COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 July 1879)

§ COLONEL STANLEY
, in moving the insertion of certain Amendments, said, he could assure the Committee they were only verbal in their nature.

§ MR. RYLANDS
complained that these Amendments were not on the Notice Paper, and hon. Members were quite unable to follow what was being done. In the peculiar circumstances in which the Government were now placed in regard to this matter, he would not offer any opposition; but he thought it should he remembered, when these Amendments were not on the Paper, that they had recently heard a good deal from the Government about the inconvenience of moving Amendments without Notice.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
expressed his regret that the Amendments were not on the Paper, and repeated his assurance that they were only of a verbal character to remedy defects in the drafting of the Bill.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
asked to what extent this clause repealed the provisions of existing Statutes? None were named, and it seemed to him that if the matter were allowed to pass as it now stood, considerable confusion would arise. They had been told that the Act was passed to simplify the military law; but this clause would, it appeared to him, tend in the reverse direction, and that officers and soldiers would have need to refer to a good many other Acts of Parliament. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could explain some of these matters in his reply.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he was afraid it would take up too much time at that moment to explain all the Acts kept alive by the Bill. There were several instances in which Acts of past years had been affected or modified by the Mutiny Acts, and which were finally dealt with by this Bill. The provisions of this Bill were applied by a continuance Bill; but he thought he had stated 976 all along that it bore a somewhat different form from what the annual continuance Bill had done, because it had been necessary to take up and weave into the existing Discipline Bill the provisions of all the Acts by which the Forces had been previously governed. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that commanding officers would have to make themselves acquainted with some existing Acts, and he was now directing his attention to the matter. He proposed drawing up, with the Regulations, some memoranda as to what would be the effect of the Act. Of course, when these were completed, there would be no objection to lay a Copy on the Table of the House.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
asked, what would be the effect of this Bill on the question of the trial of Volunteers by court martial? It was now provided that Volunteers should be triable by courts martial, composed of Volunteer officers and officers of the Regular Service; but by a Bill which had already passed its third reading in this House, and which was now awaiting decision in "another place," this rule did not prevail, and Volunteer officers were only triable by courts martial consisting of Volunteer officers alone. When the Bill was before the House, he drew attention to the subject, and the Attorney General distinctly informed him that the Army Discipline Act would govern all Volunteer Acts, including the Irish Volunteer Act then under discussion, so that Irish Volunteers would be tried by mixed courts martial. He should like to hear from his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War whether he still adhered to that decision?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied in the affirmative. He said, by Clause 7 of this Bill all other Acts which were inconsistent with it were superseded, and they would be still further governed by the regulations which they proposed to introduce.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he had not received an answer to his question. What he wished to know was whether existing Acts of Parliament referring to the Army were repealed, or were they still in existence. He would mention one instance. By the Militia Act, Militiamen were not liable to the punishment of death; but, under certain, circumstances, and under the new Act 977 which they had now passed, they would be. Was the clause in the Militia Act exempting them from the punishment of death repealed by the Bill now under consideration? He should have thought the reply to such a question might have been distinct.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
said, he must also press for an answer to this question.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he could only once more explain that all these Acts were not repealed, except in so far as they were inconsistent with the express conditions of Acts passed at a later date.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he thought every allowance ought to be made for the Government, and, therefore, he would not press them upon the point; but he thought another year they might be enabled to set forth the Acts which were repealed in a Schedule to the enacting Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the whole question would be practically dealt with by the Statute Law Revision Commission.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
moved to increase the amount of the marching allowance of officers from 2s. to 5s. per day. The present allowance was, he said, utterly inadequate to meet the necessary expenses on the march—in fact, it was an utterly ridiculous sum. He hoped to hear from the Government that they would take the matter into consideration.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
, on the ground of the great urgency of the matter, appealed to the House to allow the Standing Orders to be dispensed with in order that the Bill might pass through its remaining stages. This was absolutely necessary in order that the measure might receive the Royal Assent by Friday, when the old Act expired.