive at contest-able matter. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept the suggestion now held out to him, and only go through the clauses to the Schedules, and leave the postponed clauses for another day.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought that was a very fair proposal. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the mere fact that the clauses had been postponed showed that they contained debatable matter, and, therefore, he would not press them at that time.
§ MAJOR NOLANhoped this suggestion would be acceded to by the hon. Member for Meath. He must confess that, during its progress, his mind had become very much changed towards the Bill, and he now considered it to be very much better than the old Mutiny Acts.
§ MR. PARNELLthought that, on the whole, they might agree to the proposal. There was no necessity for them to sit up all night discussing whether they should go on with the Bill or not. The few remaining clauses of the Bill were not very important; and as the Secretary of State for War had now conceded what he (Mr. Parnell) had asked him to do, and had said how far he wished to go, he (Mr. Parnell) could say how far he, for his part, was prepared to go. He supposed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself move to report Progress when the 180th clause had been passed.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 174 (Special provisions as to application of Act to persons not belonging to Her Majesty's Forces).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to omit certain words, of which the effect would be to place civil and political functionaries, such as special Commis- 119 sioners accompanying bodies of troops, under the command of the officer commanding the troops. He said it would be very startling to find that a high official of the Diplomatic Service should, under that section, and for the purposes of that Act, be under the command of the commanding officer of the party to which he was attached. He had some knowledge upon the point. He had himself been a special Commissioner, with large powers, accompanying troops; and, as he had thought at the time, in a higher position than the colonel or major, or whatever officer it was in command of the troops and he should have been somewhat surprised to learn that he was in a subordinate position.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not quite like taking the words out of the clause, because, under the section, and for the purposes of discipline, would come Staff clerks and other officers not borne upon the regimental pay list. He would, however, take a note of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and would see whether it could be arranged upon the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 175 (Special provisions as to reserve man).
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he always looked with very great suspicion on any method of dealing with their Reserves which was not employed by Continental nations. So far as he knew, all that they did was to pledge the Reservist to keep the authorities informed of his address. So long as the soldier did that, he did not think he ought to be subject to punishment for not coming up to receive his pay.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he quite granted that they should be very careful as to how they proceeded with those men; but he thought there was nothing very unnatural in saying that a man should assign a reasonable cause for absence. As a matter of fact, a letter, or other communication, would be sufficient to assign a cause; and he was glad to find that, as the Reserve Regulations were becoming better known, the men were dropping more into the regular system.
§ Clause agreed to.
120§ Clause 176 (Special provisions as to application of Act to Ireland) agreed to.
§ Saving Provisions.
§ Clause 177 (Saving of 29 and 30 Viet. c. 109, s. 88, as to forces when onboard Her Majesty's ships) agreed to.
§ Clause 178 (Saving as to prerogative of Her Majesty).
§ COLONEL STANLEYasked leave to withdraw the clause, as it was proposed to bring up another in exactly the same terms as the old Act.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Definitions.
§ Clause 179 (Application of Act to Channel Islands and Isle of Man) agreed to.
§
Clause 180 (Interpretation of terms). MR. J. BROWN moved, in page 104, after line 30, to insert—
The expression 'in the execution of his office,' as applied to an officer or non-commissioned officer, means whenever he is with his regiment, or with any regiment to which he may he attached for duty, or with any part thereof, respectively.
§ He said that his object in moving the Amendment was to obtain from the Judge Advocate General an opinion upon the subject of the expression of "an officer in the execution of his duty."
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, it seemed to him that an officer would always be in the execution of his office if this Amendment was put into the Bill, and it would be a certain protection to the non-commissioned officer as against the private soldier but it would, at the same time, be somewhat of a hardship upon the non-commissioned officer, who would be liable to conviction for offences which would be no offence whatever, if he happened to hold a commission, or to be in the position of a private soldier. In saying this, he did not, for a moment, deny that there ought to be a difference in the punishment for offences committed by soldiers when on and off duty.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the paragraph in the clause to which objection was taken seemed to be a relic of an order introduced by the late Duke of Wellington, in reference to the time at, and during which, a non-commissioned officer was to be considered to be on duty with his regiment. He could 121 not see that the Amendment proposed would advantage the non-commissioned officer, inasmuch as it was necessary to provide that when in uniform he must be considered to be on duty with his regiment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 104, line 32, to leave out the definition of a soldier, and insert—
The expression 'soldier' does not include an officer as defined by this Act, hut, with the modifications in this Act contained in relation to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers, does include a warrant officer not having a honorary commission and a non-commissioned officer, and every person subject to military law during the time that he is so subject.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved to amend the clause by the insertion of words to except the Island of Cyprus in time of peace, in order to protect the soldiers serving there, Cyprus being, technically, a military and a foreign country.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Amendment was not necessary, because the provisions as to military occupation did not apply to the circumstances of Cyprus.
§ MR. CHILDERSasked, if this was so, whether Cyprus would be considered in the light of a Colony?
§ COLONEL STANLEYreplied in the negative, and added that though there were a few British troops on the Island it did not follow that they were even, technically, "on active service."
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONinsisted that some words should be inserted to provide for possible contingencies in Cyprus. They had it on the authority of the Prime Minister that it was "a place of arms," for which this country paid a rent, and to the fee simple of which they had no more right than he had to a house which he hired in town for the season.
§ COLONEL MUREthought the question was one which required clearing up, and suggested to the Secretary of State for War that he should re-consider it, and make some proposal on the Report.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that as his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had stated, the question had already been considered, and no alteration in the clause was thought necessary. He would, 122 however, undertake that the Law Officers of the Crown should be consulted on the matter between now and the Report, and, if thought necessary, words could be inserted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNmoved, in page 108, line 7, after "court," to insert—
Or any magistrate or magistrates to whom jurisdiction is given by 'The Summary Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1864.'
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. BROWNmoved, in page 108, at the end of the clause, to add—
For the purpose of deducting pay a part of a day shall not be reckoned as a day unless it consist of six hours or upwards.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.